Older Glocks as "investments" and their value

[couragewolf]

It's complicated. California has higher violent crime rates (that is lots of things from murder to assault) than Texas: In in 2024: California 486.0, Texas 389.4 (per 100K people). That ~20% difference is statistically very significant. Change over time, only since Covid (since it changed everywhere significantly between 2019 and 2020): California has bounced around between 442.0 and 506.9 in 2020-2024, with no clear trend. Texas has moved from 446.5 to 389.4 during the same time, with a clear downward trend in the last 4 years.

On the other hand, Texas has a higher homicide (murder etc.) rate than California, about 6.7 versus 5.4 (again per 100K). And in Texas, a higher fraction of all homicides are committed with guns, 5.2 versus 3.9.

And if one looks at all firearm deaths (which includes homicide, suicide, and accidents), it is much higher in Texas than in California, 15.3 versus 8.6.

Another thing to remember is that these are averages over very large states. Just breaking it down by county within California shows remarkable differences. As an example, the violent crime rate in Orange and Santa Clara counties are ~200 and ~260 per 100K, while Alameda (Oakland!), San Joaquin (Stockton!), and San Francisco counties are ~660, ~760 and ~820. Much of the middle-class portions of the state are exceedingly safe, with examples such as Irvine and Cupertino at a rate of 49 and 66 on the same scale. This is offset by places like San Bernardino 992, Compton 1149, Stockton 1331 and Oakland 1685. What this really means is that a state-wide average is pretty meaningless, since the safer communities have about 20x less crime than the unsafe ones.

My educated guess is that there are nearly zero "Glock happy switches" in places like Saratoga and San Marino (deliberately picking wealthy and safe small towns). And that they are all over Oakland, Stockton and Compton. Conversely, gun collectors in Saratoga and San Marino typically have no problem paying $1200 for a NIB Glock 19.3 (as advertised here on the forum), while the "good people" of Oakland/Stockton/Compton mostly by them for much less on the black market. It's really a tale of two cities, to quote ens.

Statistics are bad at nuance usually on purpose. My point was really more of calling out the false presentation of guns and crime as a sort of educated vs the uneducated liberals type of discussion so prevalent in these online gun communities.

Liberals aren't necessarily uneducated on the subject, they might not even be wrong about the legal correlations to gun control and crime.

As Charlie Kirk famously said some crime may be the cost of freedom. The question is about the constitution and it's purpose. Frankly most of the "pro-2a" community nowadays seems like they couldn't care less about the constitution they're so busy beating the bushes for scary anti fasc and brown skinned gardeners they'd gladly toss the thing in the nearest dumpster.

 

[treelogger]

My point was really more of calling out the false presentation of guns and crime as a sort of educated vs the uneducated liberals type of discussion so prevalent in these online gun communities.

Absolutely agree. Typical gun control proponents claim "fewer guns means less crime". They can cherrypick statistics (*) and find some data to support their argument. Typical gun rights advocates claim that "more guns means less crime". While they can also find some data, they tend to rely more on anecdotes and feelings. The classic exaggerated examples are California and democratic organizations funding Dr. Wintermute, who creates lots of statistics, usually enough to find some argument in favor of gun control. And on the other side the NRA's magazine having a regular section giving anecdotes of defensive gun use, and then claiming (without much justification) that these events happen millions of time every year. The extremist pressure groups on both sides are very dishonest.

(* Footnote: In English, one uses the word "cherrypick" to describe picking out the parts one wants, and then constructing an argument while ignoring the other parts. German has a nicer metaphor, used in the context of religious analysis of ancient texts: "Steinbruch Exegese", literally "quarry exegesis": One takes a sacred text (such as Talmud, Bible or Koran), and fishes a few sentences out of context. Ignoring that other nearby sentences would give the opposite result. That's just like finding old stone blocks from a building like a roman amphitheater, and rebuilding it into a christian cathedral, or later into a pompous train station: the original purpose and meaning of the stone block is completely lost in that operation.)

