
Geoff Ralston, Y Combinator President, supports gun confiscation orders, UBCs - wowzap
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1699-gun-control-letter-to-the-sena/3258ed616a016f80dfa3/optimized/full.pdf#page=1
======
yongjik
Stop editorializing the title. The link is just a PDF file of a public
petition to the Senate, where the bolded paragraph reads:

> That's why we urge the Senate to stand with the American public and take
> action on gun safety by passing a bill to require background checks on all
> gun sales and a strong Red Flag law that would allow courts to issue life-
> saving extreme risk protection orders.

And nowhere in the document appears "confiscation", "confiscate", etc.

~~~
wowzap
Red Flag Laws = Gun Confiscation Orders. Just because they aren't using the
most accurate terms doesn't mean I am editorializing the article. Look at
their implementation in the states.

All of these laws have the same ends, gun confiscation before due process.
Maybe the due process takes place in a week, maybe it takes place in a year,
in any case, these are gun confiscation orders with no conviction of a crime
and in many cases, no evidence that a crime has even occurred.

Red Flag Laws = Gun Confiscation Orders.

~~~
yongjik
Guns = Lethal Killing Machines, but if New York Times writes "Silicon Valley
luminaries want fewer lethal killing machines in society" I'm pretty sure
you'll be unhappy about the title.

Editorializing is editorializing.

------
mindcrime
It's sad to see an apparently intelligent person embrace this kind of
stupidity.

Rates of firearms ownership in the US have been declining steadily anyway, so
even IF you buy the idea that gun violence is increasing (and there's evidence
that it isn't), then you have to question how "more gun control" is the answer
when gun ownership and violence are already un-correlated (or even negatively
correlated).

~~~
wowzap
Those are my feelings too.. I understand how the public can be swayed by
inaccurate media representations, but it's Y Combinator which seems to portray
itself as a source of intelligent people.

~~~
mindcrime
The thing is, I can understand people who, swayed by inflammatory media
reporting and Bloomberg-funded propaganda, experience an emotional reaction to
these various shooting incidents, and immediately think "something MUST be
done". I get it, even if I think most of their proposals are useless, or
actively harmful, in terms of reducing violence and protecting the innocent.

BUT, I think a lot of people on the "more gun control" side are actually
pushing a very specific agenda, which has absolutely nothing to do with
"public safety" or "protecting the children" at all. It's an ideological /
elitist mentality that says "only WE should have guns, and the common riff-
raff need to be disarmed one way or another". This position I have zero
sympathy towards, and the only correct response to this, IMO, is "come and
take 'em".

#molonlabe

------
sarcasmatwork
@GeoffRalston, Who is giving you money to say and agree on dumb shit like
this? Go read the Obama era CDC research on gun violence and learn something
instead of agreeing to things that are not based on facts.

[https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/cdc-gun-research-
backf...](https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-
obama/249799)

