4 ms·

> any real attempt to regulate guns Any real attempt would need to be at the national level, not that I would advocate for it, but it's simply a pipe dream to

> any real attempt to regulate guns Any real attempt would need to be at the national level, not that I would advocate for it, but it's simply a pipe dream to create a "gun free zone" in a country with 100s of millions of firearms. There are plenty of gun enthusiasts in California, they just don't flaunt it or talk about it.

tylerflick 6mo ago
I used to work in this industry and can confirm. California was by far the biggest cohort of consumers we had.
lewdev 6mo ago
"regulate guns" does not equate to "gun free."
- Ferret7446 6mo ago
  And "gun free" does not equate to "gun free" either, it equates to "only criminals have guns"
nine_k 6mo ago
A gun-free zone is not such a good idea, much like an encryption-free zone would be, or an alcohol-free zone (the latter has been tried). I would rather go for Swiss-stye mandatory gun training, and keeping a gun in (almost) every home. But, like the Swiss, I would require not just storing the gun in a certified safe box, but also providing an ID + a proof of mental sanity, and registering the gun. That would raise a much larger wave of protest though, both from the "left" and the "right". Even though, IMHO, it's the only sane way.
- marcus_holmes 6mo ago
  I have never lived in a country where people are allowed to keep guns. That scares the crap out of me. Not just because of random strangers. I went through a mental health crisis, and there was a dark time where if I had had a gun I would be dead now. No amount of lockers or safe boxes or mental health tests would have saved me from that gun. And wtf do you need a gun for anyway? I have never, not once, been in a situation where having a gun would have improved it. Why do you think giving everyone guns would be a good thing?
  - engineer_22 6mo ago
    I'm sorry you went through a difficult time of your life, I can relate. I would like to point out a gun doesn't make destroying oneself any easier. They are heavy and cold and they have a particular smell, they taste like metal, and the hole in the end of the barrel so strongly implies destruction that even pointing it at oneself carries incredible gravity. Many people that purchase a gun for this purpose abandon the idea when they have the object in their hands. Before crystallizing strong opinions about guns I suggest you spend some time learning to wield them. It's trivial to travel to a place that embraces guns and engage in a training session. A lot of people are surprised that the reality of it is very different than they imagined. It's not like in the movies. Kind of like how driving a car is not like in the movies. I have many friends who have no interest in guns who I have introduced to shooting, and even though they have not changed their opinions they told me they enjoyed the experience. With enough familiarity guns are not feared, but respected, similar to driving a car makes first time drivers nervous. We are surrounded daily by miriad tools we take for granted daily that have awesome lethal power within them, we'd all be wise to remember.
    - marcus_holmes 6mo ago
      I joined the cadets at school. I've shot pistols, rifles, even a Bren machine gun, which was fun. I'm under no illusions that guns in movies are realistic ;) edit: and the statistics on gun suicide contradict your point, which I missed earlier [0] Which partly drives my curiousity around this (and I realise that my tone on the original question was harsher than I meant - this is genuine curiosity). I just cannot envisage a situation where a gun would improve matters. I've been in a few fights, have some scars. Even in those situations, having a gun would not have improved the situation, and might very well have killed me. So, yeah, I'm really curious about why you think making guns more widely available would be good? [0] https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/new-report-highlights-us-2023-gun-deaths-suicide-by-firearm-at-record-levels-for-third-straight-year https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/new-report-highlights-us-2...
    - Ferret7446 6mo ago
      Well said, I will also add that the source of all fear is ignorance, and that includes everything, from guns to disease to imaginary monsters. You do not cure it through avoidance, quite the opposite.
- linksnapzz 6mo ago
  I'm fascinated by the concept of "proof of sanity". I suppose that when dealing with the Swiss, this might be an easier task than in the US.
- lynndotpy 6mo ago
  > a proof of mental sanity A "proof of mental sanity" would be a far more concerning overreach than 3D printer bans or gun bans, especially as we see things which are mandatory in a society become something tantamount to personhood. I don't really know how one would even envision implementing such a thing.
  - nine_k 6mo ago
    Can you get a driver's license if you're visibly insane? The same standard should apply to getting a gun. A gun is comparably lethal.
    - lynndotpy 6mo ago
      That is different than the proposed test for sanity.
      - nine_k 6mo ago
        Is a proof of lack of insanity a proof of sanity?
        RugnirViking 6mo ago
        are you aware of the history of mental institutions and insanity charges being used to suppress political dissidents around the world? Most notably in the USSR but the west has also done this sort of thing.
        lynndotpy 6mo ago
        To start with, "visibly insane" is a ludicrous idea. Further, yes, you can get a license despite being "visibly insane". Some people consider it insane to believe in a deity, to not to, to smoke cigarettes, to have dyed hair, to have an electric car, to have a lime car, to own a Nissan, etc. During my test, the tester said nobody should drive if they hadn't gotten 10 hours of sleep, and I admitted I had only had six or seven. I still got my license. Interpreted generously, maybe some small percentage of "insane people" are visibly so. Even then, looking at someone is not a proof of a lack of sanity. Sanity isn't a thing you can test for, it's definitely not something the government should test for. To make the implied question explicit: How do you envision positively testing for sanity? How would you feel if this test were implemented in 1940, 1900, 1860, 1820, etc? Would your feelings about that differ by the inclination of the politicians in power?
SV_BubbleTime 6mo ago
> Any real attempt would need to be at the national level Exactly! Prohibition works really well. Now if only we could figure out what state that coke, heroin and meth are still legal in!!
- hypeatei 6mo ago
  I stated that I wouldn't advocate for a national prohibition on guns mostly because I think it wouldn't work and I support gun rights. But if you were to try banning guns, it'd have to be a huge national effort and not just a few states.

tylerflick 6mo ago

I used to work in this industry and can confirm. California was by far the biggest cohort of consumers we had.

lewdev 6mo ago

"regulate guns" does not equate to "gun free."