The question is about the constitution and it's purpose.

I don't see it as desirable or fruitful to argue over what some badly constructed sentences, written about 250 years ago, mean today. I think we need to figure out what kind of society we want to have. The issue here (as it is most other places) is the tradeoff between one form of liberty (the freedom to have and use guns) versus another form of liberty (being safe from crime and criminals). It is an example of Sartre's classic "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose". Some people prefer to err on the side of collective safety, others on the side of individual liberty. The fact that some people 250 years ago (over-) reacted to the abuses of colonial British rule with the 2A and 3A is not helpful in this debate.

But we are usually not even having this debate. Instead, gun control has become a pawn on a political chessboard. Gun rights are strongly associated with the conservative and R side of the debate. The agenda of gun control has become a mantra of the progressive and D side. That's true even though here in California between 1/3 and 1/2 of all gun owners are democrats. Both sides are more interested in inflicting pain in the opposing side than making this state or country a better place. And they are not wrong; they understand that making the other side angry (a) makes the other side look dumb to centrists, and (b) makes your own true believers happy.

 

[couragewolf]

Absolutely agree. Typical gun control proponents claim "fewer guns means less crime". They can cherrypick statistics (*) and find some data to support their argument. Typical gun rights advocates claim that "more guns means less crime". While they can also find some data, they tend to rely more on anecdotes and feelings. The classic exaggerated examples are California and democratic organizations funding Dr. Wintermute, who creates lots of statistics, usually enough to find some argument in favor of gun control. And on the other side the NRA's magazine having a regular section giving anecdotes of defensive gun use, and then claiming (without much justification) that these events happen millions of time every year. The extremist pressure groups on both sides are very dishonest.

(* Footnote: In English, one uses the word "cherrypick" to describe picking out the parts one wants, and then constructing an argument while ignoring the other parts. German has a nicer metaphor, used in the context of religious analysis of ancient texts: "Steinbruch Exegese", literally "quarry exegesis": One takes a sacred text (such as Talmud, Bible or Koran), and fishes a few sentences out of context. Ignoring that other nearby sentences would give the opposite result. That's just like finding old stone blocks from a building like a roman amphitheater, and rebuilding it into a christian cathedral, or later into a pompous train station: the original purpose and meaning of the stone block is completely lost in that operation.)


I don't see it as desirable or fruitful to argue over what some badly constructed sentences, written about 250 years ago, mean today. I think we need to figure out what kind of society we want to have. The issue here (as it is most other places) is the tradeoff between one form of liberty (the freedom to have and use guns) versus another form of liberty (being safe from crime and criminals). It is an example of Sartre's classic "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose". Some people prefer to err on the side of collective safety, others on the side of individual liberty. The fact that some people 250 years ago (over-) reacted to the abuses of colonial British rule with the 2A and 3A is not helpful in this debate.

But we are usually not even having this debate. Instead, gun control has become a pawn on a political chessboard. Gun rights are strongly associated with the conservative and R side of the debate. The agenda of gun control has become a mantra of the progressive and D side. That's true even though here in California between 1/3 and 1/2 of all gun owners are democrats. Both sides are more interested in inflicting pain in the opposing side than making this state or country a better place. And they are not wrong; they understand that making the other side angry (a) makes the other side look dumb to centrists, and (b) makes your own true believers happy.

I'll go so far as to say I don't think either side actually exists with a cohesive enough set of values that the "sides" themselves are even real.

What actually exists is just a bunch of people collectively being misled into supporting things that are mostly against their collective interests with some form of emotional arguments that are hardly even real or meaningful as it relates to their lives.

I suppose this is why I bristle whenever I see left and right being brought into these topics as if any of them are better or worse than the other.

 

[SomeOne]

I get your position too and that's what's really frustrating.

