Appeals court allows California law to go into effect, restricting concealed carry in public places

I don't think guns are supposed to be a deterrent. Someone running to mug you isn't thinking clearly about the possible complications or repercussions.

A carried gun is a commitment to kill someone before you are killed in a life or death situation. Not too feel cool or show off, or brandish as a warning.

Plus if you dress like a cowboy, someone might try to mug you FOR that gun, making you a bigger target.

That's all pretty heavy, and the odds are low that you'd encounter that situation. So not a lot of people are willing to complicate their lives for it.

A carried gun is a commitment to kill someone before you are killed in a life or death situation. Not too feel cool or show off, or brandish as a warning.

In what world are you living in where someone comes up to you with a gun, in an attempt to kill you and you have time to remove your gun from wherever you're concealing it, remove the safety and aim it before the person trying to kill you can kill you?
- It certainly happens.
  
  Just last week I saw a video where a man ran up with a gun to start a robbery. A woman whipped a handgun out of her purse and shot him.
  
  The idea that personal firearms can't be used for self defense is a silly argument.
  
  If I know the video you're talking about, it's an off-duty cop from brazil.
  
  A robbery isn't an attempt to kill you.
  
  It's no different, both scenarios are threats to your life until the point the trigger is pulled (then it goes from threat to attempt).
  
  I mean I literally said attempt in my comments so....
  
  And basically anything can be a "threat" to your life. But I doubt even an American would agree with shooting someone because they cut you off in traffic.
- Earth. This happens frequently on Earth. Perhaps it may shock you to find this out, but most criminals and thieves are not trained with firearms, and are not very good at shooting. Unless they're already aiming at you and intent on murdering you, instead of just robbing you, or scaring you, they're probably going to miss the first shot or two.
  
  In what world are you living where protecting yourself and your family is not important?
  
  most criminals and thieves are not trained with firearms, and are not very good at shooting.
  
  Neither are plenty of legal gun owners.
  
  While some states require a small amount of education regarding firearms safety before purchase, I can't think of one that requires marksmanship training or a demonstration of skill as a prerequisite to owning a weapon.
  
  Owning a gun legally doesn't mean you know how to use it competently.
  
  At least when I got my CPL in Colorado, we had a very basic marksmanship requirement of getting 5 shots in row within a 12in circle at 7 yards. Because we had good instructors, they made us do it 5 times. IMO it's an absolute joke of a requirement and should be higher, but sadly we still shot more rounds for that class than what's required by a lot of police departments for a firearms qualification.
  
  In what world are you living where protecting yourself and your family is not important.
  
  One where the general populace isn't armed to the teeth? So I don't have to worry about random crackheads shooting me.
  
  I think the issue in the US is that there are so many guns per capita and the population is so anti authority that it will take generations of confiscation before you'll get a majority of personal firearms out of personal hands.
  
  And in the meantime you've removed the right for individuals to have the opportunity to defend themselves in dangerous situations.
  
  I wouldn't describe the US as anti-authority, but I get your point.
- I'm not sure that it's worth the time to describe different scenarios to you when you don't understand how safeties work.
  
  Instead, I suggest looking at the Active Self Protection YouTube channel.

The deterrent is the uncertainty of who may and may not have a gun on them. A lot of self defense is making yourself a harder target, the knowledge that a firearm might come into play and the victim may be proficient at using it makes anyone and everyone a harder target. It doesn’t mean desperate criminals won’t still make a move, but it should decrease the number of crimes attempted.

Again, it is already uncertain who may and may not have a gun on them.

but it should decrease the number of crimes attempted.

Is there any data to that effect or is that just wishful thinking?
- There's not good data on anything related to guns and it's frustrating.
  
  Intuitively it makes sense that if there might be a bear in the woods some people aren't going to go into the woods because they're afraid of getting mauled by a bear. It almost certainly has an effect, but quantifying it is going to be hard and subject to bias and the real effect will always be subject to other unrecorded factors (e.g. maybe when they tested one group the bears were hibernating).
  
  I personally don't think many people who aren't into gun culture or traumatized by guns give much thought to whether or not someone is going to have a gun in XYZ place ... which probably translates to a lot of crimes of passion or desperation (e.g. I need drug money so I'm going to go rob this gas station).
  
  I personally don’t think many people who aren’t into gun culture or traumatized by guns give much thought to whether or not someone is going to have a gun in XYZ place … which probably translates to a lot of crimes of passion or desperation (e.g. I need drug money so I’m going to go rob this gas station).
  
