18 ms·

One thing weird to me about the gun debate is that it always seems to exclude police -- on duty or off, current or former -- and nobody questions that in the sl

One thing weird to me about the gun debate is that it always seems to exclude police -- on duty or off, current or former -- and nobody questions that in the slightest. For instance, California has a handgun roster. If a citizen buys a handgun, it needs to be on a special list. The last time a model was added was 2013 [1]. Supposedly it's to make sure pistols are safe. But if you are a police officer, go ahead and buy a 2019 model! In fact, go ahead and buy a 2019 model, and then sell it for 2X to a normal citizen, if you want. A good side business! How does any part of that make sense? I guess the theory is that officers are well-trained and responsible, but where is the evidence of that? And why can't anyone else take the same magical steps to show their worthiness? [1] Due largely to the "microstamping" requirememt, which is impractical to meet, but required for new models (some very minor variants are still allowed without microstamping). See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstamping https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstamping

huffmsa 7y ago
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. It's just the way things are when you "trust the government" to work in your best interest. If you're not on them like stink on a turd, they'll go tyrannical
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>One thing weird to me about the gun debate is that it always seems to exclude police -- on duty or off, current or former -- and nobody questions that in the slightest. Other commenters have already covered possible motives I will cover the practicality side. It would be impossible to pass gun control with that massive voting block (law enforcement and everyone that supports them) against you. Public safety or something along those lines is one of the reasons people advocate for gun control. If you don't exempt the police then basically every police chief will go on record saying your gun control will be terrible for public safety.
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  Well, the problem with your argument is you seem to be arguing that any gun control is good gun control so it's reasonable to push for a completely ineffective gun.
- devnulloverflow 7y ago
  A public safety rationale would be about cops service weapons. The parent post sounds like he means individual cops can buy guns on the open market as private citizens would be allowed to do in states with looser gun laws.
  - zepto 7y ago
    He does and that is currently the law in CA. Police officers can buy any handgun with any magazine capacity they like as personal property.
    - devnulloverflow 7y ago
      That looks, on it's face, like a violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause.
      - zepto 7y ago
        Great point! I’ve never heard that said before.
  - solidsnack9000 7y ago
    Cops actually buy most of their equipment on the open market, replacing and upgrading it as needed. Think about it: we don't have special, government-only clothing, boot or weapons factories in the US anymore. If we did, we'd have the same planned economy shortages and overruns that any other such system does. Cops are also allowed to keep guns after they retire. It's important to remember that guns are issued to police for self-defence, since the work they undertake puts them in harm's way. That doesn't change after they retire.
    - some_random 7y ago
      Oh come on, they really aren't in harms way after retiring with maybe a handful of exceptions. There's no reason they should be allowed to CC in all 50 states. Especially since literally no one else has that right.
madengr 7y ago
Cops are more likely to commit crimes than CCW licensees.
hackerbrother 7y ago
There are plenty of people who question that in the slightest! There is lots of activism going on about police violence
- jeffdavis 7y ago
  Browse the mainstream coverage of anything related to gun control. It will be hard to find anything skeptical of police and their special gun privileges and exceptions to gun control. There may be a nearby article about police brutality, negligence, incompetence, corruption, favortism, or even murder. The article may even suggest that the problems are sustemic in some departments. But as far as the media can tell, they are completely unrelated topics. It's just assumed that gun control excludes police, and that's obvious and normal and right.
some_random 7y ago
To be clear, this handgun roster is justified by claiming that new handguns needed to be tested to make sure they're "safe". Of course, only dirty civilians need to have "safe" guns, police departments can and do purchase untested guns with taxpayer money and as mentioned above cops can and do buy and flip untested guns. Obviously, this testing isn't free and is required on an SKU by SKU basis, so you can get a black Gen 2 Glock 17, but not a tan one because Glock only ponied up for the one model.
solidsnack9000 7y ago
Many gun control advocates see removing guns from private hands as a first step towards disarming the police. This is often couched in terms of a comparison with British policing: the argument is that British police are not as afraid, so don't engage in excessive force as often, because there aren't guns around that could be used to kill them. However, most American police and sheriff's departments tend to support gun ownership. Maybe because they are as aware as anyone of the saying: "When seconds count, police are only minutes away.".
- roenxi 7y ago
  The gun control advocates currently don't have the numbers to disarm the population. That suggests that if they do get the numbers it will be in an alliance with the people who like centralised government power - ie, the sort of people who look at Hong Kong and think that it is a better state of affairs than open rebellion. Not an invalid view, and not as unpopular as people might expect - there is a big chunk of the population that trusts authority and values stability. From that perspective, it is likely that any gun control legislation will increase the power difference between individuals and the state.
  - shpongled 7y ago
    The thing is, they will never have the numbers to disarm the population, at least in the door-to-door sense. You'd have to be a moron to sign up for that job. All gun control is to increase the power difference between individuals and the state, because armed individuals are the final check on the state - the state's entire power derives from a monopoly on violence. I'm hoping more people will do like you and draw conclusions to Hong Kong. When 50%+ of your populace has taken to the streets, and still can't achieve their goals it should be illuminating.
- some_random 7y ago
  They support white, conservative men having some guns, sometimes. If you're the wrong color, have the wrong politics, are a women (sometimes), like the wrong kind of guns, or are just unlucky, they absolutely do not support you.
jedberg 7y ago
The three most powerful entities in California politics are the police union, the nurses union, and the teachers union. It’s important to remember that the teachers union fights for the rights of teachers, not students. The nurses union fights for the rights of nurses, not patients. And the police union fights for the rights of police, not citizens. Their rhetoric might say otherwise, but their underlying motives are clear. And they often scratch each other’s backs. When the teachers union says that a new gun control law will protect kids, everyone just believes them.
sneak 7y ago
> I guess the theory is that officers are well-trained and responsible, but where is the evidence of that? Police beat their spouses at 4x the rate of the general population. The extremely well-armed police (who themselves demonstrate that they tend toward the more violent part of society) are one of the primary reasons that widespread civilian gun ownership is essential. Without it, you get situations like what happened during the RNC in 2004, where the peaceful are denied defense, yet the oppressors are armed to the teeth.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
some_random 7y ago
The map[1] of the 5 states without the power to remove a cop's badge for misconduct also happens to have some of the most strict gun control in the country. Seems this is what happens when safety is valued above all else. [1] https://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/SJM-L-OVERVIEW-1110-93-01-1.jpg https://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/SJM-L...
MrMember 7y ago
Politicians will, without a hint of irony, give a speech claiming that "assault weapons" are only useful for murdering crowds of people as quickly as possible, and then introduce legislation that bans them for everyone except the police.