The relaxed laws and prison times make it so people who do hard crimes get out. I think if you look around the world where there are strict gun laws, crimes involving guns are low but they do happen. They are trying to use that model here. Why? Because like you said it's expensive and exclusive. Criminals typically don't want to spend or have a lot of money, which is why they take from other people at least for petty crime.

I am aware of this argument. Ban guns, so nobody can easily use it. What happens next? Other tools become instrumental. Take the UK, for example. They are trying to ban pointy knives now. Do you see a problem with the approach? It's always a tool to blame not a criminal mind?

If you were to ask LEO, they might ask why do you need a switch or a glock capable of being modified to accept switches.

It's the same argument about the LCM, handgun roster, AR-15, etc. You can always ask a biased cop, but why would you? LEO do not dictate the laws of the land. Otherwise, get prepared to answer the most cornerstone question. Why do you need a gun, if you have a cell phone and call 911? Police is just minutes away.

The big issue with a switch is that it's very indiscriminate when people use them. People already suck without switches, give them a switch and they'll spray who ever is in front of them. Police and state government will have more recent data.

You example proves my point. Some known gang member decided to use it, so let's punish the law abiding people.

I don't think they're criminalizing if you own a gen 3,4,5, you can still PPT Glocks.

Not yet, but do you have a slightest doubt it's coming up next? Take a look at all the gun control measures adopted in CA in the last 10-15 years.

I think 2A politicians have to come up with something better than no change and acceptance of collateral damage as a consequence of freedom. It's a bit disingenuous to people who suffered loss. I don't have the answer but I don't see solutions other than telling people to STFU and get over it. That's ultimately what makes it go nowhere. For the time being, we'll just try to educate and help people protect themselves and their families.

I see it differently, obviously. People believe guns are the reason of their loss? Not the criminals? Why nobody blames cars in all the deadly car road accidents?

Glocks are really amazing firearms and a real engineering marvel. It’s good it’s being updated and amazing that it can do everything it does. It always works. In the wrong hands they can be devastating, so I understand the reluctance, but like bump stocks SCOTUS can overturn anything if they want to.

By the time GLOCK Inc gets to SCOTUS, Gen3 production line will be long shut down.

 

[SomeOne]

I think most CA politicians and especially Newsom are responding to who is yelling the loudest, the anti gun lobby is super strong while the pro gun lobby barely exists here and has poor messaging. I do truly think the roster is a solution looking for a problem, it's no better evidenced than the fact that gen 3 Glocks were easily switchable while gen 5s had already been fixed. I do actually think these legislators think they are doing good but there's no one in the conversation to argue against it.

Who is behing the anti-gun lobby? Again, the Dem party. Like I said, it's a big Democrat's made up nothingburger. They blow it out of proportion, then deliver their solution to the issue, that does not exist.
Obviously, it's my personal and very humble opinion.

 

[couragewolf]

Who is behing the anti-gun lobby? Again, the Dem party. Like I said, it's a big Democrat's made up nothingburger. They blow it out of proportion, then deliver their solution to the issue, that does not exist.
Obviously, it's my personal and very humble opinion.

Reagan was the king of all gun grabbers. Bill Clinton obviously took it further but pretending conservatives are actually trying to fix this problem is like pretending democrats want poor people to have healthcare its all just a sales pitch to keep the rubes sending money and voting for them

 

[ikeo1]

I am aware of this argument. Ban guns, so nobody can easily use it. What happens next? Other tools become instrumental. Take the UK, for example. They are trying to ban pointy knives now. Do you see a problem with the approach? It's always a tool to blame not a criminal mind?

I too am aware of this counter argument. I would ask, what do you think you have a better fighting chance against? A knife or a gun? You're also picking one country when there's another 100 countries that aren't trying to ban knives and are ok with them as weapons.

It's the same argument about the LCM, handgun roster, AR-15, etc. You can always ask a biased cop, but why would you? LEO do not dictate the laws of the land. Otherwise, get prepared to answer the most cornerstone question. Why do you need a gun, if you have a cell phone and call 911? Police is just minutes away.