  Very well said and I am in agreement.
- I'd say the crime rates in no carry zones vs like... Red bits of Texas would be an indicator. No idea what those are but the number of stories out of Texas like "robber shot by 3 different people during hold-up"... Yeh.
  
  Those stories are curated by the media. That is not good data any more than all the crime reports the media makes is an indication of the crime rate which has been dropping for years.
- By saying it's already uncertain, you've immediately made an assumption. Congratulations, you're just as biased as the rest of us. Nothing you said so far has been supported by evidence.
  
  Are you saying you can be certain that someone doesn't have a gun concealed on their person where concealed carry is illegal?
  
  Otherwise, I don't think it's an assumption.
- It's assumed that no one is armed in California because of all the unjust laws here. No thief is going to hesitate thinking "what if my target has a gun..."
  
  It’s assumed
  
  That's sort of the crux of the issue here- this all seems to be based on assumptions rather than data. And even my merely asking for data has apparently been a step too far for some people judging by the downvotes.
  
  I realize that guns in general are a hotbutton issue, but I really don't think asking for data on concealed carry being a deterrent to crime is unreasonable when questioning the legality of it...
  
  I don't think you asked for anything. I think you made your own assumptions and they're incorrect. Have a nice day.
  
  I literally have asked for data and evidence over and over. Just view the comment thread. Do I need to start showing you screenshots with accompanying links? Because we can start with higher up in this very comment chain:
  
  https://lemmy.world/comment/6318617
  
  And what specifically have I assumed? Please quote an assumption I have made.
  
  Obvious troll is obvious

The deterrent is supposed to be the possibility of armed people. The idea is supposed to be that allowing people to legally carry concealed weapons means that any potential victim might have a gun.

On the other hand, many gun owners who support concealed carry oppose open carry for several reasons.

First off, they don't want to make them or their gun a target. They don't want someone trying to steal their gun, and they don't want to flag themselves as the first target for any kind of attack.

But another huge reason is that they feel like the only reason to carry openly in public is to make a political statement and carry around an implied threat. Most people who carry concealed consider themselves pretty normal people and they aren't interested in making statements or threatening others. They just carry a gun.

I'll occasionally carry my target postil concealed just to keep the gun secure while transporting it. It's usually in a safe at the house, but when I'm going to the range or leaving town I'll take it with me, and it's less-likely to get stolen off my hip than it is by having my car window smashed. Keeping it hidden on my person is just another part of firearm safety.

I know you're getting blasted with replies. It's not supposed to be a deterrent. You carry concealed so that you can defend your life with deadly force without having to walk around pretending to be a badass all the time. Carrying a gun doesn't stop crime, it stops people when they make an attempt on your life.

Carrying a gun doesn't stop crime, it stops people when they make an attempt on your life.

It can cause an attempt on your life if an assailant gets it. Or if you feel suicidal. The most dangerous gun is the one you own. The safest thing is to buy a gun and mail it to Alaska.
- I also agree. If you own a gun, the person you're most likely to shoot with it is yourself (statistically speaking). After yourself, it's loved ones. A gun is a massive responsibility and you need to take that seriously in order to not fall victim to the patterns that create those statistics.
How fragile and distrusting of other people does someone have to be to feel the urge to carry a gun around on their person at all times? Granted America can be a bit (lol) dystopian but to warrant a gun on your hip to go to Trader Joe's? That's some scared person behaviour. For a nation that wants to come across as being the confident cowboy there really is a scared child behind it all.
- Tell all of this to cops.
  
  I've been advocating for military slap fights for a decade
- What a hateful way to look at it. Self defense is a basic human right and being prepared to do the right thing doesn't make you "scared"
- I think there are quite a few scared people carrying guns around in the US, and that's very unfortunate. In fact, if you're carrying because you're afraid, you should reevaluate your situation. It's just another tool you can carry around, one that you're very, very unlikely to need.
  
  In fact, if you’re carrying because you’re afraid, you should reevaluate your situation
  
  Tell that to my (former) neighbors in Chicago. It was a poor neighborhood. There was gang activity. Most of the people that lived there have been on the same street for 30+ years. They couldn't afford to move, and cops DNGAF because the neighborhood was 98% black. What's to "re-evaluate"? You can't move, cops sure as fuck aren't going to save your ass when trouble comes calling, and the violence is real. Even without guns, three young gang members in the alley will fuck you up.
  
  I've got five fire extinguishers in my home, but I've never had a house fire.
  