huffmsa 7y ago

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. It's just the way things are when you "trust the government" to work in your best interest. If you're not on them like stink on a turd, they'll go tyrannical

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>One thing weird to me about the gun debate is that it always seems to exclude police -- on duty or off, current or former -- and nobody questions that in the slightest. Other commenters have already covered possible motives I will cover the practicality side. It would be impossible to pass gun control with that massive voting block (law enforcement and everyone that supports them) against you. Public safety or something along those lines is one of the reasons people advocate for gun control. If you don't exempt the police then basically every police chief will go on record saying your gun control will be terrible for public safety.

joe_the_user 7y ago
Well, the problem with your argument is you seem to be arguing that any gun control is good gun control so it's reasonable to push for a completely ineffective gun.
devnulloverflow 7y ago
A public safety rationale would be about cops service weapons. The parent post sounds like he means individual cops can buy guns on the open market as private citizens would be allowed to do in states with looser gun laws.
- zepto 7y ago
  He does and that is currently the law in CA. Police officers can buy any handgun with any magazine capacity they like as personal property.
  - devnulloverflow 7y ago
    That looks, on it's face, like a violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause.
    - zepto 7y ago
      Great point! I’ve never heard that said before.
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  Cops actually buy most of their equipment on the open market, replacing and upgrading it as needed. Think about it: we don't have special, government-only clothing, boot or weapons factories in the US anymore. If we did, we'd have the same planned economy shortages and overruns that any other such system does. Cops are also allowed to keep guns after they retire. It's important to remember that guns are issued to police for self-defence, since the work they undertake puts them in harm's way. That doesn't change after they retire.
  - some_random 7y ago
    Oh come on, they really aren't in harms way after retiring with maybe a handful of exceptions. There's no reason they should be allowed to CC in all 50 states. Especially since literally no one else has that right.