If you say they're biased, you can say the same thing about 2A. If you're biased, then you don't really care.

You example proves my point. Some known gang member decided to use it, so let's punish the law abiding people.

How are you being punished when the manufacturer is being held to a higher standard? You are not going to be arrested by owning it. So no point was proven. This is taking a defect and requesting the manufacturer to fix it. Existing owners are not impacted. There is still a list of guns on the roster and here. So what punishment are you talking about? Lack of selection? Hardly punishment.

Not yet, but do you have a slightest doubt it's coming up next? Take a look at all the gun control measures adopted in CA in the last 10-15 years.

Heresy, that's not an argument. People have said this forever. Take a look at the measures and are you telling me you can't buy a gun in CA? You can still get what you want here.

I see it differently, obviously. People believe guns are the reason of their loss? Not the criminals? Why nobody blames cars in all the deadly car road accidents?

I've heard this time and time again. Notice the terminology, an accident is exactly that. A murder is not an accident, you don't pull out a firearm by accident. Do you? By your logic, we should legalize drinking and driving. Get rid of DUI's all together. At the same time, Cars are updated and modified like the glock with safetey improvements right?

Seat belts, Windshield wipers, lights, bumpers, crumple zones, reinforced cockpit, firewall, rearview mirror, turn signals, hazrard lights, side view mirrors. etc. The list goes on and on of safety devices being added over time.

Again, the Dem party. Like I said, it's a big Democrat's made up nothingburger. They blow it out of proportion, then deliver their solution to the issue, that does not exist.

Where you say its a nothing burger, peoples lives are affected. As mentioned, I've been affected personally indirectly. Multiple friends murdered, family and friends robbed at gunpoint. It depends how and where you grew up. If you learned about guns with your dad or uncle, it's going to be very different than if you don't know anyone murdered. Or if your family served in the military where sacrifice was honorable.

I respect your opinion, but I also respect the opinions of people who've had their lives impacted, who don't want to carry firearms because they don't want to and look to the government to help facilitate a safe environment. That is also freedom as I said and can be seen/experienced in about 100+ countries. It's a difference in opinion and governing, but to dismiss as a political talking point without understanding real people die daily is wrong IMO.

I get where you're coming from. I don't deny they can go overboard, but you should address the fact the only counter measure being offered is telling people to STFU and accept it, which is why people don't like it. I trained people for free before I started this site. Friends and family who bought firearms after there were increasing robberies. That was my response. I don't advocate against 2A, IMO the smarter goal is to bring more dems over to accepting 2A by offering classes.

The biggest issue I have is people conflate dems with thugs. If they are a thug they are a dem. When dems just want to feel safe. In today's world, I think free safety training is the way to get more people less afraid of 2A. We advocate USPSA because it's a low cost method for training with skilled people.

You'll notice there's a lot of younger lefties here (and right), where some people think that's a bad thing. I think it shows progress and mindset is shifting amongst younger people, along with MORE manufacturers AND SKU's on the roster. Don't make it a political side thing, look at it as a problem / solution. You don't see the problem, but I can tell you first hand there is one. Solutions are welcome.

 

[SomeOne]

I too am aware of this counter argument. I would ask, what do you think you have a better fighting chance against? A knife or a gun?

What would you say of the government that takes the best tool for the job out of your hands and makes you explore other avenues? Why do they take it? Well, because criminal can use it. So, the criminals dictate the legality now?

You're also picking one country when there's another 100 countries that aren't trying to ban knives and are ok with them as weapons.

True. There are a lot of countries which traded their freedoms for their safety. Or those have never been (and never will be) free.

If you say they're biased, you can say the same thing about 2A. If you're biased, then you don't really care.

I am very biased about my rights. You are darn right here. I don't believe police is to tell me what my citizen's rights are.

