10 ms·

California actually has the 2nd fewest gun stores per capita of any state (New Jersey has fewer). Although even California grew 10% in the last 5 years.

by iajg 11y ago

ctdonath 11y ago
California also has among the most aggressive anti-gun laws in the country. Actively & wantonly making it difficult to sell (and own) a product does tend to discourage businesses.
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  Please describe some of these cruel regulations.
  - OopsCriticality 11y ago
    There is an effective ban on selling any new pistol designs in CA due to a dubious microstamping requirement. Manufacturers are unable to change their current designs that are on the roster (even color!) without triggering a recertification process that cannot be passed. This also means that new, safer designs cannot be sold in CA as things stand now.
    - thrownaway2424 11y ago
      That doesn't explain the employment of the word "wanton". I'm much more concerned here with the abuse of the language than with the rights of the people to buy guns.
      - OopsCriticality 11y ago
        I suppose it depends on your perspective. To some, passing laws with an overt goal of "making people safer" (but not actually doing so), with the covert goal of regulating a product out of existence, is a wanton act against our democratic system.
        HoHoHoNowIHaveA 11y ago
        If your premise is that less guns does not make people safer... ...then you inversely arguing that more guns does not make people unsafer. Which is not true. More firearms makes for an inherently more dangerous society. Less firearms does indeed equal greater safety.
        Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        So does not allowing the majority to vote and handing voting rights to a few selfless individuals who will do what is best for society overall. Even killing a person for their organs if it saves more people is a net gain in safety and health.
        HoHoHoNowIHaveA 11y ago
        It's not a net gain for the populace since they will live in perpetual fear of being the next harvesting target. False analogy; not even close to the same thing.
        Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        So now we include fear. So what about the fear that if one right is stripped from us then our other rights are also at risk.
        HoHoHoNowIHaveA 11y ago
        Rights are taken all of the time. This is not a Libertarian issue which loves to take major policy issues and apply niche cases to decide them. Your right to steal property has been removed; it does not automatically threaten your right to vote. Debate the main issue on the main points otherwise you are simply bikeshedding. You said organ harvesting would be a net benefit to society; my argument is that it would not since we are killing a member of society purposefully. confiscating an assault rifle would not instill the same fear as the Government killing your neighbor for his liver.
      - delinka 11y ago
        "Wanton" means 'deliberate,' but regarding a cruel act. (OED: 1 (of a cruel or violent action) deliberate and unprovoked: sheer wanton vandalism.) I see this as an expression of ctdonath's opinion that California's actions passing the regulations is cruel, not that the regulations themselves are.
        thrownaway2424 11y ago
        If microstamping is cruel, then so are license plates on cars.
        delinka 11y ago
        Not only have you missed the point (that passing the law is cruel, not the law itself), you're arguing the opinion on cruelty of the situation with the wrong person: I'm neither supporting nor opposing his opinion on the matter.
        kec 11y ago
        Well, license plate "technology" has existed for ~100 years. Microstamping exists as a single parent which has never actually been demonstrated or implemented in a commercial product.
- Alupis 11y ago
  And yet California has the most gun related deaths annually [1], even though it has one of the lowest percentages of gun ownership [1]. It just goes to show (in part) that legal gun ownership isn't really the main issue we have. We forget to include the 2/3 of national gun related deaths that are suicides [2]. These people need help; surely many of those victims would still have committed suicide had they not obtained a firearm. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
  - thrownaway2424 11y ago
    Huh? I don't know if you've realized this, but California is the most populous state. If you want to make your analysis more relevant (and less totally idiotic) you need to look at the rate per capita.
    - Alupis 11y ago
      California doesn't fare much better even with per capita rates. The notions stands, reducing legal gun ownership has little effect on reducing gun related homicides. Gun related suicides are the real problem (~20,000 out of the total ~30,000 annual USA gun related deaths). Nobody is focusing on that issue.
      - HoHoHoNowIHaveA 11y ago
        Your premise is only applicable to US states. It is not applicable to nation-states which demonstrate considerable effect in reducing gun-related homicides. Even more so when discounting individual lone-wolf attacks of a terrorist nature (Brevik, Norway). I could post sources but they are beyond dispute at this stage. (United Kingdom, Japan, Australia and most of the Western world). Evidence is also lent by the nation-states with lax gun control legislation which dominate the league table of gun-related homicides, of which, the USA is one.
      - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
- _delirium 11y ago
  Part of that is California's particular political history, where for a long period of time both major parties on the state level were pro-gun-control. The public displays of firearms by the Black Panthers in Oakland in the 1960s scared suburban white conservatives into calling for gun-control laws, which were enacted under Reagan's governorship with bipartisan support in the state legislature [1]. As the state has swung more solidly Democratic in subsequent years, they've retained and gradually strengthened such laws. The state Republican party has now turned towards pro-gun viewpoints, but no longer holds a lot of offices. [1] The first one, which effectively outlawed both open carry and concealed carry of loaded guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