Ferret7446 6mo ago
And "gun free" does not equate to "gun free" either, it equates to "only criminals have guns"

nine_k 6mo ago

A gun-free zone is not such a good idea, much like an encryption-free zone would be, or an alcohol-free zone (the latter has been tried). I would rather go for Swiss-stye mandatory gun training, and keeping a gun in (almost) every home. But, like the Swiss, I would require not just storing the gun in a certified safe box, but also providing an ID + a proof of mental sanity, and registering the gun. That would raise a much larger wave of protest though, both from the "left" and the "right". Even though, IMHO, it's the only sane way.

marcus_holmes 6mo ago
I have never lived in a country where people are allowed to keep guns. That scares the crap out of me. Not just because of random strangers. I went through a mental health crisis, and there was a dark time where if I had had a gun I would be dead now. No amount of lockers or safe boxes or mental health tests would have saved me from that gun. And wtf do you need a gun for anyway? I have never, not once, been in a situation where having a gun would have improved it. Why do you think giving everyone guns would be a good thing?
- engineer_22 6mo ago
  I'm sorry you went through a difficult time of your life, I can relate. I would like to point out a gun doesn't make destroying oneself any easier. They are heavy and cold and they have a particular smell, they taste like metal, and the hole in the end of the barrel so strongly implies destruction that even pointing it at oneself carries incredible gravity. Many people that purchase a gun for this purpose abandon the idea when they have the object in their hands. Before crystallizing strong opinions about guns I suggest you spend some time learning to wield them. It's trivial to travel to a place that embraces guns and engage in a training session. A lot of people are surprised that the reality of it is very different than they imagined. It's not like in the movies. Kind of like how driving a car is not like in the movies. I have many friends who have no interest in guns who I have introduced to shooting, and even though they have not changed their opinions they told me they enjoyed the experience. With enough familiarity guns are not feared, but respected, similar to driving a car makes first time drivers nervous. We are surrounded daily by miriad tools we take for granted daily that have awesome lethal power within them, we'd all be wise to remember.
  - marcus_holmes 6mo ago
    I joined the cadets at school. I've shot pistols, rifles, even a Bren machine gun, which was fun. I'm under no illusions that guns in movies are realistic ;) edit: and the statistics on gun suicide contradict your point, which I missed earlier [0] Which partly drives my curiousity around this (and I realise that my tone on the original question was harsher than I meant - this is genuine curiosity). I just cannot envisage a situation where a gun would improve matters. I've been in a few fights, have some scars. Even in those situations, having a gun would not have improved the situation, and might very well have killed me. So, yeah, I'm really curious about why you think making guns more widely available would be good? [0] https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/new-report-highlights-us-2023-gun-deaths-suicide-by-firearm-at-record-levels-for-third-straight-year https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/new-report-highlights-us-2...
  - Ferret7446 6mo ago
    Well said, I will also add that the source of all fear is ignorance, and that includes everything, from guns to disease to imaginary monsters. You do not cure it through avoidance, quite the opposite.
linksnapzz 6mo ago
I'm fascinated by the concept of "proof of sanity". I suppose that when dealing with the Swiss, this might be an easier task than in the US.
lynndotpy 6mo ago
> a proof of mental sanity A "proof of mental sanity" would be a far more concerning overreach than 3D printer bans or gun bans, especially as we see things which are mandatory in a society become something tantamount to personhood. I don't really know how one would even envision implementing such a thing.
- nine_k 6mo ago
  Can you get a driver's license if you're visibly insane? The same standard should apply to getting a gun. A gun is comparably lethal.
  - lynndotpy 6mo ago
    That is different than the proposed test for sanity.
    - nine_k 6mo ago
      Is a proof of lack of insanity a proof of sanity?
      - RugnirViking 6mo ago
        are you aware of the history of mental institutions and insanity charges being used to suppress political dissidents around the world? Most notably in the USSR but the west has also done this sort of thing.
      - lynndotpy 6mo ago
        To start with, "visibly insane" is a ludicrous idea. Further, yes, you can get a license despite being "visibly insane". Some people consider it insane to believe in a deity, to not to, to smoke cigarettes, to have dyed hair, to have an electric car, to have a lime car, to own a Nissan, etc. During my test, the tester said nobody should drive if they hadn't gotten 10 hours of sleep, and I admitted I had only had six or seven. I still got my license. Interpreted generously, maybe some small percentage of "insane people" are visibly so. Even then, looking at someone is not a proof of a lack of sanity. Sanity isn't a thing you can test for, it's definitely not something the government should test for. To make the implied question explicit: How do you envision positively testing for sanity? How would you feel if this test were implemented in 1940, 1900, 1860, 1820, etc? Would your feelings about that differ by the inclination of the politicians in power?

SV_BubbleTime 6mo ago

> Any real attempt would need to be at the national level Exactly! Prohibition works really well. Now if only we could figure out what state that coke, heroin and meth are still legal in!!

hypeatei 6mo ago
I stated that I wouldn't advocate for a national prohibition on guns mostly because I think it wouldn't work and I support gun rights. But if you were to try banning guns, it'd have to be a huge national effort and not just a few states.