Great Examples Why New Gun Laws Are Not Needed

What confuses me is the fact that we as a nation have very specific "glass houses" from which we can observe certain gun laws and review their level of effectiveness yet some tend to dismiss the results when they do not fit the narrative.

California is a state that openly implements and enforces many of the gun laws that some folks are calling for on a national level. Universal background checks, semi auto rifle restrictions, ammunition restrictions, etc. From California we are able to observe and analyze the real world data and see what level of effectiveness these policies are having on a diverse populace of over 39 million citizens.

The effectiveness, lack of effectiveness, and overall results of California cannot be ignored by either side if we wish to gather an honest assessment.

California is our glass house, look at it, observe it, analyze it, and gather the honest unbiased results of the policies that they have enacted.

Is it working or not? Yes or no. There is no "but" or "what if" in raw data. There is simply raw data.

Quit dismissing things that you don't particularly agree with.

 

I agree, which is why I made sure to include "diverse populace" in that statement as well.

California has multiple large cities as well as a multitude of rural communities and even varying climates ranging from deserts to coasts to thick forests.

Nearly equal number of whites and hispanics, smaller than average black population and larger than national average Asian population. Nearly twice as many Democrat voters than Republican voters on the last election.

Mainly, a pretty good little ant farm that the nation can observe and drop little things in there to see what happens. Sort of close "enough" demographically to the rest of the nation to interpolate how such things would play out on a national level.

What I'm saying is, California has enacted on a state level what many wish to see enacted federally. What are the actual results? Is it working?

If yes then we can consider expanding those laws for the greater benefit of the nation as a whole. If no then why push to expand those laws?

 

Which is what I have also concluded based on looking at the raw unbiased data from California. Yet there is still a push to further expand those firearm laws beyond California.

That is what I don't understand. If it isn't working there how can we rationally conclude that they will work in other states? Or nationally?

I believe many folks are seeing the world through tinted lenses and trying to apply the logic we are using in California vs rest of America to America vs rest of the civilized world. Although it's not working in California (which is part of America) it does work relatively well in Great Britain or Australia or Canada. They are failing to take into account demographics, not necessarily racial demographics but social demographics. Those nations listed aren't exactly homogeneous either.

Many are looking at this from a black and white perspective, we have examples of where this has worked so it must obviously work so it must obviously work here. Beyond the surface is the elephant in the room, the culture and the Constitution, two very large aspects of this equation of which these so called success story nations differ from the United States.

California is the closest "Not traditional America" state in America and the closest thing we have here within our borders to something with the mentality of a European country. The social policies, economic policies, political views, etc of California are about as close to Europe as we can get, them and probably NYC or a few spots in Oregon.

In layman's terms, California is America's progressive utopia sanctuary area. If it ain't working there of all places what the hell makes some folks think it would work in the rest of America that is quite different from California in almost every sociopolitical aspect?

 

Which would make sense if....

This wasn't true

Like I said before, folks need to seriously quit just dismissing things they don't want to hear. California's criminal underground isn't getting it's guns from my home state where I can buy an AR-15 and a gallon of milk at the same store. They are getting them from California where the state would ban Super Soakers if they could get away with it.

Instead of trying to blame the lack of success on everyone else not following suit perhaps California should just admit that their policies ain't working out. But that of course would require honesty and unbiased thinking, which we of course know is a big no no when it comes to pushing an agenda.

And would of course require acknowledging the other huge elephant in the room. The one that nobody likes talking about because that's mean. The one that points to the fact that culture has more to do with violence than the amount of guns people have. And a lot of that culture is associated with something else that we aren't allowed to talk about for PC reasons.

Sort of like how Alaska has the highest gun ownership per capita in the US yet isn't a raging bloodbath like Chicago for some reason.