5 ms·

"Sibia caught a glimpse of a revolver in the man’s waist, and let go. The assailant slipped out just as the train doors closed behind him, he said." I was unde

"Sibia caught a glimpse of a revolver in the man’s waist, and let go. The assailant slipped out just as the train doors closed behind him, he said." I was under the impression that concealed carry permits are extremely difficult to get in the vast majority of California?

SllX 8y ago
Depends on the County. I think in the majority of counties it is relatively easy, but in the counties that people mostly live, not so much. San Francisco and LA County in particular make it nearly impossible.
- wahern 8y ago
  It's effectively up to sheriff of the county wherein the applicant resides. The sheriff in San Francisco County wouldn't grant a permit if your life depended on it, not unless you're rich or famous. IIRC the sheriff in at least one rural county granted them as a matter of course out of principle, as if to spite the SF sheriff. As you say, in general rural sheriffs grant them much more liberally than urban sheriffs. It helps if you know the sheriff or can be vouched for by someone the sheriff is familiar with. I imagine that in rural counties many middle-aged adults are only 1 or 2 degrees separated from the sheriff, anyhow, which suggests that rural and urban sheriffs are more alike then you'd think, especially if you exclude the two extremes; but the vast majority of people in urban areas will be too far removed from the sheriff's social circle. California's county-devolved permitting policies probably aren't quite as unequal and arbitrary as they superficially seem.
rayiner 8y ago
Criminals don’t bother to try and get permits.
- userbinator 8y ago
  "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
  - diogenescynic 8y ago
    And yet the countries that make obtaining guns more difficult are still much safer. It’s almost like if you rigorously regulate guns and have strict background checks, you can dramatically reduce gun violence... see Japan or Switzerland as proof where you can still own a gun but they don’t have mass shootings like we do here. And no, mental illness isn’t the issue. We have roughly the same amount of mentally ill as other countries, it’s the easy access to funds that explains the 10x increase in gun violence.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      That doesn’t prove anything because those countries were also much safer than the US before they had gun control. https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_083892.pdf https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/doc... (page 2). Until 1978, you could buy handguns and automatic weapons in Canada without a license. You could buy rifles without a license until the 1990s. But the gap in US-Canadian homicide rates was the lowest in 1960. And the gap was largest during the first 40 years of the 20th century, before Canada required licensing and background checks. Australia shows the same pattern. It introduced major gun control in the 1990s. But the gap in US-Australian homicide rates actually shrank after that time: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Gun_Deaths_by_Year%2C_Australia%2C_America.pdf/page1-640px-Gun_Deaths_by_Year%2C_Australia%2C_America.pdf.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Gu...
      - diogenescynic 8y ago
        Australia didn’t have a single mass shooting after they imposed strict gun control in the 90s. You’re just ignoring the evidence that’s right in front of you. Gun control works—period.
        rayiner 8y ago
        I'm pretty sure my point was also based on the data. And I submit that homicide rate, which is a well-defined metric that accounts for population differences and has been tracked consistently across the world and has been for a long time, is a much better data set than "mass shootings," which is an ill-defined metric that's subject to various confounding factors. (E.g. it fails to account for substitution of gun homicides with other kinds of homicides.) Gun control may reduce homicide rates somewhat, but the typical justifications for it are just bad statistics. Pointing out that Canada and Australia have gun control and much lower homicide rates, for example, ignores the fact that those countries had much lower homicide rates than the U.S. before gun control as well. Any analysis that ignores that basic fact is complete garbage. Likewise, there is a correlation between gun ownership rate and homicide rate internationally, but that's driven in large part by the U.S. having so many homicides and so many guns. Gun ownership rates vary dramatically inside the U.S. too, but leaving out a couple of outliers (Louisiana and Mississippi), there isn't much of a correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates within the US: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Household_gun_ownership_vs_Homicide_rate_2000-2001.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Househol.... Five U.S. states have lower gun ownership rates than Canada and France, but all have higher homicide rates. Meanwhile, 9 U.S. states have much higher gun ownership rates than Canada and France, but similar homicide rates. If gun ownership rate was a dominant causal factor influencing homicide rates, you'd expect to see much higher correlations among U.S. states. And even then, correlation is not causation. Higher violence may cause higher gun ownership rates. Or there may be other factors. What distinguishes Iowa from Louisiana, which have similar gun ownership rates but vastly different homicide rates? Or South Dakota and Mississippi, or Oregon or South Carolina, all pairs of states with similar gun ownership rates, but vastly different homicide rates?
Fins 8y ago
Wouldn't it make sense that somebody committing armed robbery on a train quite possibly doesn't need no stinkin' permit to carry a gun.
masonic 8y ago
concealed carry permits are extremely difficult to get In blue or purple counties, it's essentially impossible.

