What does buying a gun have to do with safety?
Here is California's Attorney General explaining it:
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 The UHA was originally enacted over two decades ago in response to the proliferation of low-cost, cheaply made handguns that posed consumer safety risks.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?
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.
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!
In fact, are there any countries that have implemented gun controls that have had this problem?
For countries with major issues who do have strict gun control? Off the top of my head, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa. Plenty more if I looked, I’m sure.
You have had your head in the sand for the last few years.
unarmed teenagers being hit with pepper spray for violating a prude curfew by gun-wielding tyrants is an issue to a more civilized, reasonable person.
I agree that drop tests and other ND tests are appropriate. Although I would prefer a market based solution here instead of regulation.
Some things can be below your personal risk tolerance, but be well above the acceptable risk tolerance at a social level.
If enough people buy unsafe firearms and then are subsequently jailed for negligence, or the companies are sued out of existence, I would imagine the safe version would organically emerge.
I've never met or seen a Neo Nazi in my entire life, wondering how one ends up getting attacked by one.
The other incident with a real gun I was referring to was a man pointing his revolver at me while I was picking up his daughter for a date, talking about how a man has to protect his daughter. At that point, I wasn't even scared so much as I was concerned what I was getting into. But since he didn't directly threaten me I was told that it was "negligent use of firearms" at worst, and didn't want to push it.
At least having the option to defend myself would make me more comfortable standing in front of my friends trying to take a bullet for them. Made it easier to recover getting sexually assaulted knowing I could forcefully stop him if it truly escalated to a point where I had to.
And I’m not asking what would make you feel better, I’m asking if you truly believe that producing a gun in the situations you described would have made you safer?
You should also consider looking in to the data about what actually happens to your chances of being shot once you buy a gun. It’s pretty stunning.