madengr 7y ago

Cops are more likely to commit crimes than CCW licensees.

hackerbrother 7y ago

There are plenty of people who question that in the slightest! There is lots of activism going on about police violence

jeffdavis 7y ago
Browse the mainstream coverage of anything related to gun control. It will be hard to find anything skeptical of police and their special gun privileges and exceptions to gun control. There may be a nearby article about police brutality, negligence, incompetence, corruption, favortism, or even murder. The article may even suggest that the problems are sustemic in some departments. But as far as the media can tell, they are completely unrelated topics. It's just assumed that gun control excludes police, and that's obvious and normal and right.

some_random 7y ago

To be clear, this handgun roster is justified by claiming that new handguns needed to be tested to make sure they're "safe". Of course, only dirty civilians need to have "safe" guns, police departments can and do purchase untested guns with taxpayer money and as mentioned above cops can and do buy and flip untested guns. Obviously, this testing isn't free and is required on an SKU by SKU basis, so you can get a black Gen 2 Glock 17, but not a tan one because Glock only ponied up for the one model.

solidsnack9000 7y ago

Many gun control advocates see removing guns from private hands as a first step towards disarming the police. This is often couched in terms of a comparison with British policing: the argument is that British police are not as afraid, so don't engage in excessive force as often, because there aren't guns around that could be used to kill them. However, most American police and sheriff's departments tend to support gun ownership. Maybe because they are as aware as anyone of the saying: "When seconds count, police are only minutes away.".

roenxi 7y ago
The gun control advocates currently don't have the numbers to disarm the population. That suggests that if they do get the numbers it will be in an alliance with the people who like centralised government power - ie, the sort of people who look at Hong Kong and think that it is a better state of affairs than open rebellion. Not an invalid view, and not as unpopular as people might expect - there is a big chunk of the population that trusts authority and values stability. From that perspective, it is likely that any gun control legislation will increase the power difference between individuals and the state.
- shpongled 7y ago
  The thing is, they will never have the numbers to disarm the population, at least in the door-to-door sense. You'd have to be a moron to sign up for that job. All gun control is to increase the power difference between individuals and the state, because armed individuals are the final check on the state - the state's entire power derives from a monopoly on violence. I'm hoping more people will do like you and draw conclusions to Hong Kong. When 50%+ of your populace has taken to the streets, and still can't achieve their goals it should be illuminating.
some_random 7y ago
They support white, conservative men having some guns, sometimes. If you're the wrong color, have the wrong politics, are a women (sometimes), like the wrong kind of guns, or are just unlucky, they absolutely do not support you.

jedberg 7y ago

The three most powerful entities in California politics are the police union, the nurses union, and the teachers union. It’s important to remember that the teachers union fights for the rights of teachers, not students. The nurses union fights for the rights of nurses, not patients. And the police union fights for the rights of police, not citizens. Their rhetoric might say otherwise, but their underlying motives are clear. And they often scratch each other’s backs. When the teachers union says that a new gun control law will protect kids, everyone just believes them.

sneak 7y ago

> I guess the theory is that officers are well-trained and responsible, but where is the evidence of that? Police beat their spouses at 4x the rate of the general population. The extremely well-armed police (who themselves demonstrate that they tend toward the more violent part of society) are one of the primary reasons that widespread civilian gun ownership is essential. Without it, you get situations like what happened during the RNC in 2004, where the peaceful are denied defense, yet the oppressors are armed to the teeth.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

some_random 7y ago

The map[1] of the 5 states without the power to remove a cop's badge for misconduct also happens to have some of the most strict gun control in the country. Seems this is what happens when safety is valued above all else. [1] https://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/SJM-L-OVERVIEW-1110-93-01-1.jpg https://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/SJM-L...

MrMember 7y ago

Politicians will, without a hint of irony, give a speech claiming that "assault weapons" are only useful for murdering crowds of people as quickly as possible, and then introduce legislation that bans them for everyone except the police.