California actually has the 2nd fewest gun stores per capita of any state (New Jersey has fewer). Although even California grew 10% in the last 5 years.

by iajg 11y ago

California actually has the 2nd fewest gun stores per capita of any state (New Jersey has fewer). Although even California grew 10% in the last 5 years.

ctdonath 11y ago

California also has among the most aggressive anti-gun laws in the country. Actively & wantonly making it difficult to sell (and own) a product does tend to discourage businesses.

thrownaway2424 11y ago
Please describe some of these cruel regulations.
- OopsCriticality 11y ago
  There is an effective ban on selling any new pistol designs in CA due to a dubious microstamping requirement. Manufacturers are unable to change their current designs that are on the roster (even color!) without triggering a recertification process that cannot be passed. This also means that new, safer designs cannot be sold in CA as things stand now.
  - thrownaway2424 11y ago
    That doesn't explain the employment of the word "wanton". I'm much more concerned here with the abuse of the language than with the rights of the people to buy guns.
    - OopsCriticality 11y ago
      I suppose it depends on your perspective. To some, passing laws with an overt goal of "making people safer" (but not actually doing so), with the covert goal of regulating a product out of existence, is a wanton act against our democratic system.
      - HoHoHoNowIHaveA 11y ago
        If your premise is that less guns does not make people safer... ...then you inversely arguing that more guns does not make people unsafer. Which is not true. More firearms makes for an inherently more dangerous society. Less firearms does indeed equal greater safety.
        Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        So does not allowing the majority to vote and handing voting rights to a few selfless individuals who will do what is best for society overall. Even killing a person for their organs if it saves more people is a net gain in safety and health.
        HoHoHoNowIHaveA 11y ago
        It's not a net gain for the populace since they will live in perpetual fear of being the next harvesting target. False analogy; not even close to the same thing.
        Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        So now we include fear. So what about the fear that if one right is stripped from us then our other rights are also at risk.
        HoHoHoNowIHaveA 11y ago
        Rights are taken all of the time. This is not a Libertarian issue which loves to take major policy issues and apply niche cases to decide them. Your right to steal property has been removed; it does not automatically threaten your right to vote. Debate the main issue on the main points otherwise you are simply bikeshedding. You said organ harvesting would be a net benefit to society; my argument is that it would not since we are killing a member of society purposefully. confiscating an assault rifle would not instill the same fear as the Government killing your neighbor for his liver.
    - delinka 11y ago
      "Wanton" means 'deliberate,' but regarding a cruel act. (OED: 1 (of a cruel or violent action) deliberate and unprovoked: sheer wanton vandalism.) I see this as an expression of ctdonath's opinion that California's actions passing the regulations is cruel, not that the regulations themselves are.
      - thrownaway2424 11y ago
        If microstamping is cruel, then so are license plates on cars.
        delinka 11y ago
        Not only have you missed the point (that passing the law is cruel, not the law itself), you're arguing the opinion on cruelty of the situation with the wrong person: I'm neither supporting nor opposing his opinion on the matter.
        kec 11y ago
        Well, license plate "technology" has existed for ~100 years. Microstamping exists as a single parent which has never actually been demonstrated or implemented in a commercial product.
Alupis 11y ago
And yet California has the most gun related deaths annually [1], even though it has one of the lowest percentages of gun ownership [1]. It just goes to show (in part) that legal gun ownership isn't really the main issue we have. We forget to include the 2/3 of national gun related deaths that are suicides [2]. These people need help; surely many of those victims would still have committed suicide had they not obtained a firearm. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  Huh? I don't know if you've realized this, but California is the most populous state. If you want to make your analysis more relevant (and less totally idiotic) you need to look at the rate per capita.
  - Alupis 11y ago
    California doesn't fare much better even with per capita rates. The notions stands, reducing legal gun ownership has little effect on reducing gun related homicides. Gun related suicides are the real problem (~20,000 out of the total ~30,000 annual USA gun related deaths). Nobody is focusing on that issue.
    - HoHoHoNowIHaveA 11y ago
      Your premise is only applicable to US states. It is not applicable to nation-states which demonstrate considerable effect in reducing gun-related homicides. Even more so when discounting individual lone-wolf attacks of a terrorist nature (Brevik, Norway). I could post sources but they are beyond dispute at this stage. (United Kingdom, Japan, Australia and most of the Western world). Evidence is also lent by the nation-states with lax gun control legislation which dominate the league table of gun-related homicides, of which, the USA is one.
    - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
_delirium 11y ago
Part of that is California's particular political history, where for a long period of time both major parties on the state level were pro-gun-control. The public displays of firearms by the Black Panthers in Oakland in the 1960s scared suburban white conservatives into calling for gun-control laws, which were enacted under Reagan's governorship with bipartisan support in the state legislature [1]. As the state has swung more solidly Democratic in subsequent years, they've retained and gradually strengthened such laws. The state Republican party has now turned towards pro-gun viewpoints, but no longer holds a lot of offices. [1] The first one, which effectively outlawed both open carry and concealed carry of loaded guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act