  Yeah yeah, I hear you, but there's a difference between rational fear and irrational fear. You know full well I was talking about folks who live in safe neighborhoods. Even then, you should be practiced enough that you're not walking around paranoid and anxious all the time. It doesn't do you any good to shoot at noises in the dark.
  
  There's a difference between the reality he's expressing and the made up hateful strawman you're beating up in your head
  
  What? I'm honestly not sure what you think is in my head. I was referring to people who are scared to live life in what is actually a safe area?
  
  I think there are quite a few scared people carrying guns around in the US, and that's very unfortunate.
  
  See "US Police" for more information.
- Having a license to carry concealed does not mean you're required to concealed carry.
  
  It simply gives you the legal option, which you can then use at your discretion. And very few people carry their concealed carry on their hip. The hide it in their toupee with a string attached to the trigger. Then if things go down, pew pew, right out of the hairpiece!
Not so much defending as offense...
- I totally agree! If there was a tool I could carry around that made me invulnerable I'd carry that instead. A "proper" person who has decided to carry a gun should also be carrying pepper spray and a med kit. You can argue about the utility of a taser, but they're very uncommon for people to carry. They should also have significant practice with any tool they decide to carry. Oh, and they should practice de-escalating and disengaging from various "bad" situations. The priority should be to do everything you can to avoid using your gun. If you are forced to use it, that's a bad, rare, and regrettable situation, and you had really better be able to tell yourself you did everything right.

Everyone I know that carries does so concealed. They don't care about deterrents or whatever, they're just taking a precaution they hope to never use. Like being mugged or attacked. Source: Texas.

You have far more confidence in people than I do. Hoping to never use it (except perhaps in that drunk fight with my neighbour)? I wouldn’t trust anyone who carries guns on the extremely remote probability that it will help them in a shooting/robbery.
- If you're drunk and carrying a gun you're doing it very wrong.
  
  I don’t disagree. Unfortunately your state of mind is not mentioned in 2A.
One of my good buddies lives in North Las Vegas and has his CCW. He calls it a crackhead deterrent. I thought he was full of shit until I visited him, now I advocate for moving to a better neighborhood.
Wouldn't you be less likely to be mugged or attacked if the potential mugger or attacker saw you had a gun? This is sort of what I'm saying...
- IMO, a lot of people see the open carrying types to just be people cosplaying badasses. The type that has spent basically 0 time training to use it, outside maybe taking it to a range and firing off a hundred rounds. They see it as a gun to be stolen?
  
  The only time I see open carry that seems to make sense in all of this is shop workers/cashier. I've been in stores that have a reputation based on what they sell to get hit by robbers, and the guy working is carrying outside his belt. Like a smoke shop or liquor store for example.
  
  I'd like to see some actual data to support this. Much like I'd like to see some data that concealed carry actually has a negative effect on crime.
  
  https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/does-allowing-law-abiding-citizens-carry-concealed-handguns-save
  
  The most conservative estimates show that the adoption of "shall issue" right-to-carry firearm laws reduced murders by 8 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assault by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent. Although the initial drop in crime was often small, the longer the law was in effect, the larger the drop in crime over time. The benefits of concealed handguns were not limited to those who used a handgun in self- defense. By virtue of the fact that handguns were concealed, criminals were unable to tell whether a potential victim was equipped to strike back, thus making it less attractive for criminals to commit crimes when they came into direct contact with victims. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduced the murder rate for women by approximately three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduced the murder rate for men. Further, the study found that the increased use of guns in heated traffic disputes and the increased number of accidental handgun deaths was insignificant compared to the lives saved from violent crime that was prevented.
  
  I cannot read that beyond the abstract, so I have no idea what to take away from that or what the actual evidence is.
  
  Furthermore, the author of that piece appears to have a lot of issues with his research if his Wikipedia page is of any indication.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott
  
  That's on me, I thought the damn .gov site would hold the whole thing lol
  
  Can't help you there, again everything I said was my personal feelings on the matter being a Texan having talked to people about it a ton over the years.
- Permanently Deleted
  
  For one, people get uncomfortable around someone open carrying in public, so it’s more polite to have it concealed.
  
  I don't know that we should be basing our gun laws around what makes people comfortable. On either side of the equation. They should be based on data that allowing or disallowing something regarding guns is safe for the general public and effective when it comes to crime and self-defense. Or at least that is what I think and I would be open to hearing an argument against that beyond an overly-broad interpretation of the Second Amendment where all gun regulations should be nullified.
  
