[PumpkinSpice]

My favorite part is that California has a roster of handguns approved for sale. The pretext for its existence is consumer safety (it is entirely separate from bans on stuff like assault weapons or large magazines), but the actual effect is that you have a very limited selection in stores, and most of the designs are very dated.

But if you're a police officer? You get an exemption! Apparently, the state has no regard for your safety as a consumer, and allows you to buy whatever you want...

[edrxty]

And importantly, as a cop, you're allowed to buy off-roster (modern) handguns and then turn around and sell them to the public at a profit. You have to be slightly careful because the ATF doesn't like non dealers buying and selling tons of guns, but it's a huge racket where cops will make a few thousand dollars a year selling modern/desirable guns to the pubilc (through FFLs).

[mcv]

Why do po police officers buy their own guns? Do they not get their guns provided to them by the police department?

[cvccvroomvroom]

Another reason why I left California. You can't buy a Canik's as a non-LEO. Also, criminals get whatever guns they want and carry them while law-abiding citizens can't do anything except wish not to be mugged or murdered with strong objections. It's completely absurd given how violent America is.

[earthscienceman]

Can you tell me, with sincere curiosity, how you expect being able to buy modern handguns to make America less violent? I ask as a gun owner.

[hellojesus]

There's a saying, "An armed society is a polite society."

The reason is because of perceived threat. If very few people are armed, people are more likely to act a fool because they don't fear the consequences from npcs. Risk taking along these lines increases as does the physical delta. But as the probability of random npc folks carrying approaches one, suddenly there is a very real chance that acting a fool carries permanent consequences.

Consider the active shooter in a church that was stopped in Texas by a worshipper concealed carrying. One person stopped a tragedy. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/man-who-took-out-church-gu...

And now consider other situations that tend to be heated where folks overreact: road rage, etc. Folks may be less likely to escalate things when they believe the other party has the ability to respond with deadly force.

This same hypothesis applies to mugging. While the mugger may get the drop on their victim, others nearby that are armed may be able to appropriately intervene to stop the initial assault.

Allowing the general public to not only be armed but carry the same stopping force as the baddies reduces the imbalance, leveling the playing field.

[adammarples]

And as usual Americans fail to spot that they have one of the best armed and least polite societies in the world. I'd put the case that a polite society is unarmed.

[ChainOfFools]

> I'd put the case that a polite society is unarmed

The supreme irony lies in the fact that this statement is completely reversed from the real state of things: it is a pathologically impolite society that feels it necessary to arm itself, against itself. Unhealthy tolerance and passivity toward mundane, petty assholery and dominance-seeking behavior is going to destroy this country.

[danny_codes]

Except for the fact that this doesn't work at all in practice, it makes perfect sense.

[some_random]

Would you like to provide a source for that?

[DoughnutHole]

The fact that the USA is shockingly violent compared to basically all other similarly developed countries which are not heavily armed.

[pkulak]

So, just so I understand, bad guys all have guns. And you wish you could have one too, for protection against said bad guys. But why is a firefight preferable to a mugging?

[a-french-anon]

There's that little something called "dignity". You know, trying to do something about your situation instead of rolling over and praying for the meanies to be lenient with you.

[datavirtue]

This. I used to live in an area that was overrun with a biker gang and had friends who had slight involvement with them and ended up getting intimidated into giving them their nicer positions like furniture and TVs. Classic bully shit but a grown adult coming into your house and taking your shit.

I had a retail shop in the community and also lived next to a bar and a property where they would congregate and some would roll into town and stay there. Very tense environment. When I first moved there I had no idea that it was like this.

At that point I armed myself and made the decision I was not going to take any crap off anyone.

Thankfully, no one gave me any shit but I have plenty of more stories from my time there.

The only choice for me was to arm myself. The cops were scared shitless and were unreliable for other reasons. One of the gang members had already opened up on one of the cops with an AK-47 in front of my store. He lived because it jammed.

[boppo1]

>When I first moved there I had no idea that it was like this.

What advice would you give someone moving to an unfamiliar area to avoid this?

[datavirtue]

No idea. However, this area is a lower income blue collar country area on the edge of a really nice suburban area, but it certainly isn't without VERY nice homes and farms. It's just hard to say. Lots of drug issues, you get these pockets. I have lived around the area for my entire life but it wasn't until I got involved as a merchant in the area and really got to know people that it escalated like this. Having a small business of just about any kind will expose you to nearly everyone in a smallish town. Lots of drama can come of that.

I got robbed several times while I was there and I ended up in jail myself. Most of this stemmed from drama emenanting out of the opioid and heroine epidemic around the early 2000s.

[mcv]

Maybe first check if the area is ruled by gangs.

[pkulak]

I find dignity in being alive for my family.

[mcv]

The whole notion of using a gun for self-defense sounds insane to me. The criminal is the one starting the violent interaction and is therefore prepared for it, probably has their gun ready or within easy reach. For me to then want to draw my gun sounds like a recipe to get shot. Being not a threat to a dangerous idiot and getting out alive sounds far preferable to me than dying like a wannabe John Wayne.

Everybody being armed ups the stakes for everybody, and I'd expect criminals to be more likely to shoot in that situation. And having guns for everybody, but only the best guns for criminals, sounds like the worst idea of all.

Best of all would be to make it harder for criminals specifically to get guns by having every gun and gun transaction registered and verified. Every loophole is going to be abused.

[jackskell]

The United States was founded with the principle that (from a legal sense) the primacy of power and responsibility belonged to individuals, not government. The lack of connectivity between different societal groups allowed relatively peaceful interactions between groups, (unless you were a Native American or a slave, sadly).

From this framework, people (men, largely) were expected to provide for themselves and their families. Food, shelter, “retirement” (or putting provisions in place for old age), and yes, personal security from threats, both from other individuals and from any future possible oppressive government, as well as being responsible for being personally armed to repel foreign invaders.

In modern times, being armed either in or outside the home (or place of business) gives us a few things. It continues the principle of being responsible for one’s own personal security, rather than relying on societal pressures for bad behavior (!) or dependence on the timely and enthusiastic response of local law enforcement.

I think we would agree that part of the responsibility for firearms ownership is safe storage, mental and legal preparation for an event, and continuous training. With rights come responsibilities. Not everyone will choose to own a firearm, and that’s ok, each person should be allowed to make their own decisions.

Law enforcement efforts are reactionary, not proactive, the negative effects of which are exacerbated by out failed criminal justice system, the full fruits of which have been on display since the 80s, depending on who you believe.

Simple possession of a firearm does not make every (legal) defensive use a quick draw contest or result in a hail of bullets. There is a deterrence affect in locales where lawful weapons carry is legal. FBI statistics, depending on year, will tell us that “civilian” display of a weapon will stop a threat upwards of 93% of the time, without any shots fired. When the “civilian” fires a weapon in self defense, the average number of shots remains less than 3 (although trending upwards..) Law enforcement fires far more rounds per encounter, with the resultant display of (excessive?) force and possibility of downrange consequences.

There are people who would rather draw their weapon to defend themselves and / or their family than depend on the rationality of a person threatening them, who is statistically likely to be in an altered state of mind, mentally ill, or has been released from the criminal justice system un-rehabilitated (or any combination of these).

In a country that can’t even keep drugs out of prisons, as well as other failures to enforce public safety, trying to restrict firearms from being possessed by anyone is not a reality.

As the public failures to enforce existing laws continue to be documented and published, most citizens develop a jaundiced view of the law in general. I think it was societal and family expectations that reinforced morality, not laws, and substituting laws for morality is folly also, given who writes and influences the laws, as well as the tyranny possible by governments selectively enforcing laws.

As you say, everyone being armed does up the stakes, but it ups the stakes for the right group of people - those people who would prey on others.

[Jerrrry]

Which is why you should practice carry and conceal, and hopefully never have to draw on it.

You can always just give the muggers everything, including your gun.

You can't barter back your (or your family's) life, and putting the massive asymmetry in the benefit of the doubt of a known assailant is maddeningly naive to a point of near literal cuckoldry.

[pkulak]

If I'm always giving the mugger my gun, why carry it? Seems like the danger from having a gun on my person and in my house vastly outnumbers the chance I become Dirty Harry for an evening, no matter how thrilling that thought is. And I won't be Dirty Harry, I'll be Bernie Goetz. No thanks.

> asymmetry in the benefit of the doubt of a known assailant is maddeningly naive to a point of near literal cuckoldry

Don't try to impress people with words, impress with ideas.

[andelink]

Not worth dying over

[freen]

They buy the guns from the cops.

[dclowd9901]

At 4x retail. Don’t think that isn’t part of the reason it’s set up that way.

[dclowd9901]

Must also be something there on propping up the select few for secondary sales.

[lobf]

What does buying a gun have to do with safety?

[PumpkinSpice]

It started as a program where you had to pay the state a pile of cash to have them carry out a number of tests, like repeatedly dropping the gun to see if it goes off on its own. They kept adding stuff, culminating in microstamping requirements that no manufacturer could or wanted to comply with - so only a small subset of pre-2007 semi-auto pistols could continue to be sold.