SllX 8y ago

Depends on the County. I think in the majority of counties it is relatively easy, but in the counties that people mostly live, not so much. San Francisco and LA County in particular make it nearly impossible.

wahern 8y ago
It's effectively up to sheriff of the county wherein the applicant resides. The sheriff in San Francisco County wouldn't grant a permit if your life depended on it, not unless you're rich or famous. IIRC the sheriff in at least one rural county granted them as a matter of course out of principle, as if to spite the SF sheriff. As you say, in general rural sheriffs grant them much more liberally than urban sheriffs. It helps if you know the sheriff or can be vouched for by someone the sheriff is familiar with. I imagine that in rural counties many middle-aged adults are only 1 or 2 degrees separated from the sheriff, anyhow, which suggests that rural and urban sheriffs are more alike then you'd think, especially if you exclude the two extremes; but the vast majority of people in urban areas will be too far removed from the sheriff's social circle. California's county-devolved permitting policies probably aren't quite as unequal and arbitrary as they superficially seem.

rayiner 8y ago

Criminals don’t bother to try and get permits.

userbinator 8y ago
"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
- diogenescynic 8y ago
  And yet the countries that make obtaining guns more difficult are still much safer. It’s almost like if you rigorously regulate guns and have strict background checks, you can dramatically reduce gun violence... see Japan or Switzerland as proof where you can still own a gun but they don’t have mass shootings like we do here. And no, mental illness isn’t the issue. We have roughly the same amount of mentally ill as other countries, it’s the easy access to funds that explains the 10x increase in gun violence.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    That doesn’t prove anything because those countries were also much safer than the US before they had gun control. https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_083892.pdf https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/doc... (page 2). Until 1978, you could buy handguns and automatic weapons in Canada without a license. You could buy rifles without a license until the 1990s. But the gap in US-Canadian homicide rates was the lowest in 1960. And the gap was largest during the first 40 years of the 20th century, before Canada required licensing and background checks. Australia shows the same pattern. It introduced major gun control in the 1990s. But the gap in US-Australian homicide rates actually shrank after that time: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Gun_Deaths_by_Year%2C_Australia%2C_America.pdf/page1-640px-Gun_Deaths_by_Year%2C_Australia%2C_America.pdf.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Gu...
    - diogenescynic 8y ago
      Australia didn’t have a single mass shooting after they imposed strict gun control in the 90s. You’re just ignoring the evidence that’s right in front of you. Gun control works—period.
      - rayiner 8y ago
        I'm pretty sure my point was also based on the data. And I submit that homicide rate, which is a well-defined metric that accounts for population differences and has been tracked consistently across the world and has been for a long time, is a much better data set than "mass shootings," which is an ill-defined metric that's subject to various confounding factors. (E.g. it fails to account for substitution of gun homicides with other kinds of homicides.) Gun control may reduce homicide rates somewhat, but the typical justifications for it are just bad statistics. Pointing out that Canada and Australia have gun control and much lower homicide rates, for example, ignores the fact that those countries had much lower homicide rates than the U.S. before gun control as well. Any analysis that ignores that basic fact is complete garbage. Likewise, there is a correlation between gun ownership rate and homicide rate internationally, but that's driven in large part by the U.S. having so many homicides and so many guns. Gun ownership rates vary dramatically inside the U.S. too, but leaving out a couple of outliers (Louisiana and Mississippi), there isn't much of a correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates within the US: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Household_gun_ownership_vs_Homicide_rate_2000-2001.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Househol.... Five U.S. states have lower gun ownership rates than Canada and France, but all have higher homicide rates. Meanwhile, 9 U.S. states have much higher gun ownership rates than Canada and France, but similar homicide rates. If gun ownership rate was a dominant causal factor influencing homicide rates, you'd expect to see much higher correlations among U.S. states. And even then, correlation is not causation. Higher violence may cause higher gun ownership rates. Or there may be other factors. What distinguishes Iowa from Louisiana, which have similar gun ownership rates but vastly different homicide rates? Or South Dakota and Mississippi, or Oregon or South Carolina, all pairs of states with similar gun ownership rates, but vastly different homicide rates?

Fins 8y ago

Wouldn't it make sense that somebody committing armed robbery on a train quite possibly doesn't need no stinkin' permit to carry a gun.

masonic 8y ago

concealed carry permits are extremely difficult to get In blue or purple counties, it's essentially impossible.