Hacker News Reader

Comment by devnulloverflow | Hacker News Reader

A public safety rationale would be about cops service weapons. The parent post sounds like he means individual cops can buy guns on the open market as private citizens would be allowed to do in states with looser gun laws.

View on HN

He does and that is currently the law in CA. Police officers can buy any handgun with any magazine capacity they like as personal property.

That looks, on it's face, like a violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause.

Great point! I’ve never heard that said before.

Cops actually buy most of their equipment on the open market, replacing and upgrading it as needed. Think about it: we don't have special, government-only clothing, boot or weapons factories in the US anymore. If we did, we'd have the same planned economy shortages and overruns that any other such system does.

Cops are also allowed to keep guns after they retire. It's important to remember that guns are issued to police for self-defence, since the work they undertake puts them in harm's way. That doesn't change after they retire.

Oh come on, they really aren't in harms way after retiring with maybe a handful of exceptions. There's no reason they should be allowed to CC in all 50 states. Especially since literally no one else has that right.

Oh come on, they really are. Think about it: they typically retire in the area where they've been a cop. Criminals know who they are and where they live, and have for years -- and criminals never retire. Cops should definitely be allowed to carry concealed in all 50 states.

That no one else has that right maybe tells us we should expand CCW reciprocity. It's already something like 35 states.

>Criminals know who they are and where they live, and have for years

I'd need to see some stats on how often retited police officers are retaliated against by criminals before I'll buy that this is anywhere near likely enough to worry about.

Even if the answer is zero that doesn't prove what you're hoping it would because as has been discussed, in reality those retired cops still have their weapons and criminals are aware of that.

Elsewhere in the world retired cops do not have weapons.

Everywhere else in the world? How do you know that?

Are you trying to discredit gun rights advocates?

What countries are you referring to in your reply? Pretty tough to fact check “elsewhere”.

So the hypothesis is that criminals want to kill retired cops, but they don't because they know the cops still have guns? I'm not buying that. If someone really wants to kill you, and they know where you live, a gun in your house or in holster isn't going to stop them. You can't be constantly on alert.

What's the problem, really?

How many retired law enforcement officers go on binge shooting sprees?

Or should we oppose them having a legally purchased firearm just because?

>What's the problem, really?

The double standard!

Perhaps that means we should do away with the double standard... But not in the way a few might hope.

I don't think there really is that huge of a problem, but the justification for these special rules seems a bit absurd. If you want to treat retired cops differently and give them special privileges, just say so. Stop positioning as something that retired cops need because of all the criminals out hunting them down.

I'm saying that it seems likely that there is at least some deterrent effect, yes. I'm not sure what the magnitude of the effect is, but I can't imagine that knowing someone inside is armed has no deterrent effect against would be invaders or that being armed provides no defense advantage should they do so.

We're not talking about your normal criminals who have some economic motive, we're talking about people who are already acting against their own self interest and to take revenge.

Either way assuming that being armed doesn't provide a 100% effective deterrent, statistics should still help us here. Even assuming a very high deterrence rate, you would still expect to see at least a handful of revenge murders of retired cops every year if this was a significant problem at all.

>provides no defense advantage should they do so

This one should be very easy to determine. How many times each year do armed retired cops thwart revenge attacks?

From what a quick Google search tells me both of these things basically never happen.

Are you saying that there's a difference in deterrent effect between a 2013 glock and a 2019 glock?

If not, how are these police privileges remotely relevant to any need beyond that of a normal citizen?

Point: everyone does have that right, it is just unconstitutionally abridged.

You are generalizing, but that general reasoning doesn't make any sense when applied to specific people and laws.

First of all, why are they not bound by the same magazine capacity limits? If more than 10 rounds are needed for self defense, shouldn't everyone in the state have that tool at their disposal (per Heller)?

Similar question about buying a newer model of pistol. Why would the 2019 model be crucial to keep a retired cop from getting gunned down, but forbidden to others? There isn't even a major functional difference between a 2013 glock and a 2019 glock.

And generalizations about how retired police somehow need their special guns and nobody else does are just not compatible with the notion of individual rights. I bet a lot of abused women are in much greater danger than an average retired cop. Who decides who the special groups are that get special privileges?

Fundamentally, a police officer is a citizen. It happens that their job is dangerous, and I respect and admire their courage. But it's also a position of power, and we need to keep that under some control so that we maintain trust. Arbitrary privileges erode that trust.

Perhaps you've stumbled unwittingly into the real reason behind current gun control measures in California and some other states.

It's not about keeping people safer, nor about making it easier to track criminals...

It would be less offensive to just be transparent about these regulations. It's about making it more difficult for anyone to legally purchase or maintain a firearm.

The shoe is on the other foot -- we really need to justify the restrictions. Why is it a good idea for cops not to have those guns?

The argument you make about Gen 3 vs Gen 5 Glocks actually suggests there is no reason to restrict the general public from buying them, either. The Gen 5 has duplicate controls for left-handed shooting and is thus safer for some people.

All the points you are making are basically why the laws are dumb -- 10 round magazines are not significantly safer for the public than 17 round magazines, for example -- and no one likes to be subject to useless restrictions. Least of all cops.

> we don't have special, government-only clothing, boot or weapons factories in the US anymore. If we did, we'd have the same planned economy shortages and overruns that any other such system does.

But now, Western governments have to endure usurious prices or massive budget/time overruns for basic supplies (e.g. Germany has a problem with shoes for soldiers), quality issues (in Germany, G36 rifle, police uniforms in Bavaria and IIRC there were also issues with protection vests).

Planned economy Soviet-style didn't fail because of being what it was, it failed because of a lack of data gathering and processing (demand modeling), as well as the procedural inflexibility to react to short term changes.

Those problems often exist because of single sourcing, and the arsenal system was often much worse. Protection vests, helmets and other stuff that meet military standards are actually quite affordable in the US and there are multiple vendors for all of them. A good search to run online to see what the system looks like is “AR 670 boots”.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com