By clicking Enter, you confirm you are 18 years of age or older and agree to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.
Notice: Any content or member activity - including anything you may buy, sell, transfer, or discuss - must comply with current and upcoming laws.
Members are encouraged to stay informed: California Firearm Laws: 2026 Outlook & 2025 Recap . Responsibility for compliance rests solely with the individual member.
Agree, this is the way. I would love it if someone would set up a James O'Keefe type sting catching these legislators authoring these bills taking money from anti liberty groups to draft these unproven, restrictive, criminal aiding gun laws. Every year it's a mad scramble to get what you can before it's gone, prices go way up and at the end of the day we are no safer.
There's nothing inaccurate about any of them even if they choose different criteria. As you can see in this meta analysis by RAND who is clearly pro gun, the data all have the same trend, I'm the discussion of figures 1 and 2 they state that even when you define it differently the proportional change is similar between all of the studies and data sets. But they also rightly point out that being so rare, the actual risk hasn't changed because it's still statistically almost zero chance that you would be involved in a shooting event, "mass" or otherwise. And there has also never been a casual link established between access to certain guns and these types of high profile shootings.
Would you mind posting a link to the entire document?
Yes. And a lot of their bright ideas make people less safe too. A fin grip on an AR makes it more difficult to hold, thus more difficult to be in control and accurate when firing. When you’re shooting a gun having less control over where the bullets are going is objectively less safe
That aside, I'm also very clear eyed about what is politically viable on this state as far as change is concerned. I think we could have a multi-tiered shall-issue licensing structure like Switzerland that's person centric, and not transaction centric. It would need Democratic buy in, and the R's will say Shall Not Infringe, and I respect that, but the FITSM project is something that we need input on. Ask me about it if you're interested.
The problem is that when it comes to "gun crime" or "gun deaths" the research always seems to fit the narrative the researcher hoped for, and thins are worded in a way that is misleading. Example in this article they talk about public mass shootings, but then narrow it down to mass shooting involving an assault rifle. Columbine wouldn't be counted because they didn't use assault rifles. On the other hand North Hollywood gets included.Without my doing the job of a research librarian, here is one reputable study pertaining to the Federal Assault Weapon Ban, components of which are LCMs and pistol grips. The data is very stark and pretty clear that a difference was made. Check out the "Discussion" section, JMIR is quite open about flaws in the research, in my opinion, those defects are minor and do not detract from the conclusions.
Public Mass Shootings: Counterfactual Trend Analysis of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
Background: Assault weapon and large capacity magazine bans are potential tools for policymakers to prevent public mass shootings. However, the efficacy of these bans is a continual source of debate. In an earlier study, we estimated the impact of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB) on the...publichealth.jmir.org
Death by a thousand cuts.