How are you being punished when the manufacturer is being held to a higher standard?

Shall I remind you the microstamping fiasco. This is what happens when politicians pretend to be the industry experts.

You are not going to be arrested by owning it. So no point was proven. This is taking a defect and requesting the manufacturer to fix it. Existing owners are not impacted. There is still a list of guns on the roster and here. So what punishment are you talking about? Lack of selection? Hardly punishment.

Remind me, what's so wrong with GLOCK that it requires a California-style "improvement" dictated by the very uneducated politicans?

Heresy, that's not an argument. People have said this forever. Take a look at the measures and are you telling me you can't buy a gun in CA? You can still get what you want here.

I hear the argument, that if one book is still available, there is free speech and free press. Do I hear it right?

I've heard this time and time again. Notice the terminology, an accident is exactly that. A murder is not an accident, you don't pull out a firearm by accident. Do you? By your logic, we should legalize drinking and driving. Get rid of DUI's all together. At the same time, Cars are updated and modified like the glock with safetey improvements right?

What do you call a safety improvement? A non-cruciform trigger? How much is it safer? Who is in CA legislature has an engineering background to demand the manufacturer design change? Does it have anything to do with the safety, in fact? Or is it another step towards the gun control and power grab?

Seat belts, Windshield wipers, lights, bumpers, crumple zones, reinforced pit, firewall, rearview mirror, turn signals, hazrard lights, side view mirrors. etc. The list goes on and on of safety devices being added over time.

Let the industry decide, what's the best design out of them all. Customers will either accept or deny. Government is well-known for making dubious decisions in the industry.

Where you say its a nothing burger, peoples lives are affected. As mentioned, I've been affected personally indirectly. Multiple friends murdered, family and friends robbed at gunpoint. It depends how and where you grew up. If you learned about guns with your dad or uncle, it's going to be very different than if you don't know anyone murdered. Or if your family served in the military where sacrifice was honorable.

Who would you put behind the bars? A gun or a criminal?

Friends and family who bought firearms after there were increasing robberies. That was my response. I don't advocate against 2A, IMO the smarter goal is to bring more dems over to accepting 2A by offering classes.

Do you get a sense of hypocrisy, when people who vote for anti-gun agenda (Prop 63 is a good example), then go and buy guns?

The biggest issue I have is people conflate dems with thugs. If they are a thug they are a dem. When dems just want to feel safe.

They want to feel safe, so they vote for DAs who refuse to put the criminals behind the bars? Do they really want to feel safe or do they want the known thug to be in their hood?

In today's world, I think free safety training is the way to get more people less afraid of 2A. We advocate USPSA because it's a low cost method for training with skilled people.

We do have something in common. Not much, but we do

You'll notice there's a lot of younger lefties here (and right), where some people think that's a bad thing. I think it shows progress and mindset is shifting amongst younger people, along with MORE manufacturers AND SKU's on the roster. Don't make it a political side thing, look at it as a problem / solution. You don't see the problem, but I can tell you first hand there is one. Solutions are welcome.

You know the issue does have very deep political roots. You just can't deny it. Thus the solution to the issue is political.

 

[SomeOne]

Reagan was the king of all gun grabbers. Bill Clinton obviously took it further but pretending conservatives are actually trying to fix this problem is like pretending democrats want poor people to have healthcare its all just a sales pitch to keep the rubes sending money and voting for them

Not every GOP is exactly an avid 2A supporter. However, I yet to see one pro-2A Dem politician. Harris? Biden? Obama? Or maybe the newest gun guy Newsom?

 

[ikeo1]

What would you say of the government that takes the best tool for the job out of your hands and makes you explore other avenues? Why do they take it? Well, because criminal can use it. So, the criminals dictate the legality now?

You can own firearms, yes or no?

True. There are a lot of countries which traded their freedoms for their safety. Or those have never been (and never will be) free.

