Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Research thread

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Escondido, California, USA

    Post imported post

    Reposted from my original Calguns thread (with small edit)

    OK guys, here is the deal.

    I just talked with a guy from Lori's office by the name of Joe. Apparently, they have been getting a lot of calls on this AB1934 bill with a lot of calls coming from out-of-state. Both my brother and I talked with Joe for an extensive amount of time and we are working on flooding that office with information.

    This is where you guys come in. Basically, I need every piece and shred of credible information on the following topics:

    1) Racist intent of gun laws, particularly in California. Explicit evidence is the best. I think a lot of stuff in "No Guns for African Americanes" will go a long way
    2) Stats on the effects of carry laws
    3) Stats about crime rates amongst CCW permit holders
    4) Racist intent of weapons laws overall (e.g. 12020)
    5) Anything good for showing that more guns equals less crime.

    I know that I could find all of this myself and I am certain there is some repository somewhere but I figure that you OCDOers have this stuff bookmarked at the ready and could just cut-and-paste. I am a little bit short on time after that phone marathon and studying for midterms and stuff.

    Any help is appreciated!

  2. #2
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Temecula, California, USA

    Post imported post

    Why not just give her a copy of John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime"? That is an authorative and as near a definitive source as any, is it not?

    I understand you want to inundate her with data from the people. Why not everyone onebuy a copy and send it to her. Just a thought. It could also be our symbol at the press conference, we could all carrya copy.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  3. #3
    Regular Member ryanburbridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Long beach ca, , USA

    Post imported post

    I have this link it may be useful. Lots of stats.

    Myth: People with concealed weapons permits will commit crimes

    Fact: The results for the first 30 states that passed “shall-issue” laws for concealed carry permits are similar.

    Fact: In Texas, citizens with concealed carry permits are 14 times less likely to commit a crime. They are also five times less likely to commit a violent crime.

    Fact: People with concealed carry permits are:
    • 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
    • 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public

    Fact: Even gun control organizations agree it is a non-problem, as in Texas – “because there haven't been Wild West shootouts in the streets”.

    Fact: Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm.
    "If squirt guns are outlawed, only outlaw squirts will have guns!"

    James Taranto

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Post imported post

    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    1) Racist intent of gun laws, particularly in California. Explicit evidence is the best. I think a lot of stuff in "No Guns for African Americanes" will go a long way
    In John Ross' book "Unintended Consequences" he mentions a 1875 law in South Carolina that prohibited residents from buying any firearm other than Colt or Winchester. The reasoning he gives for that law is that both those brands of firearms were considerably more expensive, and therefore fewer blacks could afford to purchase one. Unfortunately, there isn't a solid reference for the law, but he does state that there are a variety of sources that mention it.

    Also mentioned is a Missouri law prohibiting the carrying of a weapon for protection into any "church, school, or any other assembly of persons met for any lawful purpose." The author suggests that the reasoning behind the last item was to provide police officers with the ability to arrest blacks who brought weapons to lawful assemblies.

    Here's the text of that section of the book:

    Also according to that book, a Missouri law passed in 1874 made it a felony to carry any concealable weapon on his person or readily available in his vehicle. Police officers, judges, and officials authorized to execute process were exempt. Prior to 1967, not a single white person had been arrested for violating that law.

    Also in that book (I know, it's a great book), is yet another Missouri law where in order to buy a handgun you had to get letters of recommendation from two business owners and then take those letters to the sheriff to get permission. Why have such a weird system? Again, to deny non-whites from being able to purchase firearms for protection.

    You can find a reference to this law here:

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    San Diego, California, USA

    Post imported post

    Great article that's pro-CCW.

    Here's a few quotes:

    "It appears that not a single one of the homicides studied by McDowall, Loftin, and Wiersema was committed by someone who had obtained concealed carry permits under liberalized laws, but would have been denied such permits under prior law. In other words, the authors concede that the increase in the population entitled to carry concealed did not contribute directly to any of the excess firearms mortality found by the study."

    "There must certainly be, in a sample so large over a period so long, many hundreds of cases (and indeed, many tens of thousands) where people legally carrying guns got drunk, lost their tempers, were in traffic accidents, had domestic quarrels, and in short, experienced all of the psychological "sturm und drang" which modern life is capable of dishing out--yet so far as a diligent Nexus search discloses, there seems to be not a single case, anywhere in the country, of someone who was legally carrying a concealed handgun using that weapon in a criminal homicide."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    , ,

    Post imported post

    You are wasting your time with her, she will never see your point of view. Spend your time on all the other senate and assembly representatives that will listen. She is a soon to be termed out gun control freak. She could care less about your families safety or rights, just pushing her personal very liberal agenda. She damn well knows that she can't find any negative statistics involving open carry, and must live in a information vacuum regarding the positive experiences of other states regarding crime reduction with a well armed citizenry. Just look at the latest change in Arizona, no CCW's necessary period! Do you really think the people that live in Blythe, 100 yards over the Colorado River here in Kallyforneyia are more unsafe and wild with there guns then the people that live on the other side of the river in Arizona, just feet away? Its just another attempt at controlling your life and safety by someone that has never had to defend themselves, or their family in the real world from some of the human scum that lives among us. I have the real world experience of having a gun save me from serious injury by a attacker. That moment will come when you least expect it, and their will not be time to call 911 and wait for a LEO to save you. Either you are prepared to defend yourself at that moment, or you become a victim and hope for the best.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Sebastopol, California, USA

    Post imported post

    If the intent is to send this to Saldana then it is not worth the trouble. No matter what anyone says, she won't ever hear reason.

    If the intent is to send this to the Appropriations Committee members and members of the Assembly before it comes to a vote, then by all means it's worth it.

    IMO the best way to defeat this bill is to constantly remind the Assemblymen that this bill will create an unconstitutional law, given Heller and impending McDonald. Educate them to those facts. Most won't know much if anything about Heller or McDonald. And then remind them that given this, this bill will only cost California money in attorneys fees as it gets overturned in federal court. California cannot afford more frivolous expenses right now.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts