Perhaps California Needs to Rethink Their Crime Strategy

 As John Lott points out in an article at The Federalist, by proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution, that they know they do not have the votes to pass, that would ban gun ownership, California Democrats Admit It's Unconstitutional To Ban Gun Ownership. I do not know if they understand that is what they are doing. Living in an information bubble makes them vulnerable to believing that everyone thinks like they do. But a ban on guns is like attempting to put the toothpaste back in the tube. You will just create a big mess.

What is it about progressives (read communists, fascists, Democrats and the bleeding heart useful idiots) that they can not see that guns do not of their own accord commit crimes. Rather, it is people, and not the ones who buy guns for lawful means, but those who use stolen guns to commit crimes. After all, most criminals can not by law posses guns anyway. Such people represent only 7% of the population, such that there will always be enough guns for them. After all, if criminals can smuggle drugs into the country, why not guns as well? It is this blind spot that puzzles me.

But perhaps they do not know about these statistics:

Gun control groups claim California has the country’s strictest gun control laws, but it shouldn’t hold itself out as a model for the rest of the country to follow. California’s per capita rate of mass public shootings has consistently exceeded that of the rest of the country. The rate is much lower in Texas, but gun control groups give Texas an “F” grade.

Since 2010, California’s mass public shooting rate per capita has been 43 percent higher than Texas’ and 29 percent higher than the rest of the United States. From 2020 on, it has been even worse. California’s rate was 276 percent higher than Texas’ and 100 percent higher than the rest of the country.

Democrats’ primary argument for raising the gun ownership age is that 18, 19, and 20-year-olds commit firearm-related crimes at relatively high rates. That is true, but the issue is whether those who can legally buy guns commit crimes.

About 90 percent of murderers already have a violent criminal history and are banned from buying guns. Data show that young people who can pass background checks tend to be at least as law-abiding as older people. A ban only affects those who could otherwise pass a background check and legally buy a gun.

Gun control advocates say they push federal background checks on the private transfer of guns to stop mass public shootings, but those measures wouldn’t have stopped even one mass public shooting this century. They also claim they have stopped 4 million dangerous people from buying guns. But they should say that there were 4 million “initial denials.”

Gentle readers are encouraged to read Lott's article in full. Meanwhile, Judge Benetiz, of the San Diego Federal Court has struck down a California law that banned what are called "high capacity magazines."

A federal judge from California determined on Sept. 22 that the state's ban on gun magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego said the state's "sweeping ban" of the detachable magazines—sometimes referred to as high-capacity magazines—violates the Second Amendment rights of firearms owners because it bars people from using such magazines for lawful reasons, including self-defense.

“This case is about a California state law that makes it a crime to keep and bear common firearm magazines typically possessed for lawful purposes,” Judge Benitez, a nominee of President George W. Bush, wrote in a 71-page decision filed on Sept. 22 (pdf). “Based on the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, this law is clearly unconstitutional.”

Perhaps California should rethink their strategy on crime. It doesn't make sense to make law abiding Americans criminals.