California adopts nation's broadest gun seizure laws | Hacker News Reader

California adopts nation's broadest gun seizure laws

foxnews.com

5 pointskoolba10 comments

Society clearly needs some kind of control over who can own weapons/chemicals/etc capable to kill (a lot of) people. That's simple and almost everyone would agree with that. What people disagree about, is what public institution should be responsible for that. Some people say it's government's job, others are afraid that government being too powerful is too big of a risk. So who is right? Is there an alternative to government for such a job? Is it any better?

That is how discussion about gun control should look like, instead people just scream some nonsense at each other.

  weapons... capable to kill (a lot of) people

A rental truck was used to kill 86 and injure 458 in one incident (Nice, France, 2016). That's a greater toll than most USA mass shootings since then combined.

The Murrah Building bombing in OKC, killing 168, likewise needed only a rental truck and conventionally available components.

Completely agree.

I think society is too focused on instruments invented for violence and defense instead of violence(and defense) itself.

And yet my original statement is still accurate, as i said there is a consensus that dangerous things should be somewhat limited in use by 'dangerous' people. Like cars are.

Regarding guns. Instead of arguing should everyone have unrestricted access or not(like media is portraying it) people should talk about solutions that wouldn't involve government, because it's the only compromise those two camps can find(pro and anti gun).

P.S. most 'mass shootings' in us(in terms of media, when a few people got shot by single shooter or something like that) happened with illegal guns, which means instead of trying to create more regulation, people should figure out why current regulation doesn't work. And if there is no clear reason. Try other methods.

  Instead of arguing should everyone have unrestricted access

Who is arguing for unrestricted access?

I think there are people who argue for that, but regardless, media and supporters of gun confiscation(meaning radical position on that side) certainly portrays everyone who think that current regulation is enough as unrestricted access supporters. Which makes it look like restricted/unrestricted conversation, when in fact it's not or shouldn't be.

This is a good example of what frustrates me about gun control: I think that America needs more gun control, but the people who propose gun control laws don't seem to take the time to find ways to protect legitimate gun owners.

It reminds me of a problem that I feel happens with software security: People think about the security of a policy/design by trying to identify whether the privacy/security protections are correct. Instead they should be thinking about how the system could be incorrect (i.e. how it could be exploited to hurt people).

Wow. The ACLU generally stays away from fights over gun rights. But even they don't like this:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposed the bill, saying it "poses a significant threat to civil liberties" because a restraining order can be sought before a gun owner has an opportunity to dispute the request.

ACLU does not believe the Second Amendment provides an individual right to gun ownership, but they have become more willing to insert themselves on issues where gun owners other civil liberties are being trampled on.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/civil-liberties/mobilization/aclus...

CA owes its progress to the laws that ban non-compete agreements. IIRC, the anti gun laws were enacted to prevent black people from getting any real power in the era when segregation existed.

  anti gun laws were enacted to prevent black people from getting any real power in the era when segregation existed

CA was never a "Jim Crow" state with legally-enabled segregation, but there was plenty of de facto segregation accomplished using zoning[0], deed covenants, etc.

Concealed carry bans with discretionary permit exceptions have racist roots (so sheriffs/chiefs could limit permits to "good white folks").

A clear example of CA legislation motivated by race-war fear was when the Black Panther Party demonstrated with long guns with live rounds in them. Until that point, long guns were not considered "loaded" unless a round was chambered. That law was quickly changed, with an Urgency Clause allowing it to take immediate effect.

[0] The recent series "Blue Sky Metropolis" (recommended) discussed the postwar influx of black workers into southern California aircraft plants. They often had to commute long distances because new suburbs were limited to whites, forcing non-whites into areas like Chinatown.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com