  And the second reason is that if someone was planning on starting something, openly carrying a gun just makes you the first target. Concealed carry gives the element of surprise
  
  This is another thing I have seen people claim here several times without data and, at the risk of offending some, I would again like to see some data which actually supports this claim.
  
  Permanently Deleted
  
  Of course there is a need for data. Just because something sounds logical to you doesn't mean it is true. Shouldn't we be making laws on what is true and not what feels true?
  
  If want data, feel free to find some, don’t respond to every argument put into this thread with “I’d like to see some data”
  
  It is not my job to back up other people's claims. Why do you think I should accept your claim or anyone else's because you think it's logical?
  
  That would make sense if there were facts that we all agreed on…..
  
  Permanently Deleted
  
  Logic is as subjective as you allow the premises you are working from be. Which is why logic is different than fact.
  
  There is absolutely a need for data. This is why everyone says the pro-gun sides have no arguments. There’s no concrete data you can point to just “much logic”, which means nothing in conversations where facts need to be brought up.
- You’re more likely to be targeted first in an attack if you have a visible weapon. Similar to how bank robbers will shoot the guards first if the guards have guns. If you have your weapon concealed you may be able to shoot the attacker before he is aware you have a weapon.
  
  As I keep saying, you and the multiple other people who have made this claim have yet to provide anything to back this up in the way of hard evidence. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to you that a shooter would shoot the armed civilian first, but, yet again, when has this actually happened?
  
  You wont find that research because no one wants to do that research. Also how would you? It will always be anecdotal. I can only tell you my experience as a former soldier. I would shoot anyone who i saw with a weapon if i were committing a crime with a gun. It’s just common sense.
  
  "Common sense" is the thing that made people think the sun orbited the Earth for thousands of years. Laws should be based on evidence, not "common sense," which is why it isn't surprising that most conservatives think "common sense" is behind everything they believe.
  
  https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/sources-of-guidance-on-right-and-wrong/common-sense/party-affiliation/republican-lean-rep/
  
  Why do so many of you here think we should make or strike down laws based on gut feelings?
  
  Also "no one wants to do the research" is nonsense. The ability to do the research has been blocked for a very long time. The government is literally not legally allowed to do the research.
  
  https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun-violence/story?id=50300379
  
  You and the others here simply want to do what feels right to you regardless of evidence, lack of evidence, or consequences. I'm not talking about any one side on gun issues either. I'm talking about people like you who don't care whether or not there is evidence about the effectiveness or lack thereof when it comes to any law, but especially gun laws when it comes to America.
  
  This isn't a religious country, so why do you want your laws to be faith-based?
  
  (To all of you arguing with me: those links you see above? That's what is called backing up your claims.)
  
  Sorry by common sense i meant my military training common sense would lead me to shoot anyone with a gun if i were committing a crime with a gun.
  
  Squid, we have different views, thats fine but im just trying to explain my point of view. You obviously have me confused with someone else as ive not argued for anything faith based at all. Im not a conservative and you assuming that is probably why youre thinking people are arguing in bad faith. When i said no one wants to do the research that includes the US govt. i gave no justifications as to why no one wants to do research.
  
  No, I'm not assuming you are a conservative. I am saying these "common sense" arguments are faith-based much like a lot of conservative thinking, which is why I am saying it shouldn't be done.
  
  Doesn't it strike you as even a little odd that, despite multiple people telling me that a shooter will take out the armed civilian first, not a single person has actually given an example of this? I'm not talking about a statistical survey, I'm talking about even one example.
  
  The only answer I have received so far from anyone that doesn't rely on "this makes sense to me even though I can't prove it" is the person who says it isn't about a deterrent, it's about feeling safe. And I wish that's what everyone else had said because at least you don't need evidence for that sort of claim. On the other hand, it's a little hard to justify laws based on what makes you feel safe considering that's a big impetus for the drug war.
  
  Most people arent going to research a social media comment to justify a belief that doesnt matter. So no, i dont find it even a little odd.
  
  to justify a belief that doesnt matter.
  
  Thank you for admitting that evidence and data doesn't matter to you when it comes to the law, all that matters is your faith-based belief. That was my point.
- No, you're more likely to be the first target and have someone attempt to disarm you. No one should know you have a concealed weapon unless they're trying to kill you. Open carry is idiotic. Showing a gun if you're not in fear for your life to the point where you'd shoot is brandishing, and it's a felony.
  
  I carry daily. The only person in real life who even knows I own a gun is my father.

