LA Times podcast on California gun control

D

DaleA

New member
Today we talk about California’s huge role in influencing gun control laws in the U.S. and about the backlashes. We discuss the state’s historic 1989 ban on assault weapons and why a federal judge recently issued an order to overturn that ban. And we talk to the mayor of San Jose, who wants his city to be the first in the United States to require gun owners to buy liability insurance. Gun rights advocates are already threatening a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aH...d=0CAUQkfYCahcKEwig35_GzMfyAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAQ

Yeah, pretty much what you would expect.

NRA bad.

CA law makers were inspirational with their assault weapons ban (AWB) that helped create a FEDERAL AWB.

(Note: The podcast said, that in defense of the the law in court, it was claimed:

CA gun deaths WERE CUT IN HALF from 1993 to 2000.

The FEDERAL AWB cut the number of mass shootings by 40%!

And all these claims were made WITHOUT any pushback from the podcast host.

I personally liked the following:
At 3:45 the description of going to a shooting range and witnessing first hand the devestating destructive capabilities of "assault weapons".

At 22:45. The San Jose mayor on the charge that his laws create a burden on excersizing a constitutional right.
"If someone does not have the resources to pay the fee for example we need to provide a waiver process and there's a pretty standard way of doing it, we just have someone fill out a waiver that says 'I'm eligible for food stamps, I can't afford it but here's my signature saying I'm trying my best to comply' that's all that's required."
Click to expand...
Yeah....no.

Should we do any pushback on this stuff or just ignore it?
 
Ever notice how even the wildest claims by the anti gun side are accepted at face value and repeated endlessly while claims by the pro gun side are required to have all kinds of facts and studies supporting them, and then are still either ignored or simply dismissed by supposedly impartial media people??
 
Not only are the claims are accepted at face value, it seems like no critical thought is put into them. The first thing I wondered when I heard Sa Jose's plan is what type of insurance will they require, what will it cover and who would ever sell this hypothetical insurance. According to this podcast they are assuming generic homeowners insurance will cover criminal shootings. This is absurd. Insurance companies are not going to cover the homeowners criminal actions or criminal actions committed by someone who steals a gun and then uses it in a crime. Insurance will cover an accidental shooting but if I go and shoot my neighbor on purpose there is no way an insurance company is going to pay out anything.

No insurance company is going to issue "mass shooting" or "drive by shooting" policies!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top