This is perspective. You think owning a firearm is freedom. Other people think freedom is walking outside freely.

Shall I remind you the microstamping fiasco. This is what happens when politicians pretend to be the industry experts.

As mentioned, courts can overturn this and it was. I've said it again and again.

Remind me, what's so wrong with GLOCK that it requires a California-style "improvement" dictated by the very uneducated politicans?

Glock chose to remove the entire line. Not just Gen 3. So nothing was dictated, it was voluntary. Is that right or wrong?

I hear the argument, that if one book is still available, there is free speech and free press. Do I hear it right?

Yet there are books being banned.. You're not fighting that though..

Let the industry decide, what's the best design out of them all. Customers will either accept or deny. Government is well-known for making dubious decisions in the industry.

NHTSA decides on it which happens to be a government agency. Glock decided to pull the entire line, not just gen 3 which was banned. It was a proactive move.

They want to feel safe, so they vote for DAs who refuse to put the criminals behind the bars? Do they really want to feel safe or do they want the known thug to be in their hood?

Like i said, I agree with you here.. But politicians aren't the same as the DA or is it? We can and should be tougher on crime. I'm 100% for that. Take money away from homeless shelters and put people in prisons who do crimes that affect society.

We differ in our approach, but you ignore again. Your only answer is avoid doing anything, which is not an answer, it's complacence. Reps have no plan, period. Right?

You know the issue does have very deep political roots. You just can't deny it. Thus the solution to the issue is political.

Hence like i said, make it less political now that more dem's own guns. You avoided that for a reason, it's happening but takes time. Bring more people onboard 2A is better than making them an enemy and telling them how stupid they are when you have no plan to address their needs.

I just wish Reps had a better plan to be inclusive of the people that have problems. There's no more compromise so we try to bring that back here at least from a grass roots level. Glock made the decision because it was financially better to do so, as mentioned in software that would be considered an exploit and need to be resolved.

The courts can have the final say, just like the microstamping, but they have to look at it. You should ask the party why doesn't SCOTUS rule on it. They can raise a legal case and bring it up to SCOTUS, that's democracy right?

 

[doser]

Let the industry decide, what's the best design out of them all. Customers will either accept or deny. Government is well-known for making dubious decisions in the industry.

Better to stay on topic.. Glock is doing what's best for business or they would be like Sig Sauer. It's really that simple.

 

[SomeOne]

You can own firearms, yes or no?

If the Bible is the only book you can read, do you have a free press?

This is perspective. You think owning a firearm is freedom. Other people think freedom is walking outside freely.

Being able to choose my means of defending my freedom is what I call freedom. If my only option to call 911 and pray, it's not what I am looking for.

As mentioned, courts can overturn this and it was. I've said it again and again.

Maybe in another 20 years. You well know the court dynamics in CA.

Glock chose to remove the entire line. Not just Gen 3. So nothing was dictated, it was voluntary. Is that right or wrong?

Glock chose to remove non-profitable models. That's a business decision. Gen3 17 and 19 were very and extremely profitable, until California shut down the market.

Yet there are books being banned.. You're not fighting that though.

Do we have a roster of not unsafe books? Or a book with over 10 pages is automatically considered an assault literature? Do you have to disassemble the book to read the next 10 pages?

.
NHTSA decides on it which happens to be a government agency.

We are still comparing a privilege to drive with the right to bear arms?

Glock decided to pull the entire line, not just gen 3 which was banned. It was a proactive move.

Again, G3 17 and 19 versions were in production until recently.

Like i said, I agree with you here.. But politicians aren't the same as the DA or is it?

DAs are elected too. They have a different scope of duties, but they are still reporting to the people.

We can and should be tougher on crime. I'm 100% for that. Take money away from homeless shelters and put people in prisons who do crimes that affect society.

100%

We differ in our approach, but you ignore again. Your only answer is avoid doing anything, which is not an answer, it's complacence. Reps have no plan, period. Right?