A gun person might say open carry can also make you a target.

Then guns are definitely not a deterrent.

There is no such thing as a deterrent that deters people who don't know about its existence, and if you're a target by openly carrying the thing you call a deterrent, that doesn't deter people either.

So maybe the argument that guns are a deterrent should be dropped by the people who want to carry their gun concealed about their person.
- Well, I believe the idea is that if you are wanting to start something and you know people are definitely carrying, but you don’t know who or how many is the deterrent.
  
  I am not here to convince you.
  
  "I don't know if someone around me has a gun" doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent so far since that's the status quo regardless of the legality.
  
  Let me start by saying I appreciate this hasn’t devolved and does seem to be a civil discussion.
  
  The idea is most citizens are law abiding and if it is illegal to conceal carry or barred by the establishment to carry then only three types of people would be a threat to someone who intends to cause violence. First a law enforcement officer, second another person intended to break the law with a weapon and last would be an individual with the attitude’rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6’. The possibility of those types being in the vicinity is much lower than when everyone can be capable of self defense with a firearm.
  
  There are many more nuances involved: does the person carrying have training? Can the person carrying be more of a danger than the danger their presence prevents? Is the criminal logical/smart enough to know and understand that there is a risk of an armed populace when they enact their crimes? And many more variables that can be put into play that aren’t part of this discussion.
  
  Thanks for reading.
  
  I can understand your points here, but I still don't understand, and maybe it's just me, how not knowing who around has a gun makes everyone safer than knowing that you have armed people around in case there's a problem.
  
  Like someone else said, everyone they know conceals as a deterrent from mugging. I'm no mugger, but I know I'd be a lot less likely to mug someone I saw was carrying a gun.
  
  I'd like to see some actual hard data that having legal concealed weapons actually makes people safer than having them out in the open.
  
  I'd be a lot less likely to mug someone I saw was carrying
  
  Sure, but if you were a mass shooter you'd take out the guy with a holster on his hip first.
  
  Maybe I'm putting too much thought into this, but if I were a mass shooter, I would avoid shooting up the place where I saw someone with a gun in a holster.
  
  Especially if you knew there was a damn good chance others were carrying that you couldn't see, too.
  
  That's not what I'm saying.
  
  Let's say I'm a mass shooter. I'm going to kill as many people as I can before I'm taken out. I know I'm going to die either way.
  
  Scenario 1: I walk into a mall and I'm going to start shooting, but I see a guy with a gun and I go somewhere else where I know I'll get a chance to kill more people.
  
  Scenario 2: I walk into a mall and I only suspect someone might have a gun, so I start shooting in the hopes that no one does.
  
  Anyway, there are still mass shootings in states where people can have concealed weapons, so it's not like that is proof they are a deterrent either.
  
  Also, I wish people wouldn't just angrily downvote my comments rather than talk to me when I am trying to be as reasonable and non-confrontational about this as I can. Especially when I have admitted that maybe I'm just not understanding this.
  
  I appreciate the discourse I am having with you.
  
  I agree. Nukes only work as a deterrent (for example) because the countries that have them "open carry" them. A concealed-program nuke is only good for after the fact revenge on a country that attacks you or an ally/neighbor. Just like a gun.
- https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/does-allowing-law-abiding-citizens-carry-concealed-handguns-save
  
  The study used FBI annual cross-sectional time-series county crime data for all 3,054 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992. Although many recent crime studies have used proxies for deterrence, such as police expenditures or general levels of imprisonment, this study used arrest rates by type of crime, and also, for a subset of data, conviction rates and sentence lengths by type of crime. The most conservative estimates show that the adoption of "shall issue" right-to-carry firearm laws reduced murders by 8 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assault by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent. Although the initial drop in crime was often small, the longer the law was in effect, the larger the drop in crime over time. The benefits of concealed handguns were not limited to those who used a handgun in self- defense. By virtue of the fact that handguns were concealed, criminals were unable to tell whether a potential victim was equipped to strike back, thus making it less attractive for criminals to commit crimes when they came into direct contact with victims. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduced the murder rate for women by approximately three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduced the murder rate for men. Further, the study found that the increased use of guns in heated traffic disputes and the increased number of accidental handgun deaths was insignificant compared to the lives saved from violent crime that was prevented.
  
  thus making it less attractive for criminals to commit crimes when they came into direct contact with victims.
  
  Unless they have a gun themselves, of course.
  
  I already gave you my issue with this link you gave and its author. Why do you think pasting it a second time will change what I said?
  
  Two different responses, for two different questions you had asked.
  
  Okay, and your response to my issues with what you have provided are what? Because, again, that doesn't actually show me the paper, and the author has used questionable figures and methodology in the past.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding. I don't carry to deter anyone, I carry because I'm physically disabled and humans are animals.

If a person with a gun decides they're going to start shooting, are they going to shoot the other person with a gun first, or last?

A law like this doesn't stop criminals so much as it let's them not worry about being shot at. It doesn't stop a criminal from having a gun. It stops everyone else from having a gun.

Explain to me how it makes a park safer to not allow concealed weapons in it. I'll listen to your reasoning. No big wall of text with 50 reasons that would take ages to go over. Just explain to me how a law that stops a law abiding citizen from having a concealed weapon in a park will make it safer.

LOL, "I'm willing to listen to reasoning, but only if you format it in a way that I'm willing to read."

For real, though, fewer guns means fewer gun crimes. The whole 'then only outlaws will have guns' is really a myth. Statistics have shown over and over again that the vast majority of criminals who purchase guns do so legally. If they can't purchase one locally, they just go a state over where the laws are lax. The whole 'black market' gun stores thing is just a false argument.

The idea that a 'good guy with a gun' will make everyone safer is also pretty well debunked. Just look at John Hurley - the 'good guy with a gun' who was posthumously branded a hero after he was shot by the police.

Guns are inherently unsafe. We're never getting rid of them in military applications, but any reasonable restrictions for private ownership should be a no-brainer.

All the arguments for 'private gun ownership makes us safer' fall apart under any scrutiny. So does the constitutional argument. The only real, provable argument you have is that your personal freedom to own a killing machine is more important to you than public safety.
- I wouldn't argue against all of what you said, but that isn't this law. It's not fewer guns, or gun purchase restrictions, or legally owned guns or any of that. This is just a law that bans concealed carry at a few added places. Police can't search a person without cause. These aren't security restricted places places where you get checked for weapons before entering. There's literally no hindrance to go into a park with a concealed firearm aside from "its against the law". How will this stop the criminal sort from having or using a gun? Do you think a person robbing someone at gunpoint will be like "woah, I can't rob them with this in the park. That's extra illegal now"? Or that the criminal sort will stop going to a park with a gun, even though they wouldn't be able to get caught with it if they leave it concealed and don't do anything that would cause a cop to be allowed to detain and search them? The law passed doesn't really do much to make these places safer.
  
  And here's the other argument we hear all the time. "This bill doesn't fix everything, so it's pointless and should be dropped."
  
  Drinking in a car is illegal, but how would an officer be able to tell if there are passengers drinking behind tinted windows? If the driver has booze in his or her or their yeti, how would a cop know? Since the cop can't know, drinking in cars should be legal, even for the driver.
  
  That's basically what you're arguing.
  
  Sometimes a bill is stripped down in order to pass with conservatives or moderates. Sometimes a bill is a trial balloon for what you really want to pass. Sometimes a bill addresses a specific issue, and that it doesn't fix some other issue is just moot.
  
  And sometimes you have to walk before you run.
Shooting a weapon is always a risk. Not allowing weapons takes that risk away.

A concealed gun isn't going to do shit when the mugger is already holding you at gunpoint.

I've never understood why you'd want a gun. The risks of guns being everywhere just seems a lot more obvious than the rare situations where they'd actually be useful.
Guns are far more likely to be used for bad than good, that's why you want as little as possible guns around...
- That's simply untrue. On several different occasions I've avoided getting mugged/carjacked/robbed because I saw someone who looked like they were coming my way with intent and their hand in their pocket or just starting to draw it out, so I pulled out my own and in each case they turned around and walked away, presumably to find an easier target. Same with the multiple times armed junkies broke into my house - they see my gun, and they run rather than proceeding to do whatever the fuck they were going to do. I am a cripple, so I'm not gonna be able to fight - it's this or nothing. Not just me, but my wife and son as well.
  
  Yes, guns are bad. Yes, less guns is good! Total agreement. Unfortunately, life is not so black and white. In the US we have SO MANY GUNS, and so many available illegally, and cheaply, that any of these gun laws are only stopping law abiding citizens like myself from having a tool to defend ourselves with, as a criminal is going to be carrying wether it's legal or not for him to as it's readily available.
  
  Australia and the UK, shit even Canada, are so different in this respect (guns per capita and availability and cheapness of black market guns specifically) that you really can't compare policy - what works there isn't necessarily going to work here.
  