[mcpackieh]

California's Unsafe Handgun Act is ostensibly intended to protect consumers from cheaply manufactured handguns that might malfunction or otherwise be unsafe to operate.

Here is California's Attorney General explaining it:

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bont...

> “California’s commonsense gun safety laws save lives, and the Unsafe Handgun Act is no exception,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Accidental shootings are preventable. The fact that children under five are the most likely victims makes these accidental gun deaths even more tragic and inexcusable. As weapons become faster, more powerful, and more deadly, this risk only increases. Flooding the marketplace with unsafe semiautomatic pistols that do not meet necessary safety requirements poses a serious threat to public health and safety, especially for children and young adults.”

> The UHA was originally enacted over two decades ago in response to the proliferation of low-cost, cheaply made handguns that posed consumer safety risks. Under the UHA, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) compiles and maintains a Roster of Certified Handguns that meet certain public safety requirements. Generally, a handgun must appear on the roster to be sold by a California firearm dealer.

> When the UHA was first enacted, revolvers and pistols were required to have safety devices and pass drop safety and firing tests at independent laboratories in order to be added to the roster. [...] The UHA has since been amended, adding additional safety requirements for semiautomatic pistols including that a new semiautomatic pistol must have:

> A chamber load indicator that indicates if the pistol is loaded; A magazine disconnect mechanism that prevents the pistol from firing when the magazine is not inserted; and Microstamping capabilities that allow law enforcement to trace a shell casing to the pistol that fired it.

So this law is ostensibly intended to protect people who buy handguns and those around them. But cops are exempt, because... cops never drop their guns?

[b5n]

It's worth considering that this is the same attorney general who recently doxed all law abiding concealed carry permit holders, applicants, and others (including but not limited to home address, phone, DL number, etc.) many of whom are victims of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault.

[lobf]

My point was that a gun doesn’t make you more safe, but the opposite. Anyone talking about buying a gun shouldn’t be discussing safety, they are unrelated concepts.

[mcpackieh]

You're [deliberately?] misinterpreting the stated intent of the law. A gun that goes off when dropped is substantially less safe than a gun which doesn't. People who buy guns are in fact justified in considering such factors.

I think there's a real case to be made that the Californian law is duplicitous and is actually intended to reduce the availability of handguns in California, but that's not the point being raised here. The point is that for some reason Californian cops are exempt from from the law. That's like exempting cops from the lawn dart ban, it makes no sense.

[lobf]

We shouldn’t be doing anything to increase the number of guns in circulation. It reduces safety for everyone, especially the gun owners.

[lazide]

Ho man, that’s like saying we’ll stop war by banning nuclear weapons.

1) the really problematic people won’t care

2) the ‘normal’ people will just be left defenseless and be preyed upon with fewer worries by the #1 cases.

3) which incentivizes the crazies to arm up more so they’ll have leverage.

Notably, this is exactly what happened with nuclear proliferation bans, if we’re being honest.

Assuming it’s not actually possible to control the area physically anyway. Singapore or NZ? Hey maybe. 99% of the rest of the planet? Good luck!

[Kerb_]

If I could snap my fingers and make all the guns disappear tomorrow, I would. Until then, I've looked down the barrel of another man's gun and been attacked by neo-nazis and the police have disappointed me every time, so I'm gonna carry my own.

[constantly]

Whatever your ideology it seems a little craven to not want guns that happen to be out in circulation to be as safe as possible from incidents like misfires from accidental dropping.

[greyface-]

Harm reduction is a component of public safety.

[lobf]

If your interest is harm reduction, then you should be focused on reducing the number of handguns in circulation.

You should also consider looking in to the data about what actually happens to your chances of being shot once you buy a gun. It’s pretty stunning.

[lazyasciiart]

Harm reduction is not a single tactic. For gun safety harm reduction means requiring guns not to fire by accident, AND having gun owners take training that includes all the information about the risks that go up once you own a gun (especially to others in your household), AND requiring or encouraging gun owners to lock their guns up AND to store ammunition separate from guns AND ideally even to store them somewhere not in the house, AND reduce the number of guns in circulation.

[bryans]

When it comes to drug abuse, harm reduction can mean providing clean needles and other supplies to the user. The person isn't going to stop just because they're denied clean supplies. In the same way that you can't stop people from acquiring guns, but you can help prevent them from purchasing guns that are fundamentally unsafe to operate.

[greyface-]

I agree with all of the points you just made, and don't wish to be anywhere near a gun, personally. This does not change the fact that there are some people that feel the opposite, and will obtain a firearm regardless. If I can, I'm going to incentivize them to choose the safer option.