Are we still looking for a solution? I offer it, plain and clear. I openly named the problem and suggested the most straightforward solution. I am not saying this is the only solution. There are others, but those are less effective in the short term.
Just to add a bit to my point. The bottom line of your approach is to re-educate people, who have been already convinced by the Dem propaganda that guns are bad. Do you feel you have enough resources to fight this propaganda machine? I understand you can do whatever you can in your hood, but I doubt you can be successful outside of it.

Hence like i said, make it less political now that more dem's own guns. You avoided that for a reason, it's happening but takes time. Bring more people onboard 2A is better than making them an enemy and telling them how stupid they are when you have no plan to address their needs.

I am not making anyone an enemy. I state the simple fact. Gun violence problem is artificially made-up and blown out of proportion by the Democratic party. I am not making it a political issue. They did. I simply state the fact.

 

[SomeOne]

Better to stay on topic.. Glock is doing what's best for business or they would be like Sig Sauer. It's really that simple.

The entire Gen3 production line is dead, if I understand it correctly. Would Glock close the line if CA market was still available?

 

[ikeo1]

Being able to choose my means of defending my freedom is what I call freedom. If my only option to call 911 and pray, it's not what I am looking for.

If you're on equal footing, unless you can't fight. Firearms are force multipliers. I don't know about you, but I can fight if I didn't feel like i was gonna get shot. Besides, you can still own a firearm. Look at the Classifieds It's the faux outrage as if you can't protect yourself right now.

Maybe in another 20 years. You well know the court dynamics in CA.

SCOTUS can take it up if they choose to.

I state the simple fact. Gun violence problem is artificially made-up and blown out of proportion by the Democratic party. I am not making it a political issue. They did. I simply state the fact.

Facts are things that can be proven. It's obvious this is proven wrong because there are statistics that back this up. Facts don't care about feelings. The fact is, there are more people who want 2A banned in CA than not. We're trying to change that attitude, but unfortunately your approach wouldn't change anything.

Being open minded is difficult for a lot of people. The fact is with our approach it does far more and has better reach because we bring people in, a much larger and diverse group in California. The current rep approach has made no progress, it's only builds bigger divides. The more new people we train the more we likely gained respect and traction for 2A for them, their family, and eventually friends.

 

[SomeOne]

If you're on equal footing, unless you can't fight. Firearms are force multipliers. I don't know about you, but I can fight if I didn't feel like i was gonna get shot. Besides, you can still own a firearm. Look at the Classifieds It's the faux outrage as if you can't protect yourself right now.

Shall not be infringed, right? Look at the variety of modern design firearms available in the free states for a portion of the asking price in Classified. I can protect myself with a musket too, potentially. Nobody needs more than 2-3 shots in a self-defense situation, right?

SCOTUS can take it up if they choose to.

Before it gets to SCOTUS, it will take long years in 9CA. Even then, the volume of cert petitions is huge.

Facts are things that can be proven. It's obvious this is proven wrong because there are statistics that back this up. Facts don't care about your feelings. The fact is, there are more people who want 2A banned in CA than not. We're trying to change that attitude, but unfortunately your approach wouldn't change anything.

Being open minded is difficult for a lot of people. The fact is with our approach it does far more and has better reach because we bring people in, a much larger and diverse group in California. The current rep approach has made no progress, it's only builds bigger divides. The more new people we train the more we likely gained respect and traction for 2A for them and their family and eventually friends.

Like I mentioned above, you chose a re-education approach. I respect this, but I doubt you will be largely successful fighting the big screen and front page propaganda.

 

[couragewolf]

Not every GOP is exactly an avid 2A supporter. However, I yet to see one pro-2A Dem politician. Harris? Biden? Obama? Or maybe the newest gun guy Newsom?

If the Bible is the only book you can read, do you have a free press?


Being able to choose my means of defending my freedom is what I call freedom. If my only option to call 911 and pray, it's not what I am looking for.


