5 ms·

What does buying a gun have to do with safety?

by lobf 3y ago

PumpkinSpice 3y ago
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 3y ago
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-bonta-files-appeal-defense-california%E2%80%99s-unsafe-handgun-act 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 The UHA was originally enacted over two decades ago in response to the proliferation of low-cost, cheaply made handguns that posed consumer safety risks.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?
- lobf 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      We shouldn’t be doing anything to increase the number of guns in circulation. It reduces safety for everyone, especially the gun owners.
      - lazide 3y ago
        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 3y ago
        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?

What does buying a gun have to do with safety?

by lobf 3y ago

What does buying a gun have to do with safety?

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 3y ago

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-bonta-files-appeal-defense-california%E2%80%99s-unsafe-handgun-act 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?

lobf 3y ago
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 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    We shouldn’t be doing anything to increase the number of guns in circulation. It reduces safety for everyone, especially the gun owners.
    - lazide 3y ago
      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 3y ago
        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?