[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 The UHA was originally enacted over two decades ago in response to the proliferation of low-cost, cheaply made handguns that posed consumer safety risks.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!

[MrJohz]

I don't know why you're jumping to nuclear weapons as your analogy when gun control laws in other countries make a far better comparison point. Australia is probably a good example here: they have urban and suburban centres in the cities, but they also have vast rural areas. Guns are not banned but limited and regulated. They do not seem to have had this issue where people have been left defenceless by crazy people with guns.

In fact, are there any countries that have implemented gun controls that have had this problem?

[lazide]

Australia didn’t have that problem before they banned them either.

For countries with major issues who do have strict gun control? Off the top of my head, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa. Plenty more if I looked, I’m sure.

[Jerrrry]

>They do not seem to have had this issue where people have been left defenceless by crazy people with guns.

You have had your head in the sand for the last few years.

unarmed teenagers being hit with pepper spray for violating a prude curfew by gun-wielding tyrants is an issue to a more civilized, reasonable person.

[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.

[DontchaKnowit]

Im interested in your neo-nazi attack story

I've never met or seen a Neo Nazi in my entire life, wondering how one ends up getting attacked by one.

[Kerb_]

They were a group of local teenagers and young adults with a shitty little clubhouse along a trail in the woods with some swastikas painted on it. They tried to corner me and my friends with what ended up being air guns with painted tips (since I wasn't into firearms at the time I completely thought they were real) because they thought we got too close to it. They probably weren't part of any organized nazi gang, but when they identify their property with swastikas, I'm gonna call them what they pretend to be. The police took and melted the air guns, but it didn't go any further than that. They've still got their hunting licenses, judging by their Facebook pages.

The other incident with a real gun I was referring to was a man pointing his revolver at me while I was picking up his daughter for a date, talking about how a man has to protect his daughter. At that point, I wasn't even scared so much as I was concerned what I was getting into. But since he didn't directly threaten me I was told that it was "negligent use of firearms" at worst, and didn't want to push it.

[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.

[hellojesus]

Sig has yet to undo the reputational damage caused by their p320 failing the drop test, despite being fixed back in 2018 or 2019.

I agree that drop tests and other ND tests are appropriate. Although I would prefer a market based solution here instead of regulation.

[Tostino]

The market failed to innovate on safety for years. And the issue with a market based solution is it can be much cheaper to just not include any of those safety features.

Some things can be below your personal risk tolerance, but be well above the acceptable risk tolerance at a social level.

[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.

[lobf]

You absolutely can stop people from acquiring guns. Most western democracies do this very effectively. That should be our focus.

[bryans]

No, you literally cannot stop people from acquiring guns in the United States, as it's baked in the Constitution. Please make arguments based in reality.

[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.