Maybe in another 20 years. You well know the court dynamics in CA.




Glock chose to remove non-profitable models. That's a business decision. Gen3 17 and 19 were very and extremely profitable, until California shut down the market.



Do we have a roster of not unsafe books? Or a book with over 10 pages is automatically considered an assault literature? Do you have to disassemble the book to read the next 10 pages?



We are still comparing a privilege to drive with the right to bear arms?



Again, G3 17 and 19 versions were in production until recently.


DAs are elected too. They have a different scope of duties, but they are still reporting to the people.




100%


Are we still looking for a solution? I offer it, plain and clear. I openly named the problem and suggested the most straightforward solution. I am not saying this is the only solution. There are others, but those are less effective in the short term.
Just to add a bit to my point. The bottom line of your approach is to re-educate people, who have been already convinced by the Dem propaganda that guns are bad. Do you feel you have enough resources to fight this propaganda machine? I understand you can do whatever you can in your hood, but I doubt you can be successful outside of it.



I am not making anyone an enemy. I state the simple fact. Gun violence problem is artificially made-up and blown out of proportion by the Democratic party. I am not making it a political issue. They did. I simply state the fact.

If violence is blown out of proportion maybe we can also start spending less on law enforcement

 

[ikeo1]

Just to add a bit to my point. The bottom line of your approach is to re-educate people, who have been already convinced by the Dem propaganda that guns are bad. Do you feel you have enough resources to fight this propaganda machine? I understand you can do whatever you can in your hood, but I doubt you can be successful outside of it.

This is an important point. You're right.. The thing is, with all the crime more people are open to 2A and firearms than you think, why do you think so many guns are coming on roster? CGN loves to tout this as a Reddit left leaning site when in reality, its just a place for Californians to land.

Our resources are increasing as more and more people sign on and support the site. People and businesses donate, we sponsor matches, events, classes, and shooters. The doubt is completely understandable and expected, I've been doubted since this place launched. We're close to 27k members and still growing at a healthy rate so it tells me things are working. Out of 27k there's 11k members who visit within 30 days. IMO we're definitely making more and more of a positive difference. To give perspective, this time last year we were at ~6k members total.

The skepticism is healthy. It's actually been quite surprising. We'll do our best to grow the 2A community in CA.

 

[SomeOne]

This is an important point. You're right.. The thing is, with all the crime more people are open to 2A and firearms than you think, why do you think so many guns are coming on roster? CGN loves to tout this as a Reddit left leaning site when in reality, its just a place for Californians to land.

Our resources are increasing as more and more people sign on and support the site. People and businesses donate, we sponsor matches, events, classes, and shooters. The doubt is completely understandable and expected, I've been doubted since this place launched. We're close to 27k members and still growing at a healthy rate so it tells me things are working. Out of 27k there's 11k members who visit within 30 days. IMO we're definitely making more and more of a positive difference. To give perspective, this time last year we were at ~6k members total.

The skepticism is healthy. It's actually been quite surprising. We'll do our best to grow the 2A community in CA.

You are doing a great job here, especially for the Dem audience rejected on Calguns. I really respect your time and efforts. And like I said, you will be successful in your hood, but 60%+ of Californians will continue voting for the gun control agenda, unless Dem party finally drops it from the roll. I still want to see it my lifespan, that's probably I suggest a more aggressive approach.

 

[SomeOne]

If violence is blown out of proportion maybe we can also start spending less on law enforcement

You are taking it out of the context. The exact phrase was gun violence issue is blown out of proportion. Do I need to explain it further down?

 

[couragewolf]

You are taking it out of the context. The exact phrase was gun violence issue is blown out of proportion. Do I need to explain it further down?

I mean, gun violence is presumably the violence I need police officers to reduce the risk of experiencing I'm not sure I need the police protecting me from cat calls from ornry construction workers or pocket goblins