
California adopts nation's broadest gun seizure laws - koolba
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-expands-gun-seizure-law
======
seniorivn
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.

~~~
DrScump

      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.

~~~
seniorivn
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.

~~~
masonic

      Instead of arguing should everyone have unrestricted access
    

Who is arguing for _unrestricted_ access?

~~~
seniorivn
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.

------
harimau777
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).

------
PhantomGremlin
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._

~~~
tbyehl
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...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/civil-
liberties/mobilization/aclus-position-gun-control)

------
jkp56
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.

~~~
DrScump

      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.