  So what's the answer, you say? Lots of things!
  
  We have a lot of gun laws on the books in regards to background checks/greymarket/gunshow sales/etc that are simply not enforced, or not enforced well. Enforce them! Make the checks more strict, stop letting folks with mental issues buy guns, etc.
  
  Want a gun? You should have to take a mandatory safety course for that specific type of gun (shotgun, revolver, semi auto pistol, etc - just like classes on your drivers license). You should have to pass a test and renew it regularly, similar to CCW permits on most states. Let's make it so that if you ARE a law abiding citizen carrying a gun, you know how to safely use the kind of gun you carry, can shoot reasonably accurately with it, have been taught your local self defense laws, have been taught trigger discipline, and have been taught how to check your fucking backdrop before you pull the trigger so you don't put other innocents at risk when defending yourself.
  
  Do something to limit the number of new guns brought into the system. The ones we got are here, can't really do much about that without people losing their collective shit. But we ought to be able to slow down the numbers of new ones made available to the public, via extra taxes, limits on how many guns a person can purchase in a time period, I don't know really, this is a hard one, but I think it's the way we need to do it so we don't just fuck over the average citizen - gradually.
- The law doesn't actually do anything to remove guns from criminals. These areas aren't secure to get into. There's no controlled entrances or frisking or metal detectors. There's nothing that prevents a criminal from having a concealed weapon there. So you think someone that would pull out and use a gun not in self defense is going to worry about our be deterred by having an extra charge of having the gun at the zoo?
If a person with a gun decides they’re going to start shooting, are they going to shoot the other person with a gun first, or last?

This is, once again, just a supposition. Is there any evidence anywhere of a mass shooter gong for an armed person first during a mass shooting?
- Ignoring the logic that even an insane person going on a shooting spree would want to shoot the armed people first, exactly how many mass shooting events do you think there are in comparison to smaller event shootings?
  
  I have the answer for you. While there may be a mass shooting 20 to 50 times a year, ruling out suicides and accidents there are about 210 people shot per day.
  
  Aside from you wanting evidence of a completely obvious thing a mass shooter would do, you're trying to compare something that happens in less than a single percent of all other shootings.
  
  Furthermore, there are almost 12,000 robberies in the US each year using knives, over 200 by choking victims, and over 4,000 per year using blunt weapons like baseball bats. Now you can interpret or swing all those statistics whatever way you'd like, but it would stand to reason that having a visible gun on you would go two ways- either the person doesn't attack you due to fear of the weapon, or they would beat/stab you without warning or threatening the victim so they couldn't have a chance to pull their gun out. Having a concealed weapon would give you an option to take the attacker off guard if the situation arose.
  
  exactly how many mass shooting events do you think there are in comparison to smaller event shootings?
  
  I didn't bring up mass shooters. I just talked about guns as a deterrent. Other people brought up mass shooters.
  
  Furthermore, there are almost 12,000 robberies in the US each year using knives, over 200 by choking victims, and over 4,000 per year using blunt weapons like baseball bats.
  
  What does that have to do with anything?
  
  it would stand to reason that having a visible gun on you would go two ways- either the person doesn’t attack you due to fear of the weapon, or they would beat/stab you without warning or threatening the victim so they couldn’t have a chance to pull their gun out. Having a concealed weapon would give you an option to take the attacker off guard if the situation arose.
  
  Okay, great. Then I'm sure you can back up this reasoning with data on how often this happens vs. how many times attackers are fended off in other ways.
  
  Why is there not data on this? Aren't all of you who are just saying "it's logic" or "it stands to reason" curious as to why there is absolutely nothing anyone has presented so far that can back up what you say?
  
  Google tells me concealed carry started in Georgia in 1976. And all of you expect me to believe that in 45 years we do not have any studies that show whether or not concealed carry is effective as a crime deterrent? I'm not even saying no such study exists. I'm saying that if it does exist, none of you even know and most of you don't care either.
  
  Because, again, we are talking about a law here. Laws, and repeals of laws, should be based on evidence, not guesses, not 'it stands to reason,' not 'it's logical to think,' not 'we hope.' Evidence. And if California proposed a law requiring every gun owner to, for example, submit their weapon for regular safety inspection, I would sure hope you would demand some evidence to support such a law.
  
  This is what bothers me so much about gun discussions overall, both people who are into guns and people who are against guns- so much resistance to evidence. So much reliance on what you think is reasonable or rational or logical.
  
