Oakland,CA making their own laws

[Sean Gollmer - A.F.&A.M.]

Proposed Bill Aims to Reduce Crime in Oakland through Firearms Registration and Licenses.

http://www.guns.com/2013/05/17/prop...d-through-firearms-registration-and-licenses/

 

[Mooseman]

Hopefully this will not go forward.

 

[PharaohF4]

Apparently, the gun violence prevention legislation has not been very effective in reducing crime in Oakland, so lawmakers are now seeking to enact greater restrictions in an effort to reduce violent crime

Really? Really? Geez. Isn't this the definition of insanity? "Trying to do the same thing and expect different (Nevermind)"

Are there any states that have a liberal gun policy (i.e. shall issue/OC, etc. yet still have a high crime rate. I know we always look at Chicago/DC as two places with very strict gun laws yet have the highest crime rates around. So I was wondering if there is any areas that have liberal gun laws yet high crime.

 

[Sean Gollmer - A.F.&A.M.]

For me, it's a question of cause and effect. IF (and that's a big if) gun related crime drops after registration and licensing goes into effect, how can we be sure if those measures had ANYTHING to do it the drop. Or is it just a coincidence? More "common sense" I assume? And that's pretty much the question in regards to ALL the newly proposed gun laws imo. I, personally, don't think that registration or licensing will have any effect on gun related crime.

 

[rob-cubed]

Are there any states that have a liberal gun policy (i.e. shall issue/OC, etc. yet still have a high crime rate.

Yes. Correlation is not always equal to causation, at least in this case.

The worst 2A offenders in northeast, the rust belt and California all have their share of elevated crime. But so do Florida and many states in the deep south which all have liberal gun laws. Crime is much more closely tied to low income/education levels and increases in frequency as the population density gets higher.

The states with large urban areas full of poor tend to be the ones that have passed the worst laws as a reaction to crime. But the problem already existed before the laws were passed. The fact that criminals love unarmed victims is just like throwing gasoline on the fire. But God forbid a politician addresses the social issues that cause crime, it's much easier to focus on a law that targets things and not people. It doesn't matter if it's effective or not. At least they "did something".