  If you want guns to be illegal, fine. Show me evidence and data from other countries to support your argument.
  
  If you want concealed carry to be legal in California, fine. Show me evidence and data from other states that shows that it is effective and safe.
  
  Why is this so unreasonable?
  
  Lol. You LITERALLY refer to mass shooters in your question to me. It was the only thing you had brought up.
  
  I said it in response to:
  
  If a person with a gun decides they’re going to start shooting, are they going to shoot the other person with a gun first, or last?
  
  What did you mean if you weren't talking about mass shooters?
  
  He's right... What he said doesn't automatically constitute a reference to mass shootings. When I read it, I didn't think of it in that regard.
  
  That said, he's pulling the straw man out for you, or moving the goal posts, or whatever its called... He's not answering your questions and instead turning the argument against you by focusing on something you said wrong. He's arguing in bad faith.
  
  After the beginning of his reply started off with saying he wasn't the one who brought up mass shootings, I didn't bother reading the rest of his post. I wasn't going to give a guy who can't believe his own words he wrote my time of reading the rest of his post. Before that post though, I don't think I moved a goal post anywhere. In fact, all I wanted was a simple response to the question I had asked about how it makes it safer at a park, which I believe no one answered.
  
  Ok so you're both arguing in bad faith then, got it.
  
  Before that post? No, you didn't, but I wasn't referring to that post, was I?
  
  And you're right, no one answered it. Everyone in this thread needs to understand that the person they're talking to isn't going to do the work to change their own minds. You want to change someone's mind? Put in the work, show references. Show studies. Show articles. We can all argue on logic and suppositions until the cows come home, but when has that ever worked for you to change someone's mind on such a divisive subject?
  
  I can Google a million articles about people getting shot with their own gun. Can you also do the same and show me something where the law abiding, gun carrying, citizen saved the day at a park? I bet you can. Prove it.
  
  There will always be violence. Guns don't change that. The only thing they do is make the death toll go up faster. You want to reduce the number of deaths by gun? Reduce the number of guns. And I say that as a law abiding gun owner.
  
  You articles are irrelevant because...pay attention now..... THIS LAW DOESNT GET RID OF A SINGLE GUN. Also, look at you as well, completely unable to provide an answer to my simple question, so you have to go off on a mini tirade of other junk to bury that fact away.
  
  You're correct on that point. But you still didn't answer his question. Don't argue in bad faith like all the others do. He's trying to have a constructive discussion with you. You want to change his mind? Then engage with him. Otherwise acting like you just did shows that you have no intention of engaging with the actual topic and are instead trying to put him on the defensive because you know you lost this argument.
  
  The guy never answered the one question I asked about to begin with. Look up there. I wrote it out very plainly and specifically and got no response about how this law will make a park more safe. All of his responses you're speaking of about the open discussion has not been a discussion of the one question I very specifically asked for. He's just been trying to shift the discussion over to something else. Amusingly because he has no sound argument on it.

if someone sees your gun, they can take it with a surprise rock to the head attack.
also if a decent percentage concealed carry, then crazy people will maybe consider that before doing crazy things?
(i don't agree with that just playing devils advocate)

(i don't agree with that just playing devils advocate)

Why? It's unnecessary.
- because they were asking a question

Lol showing you're armed makes you a target. And someone will take it from your hip. There's videos of people grabbing the gun and just running, so no. You're absolutely wrong here. A lot of idiots are up voting you too, which is sad.

There’s videos of people grabbing the gun and just running

Finally a claim of some evidence.

Please show me one of these videos.
- Are you being dense about this or just stupid all around? It's not hard to Google.
  
  Open carry makes you the main target - https://youtu.be/wPEaX4HwWyc?si=WT0yFXgsjf6dHICe
  
  Stolen right off guy in checkout - https://youtube.com/shorts/T15ikZkbkbU?si=iN5RNc-7b1HqwCBs
  
  There's plenty more, those aren't even the one I remember
  
  Edit: found the one I remember specifically - https://youtube.com/shorts/GwtrTJvD5tc?si=f3WNVtA6-4p8tUPS
  
  Anything else?
  
  I was happy to review the evidence someone else gave me, but I am not going to bother with someone who just insults me right out of the gate when I have done my best to be as cordial as I can be. I do not reward Reddit style behavior. It is unlikely I will respond to you again.
  
  oh no, not that. i don't care to speak to someone who can't do a simple google search to find what they need. you're completely useless, then try to put your insecurities onto others to do your work for you. i provided the evidence, now stfu about it.