| ▲ | Buttons840 3 hours ago |
| Regulating actual guns that are frequently used in crime? Unlikely. Regulating theoretical guns? No requirement is too draconian. |
|
| ▲ | ggreer 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| California has lots of restrictions on firearms. When I lived in the state, I had to get a firearm safety certificate (which involved paying some money and taking a multiple choice test), present my ID for a background check, get my thumb print taken, submit two forms of proof of my address (such as utility bills), demonstrate safe handling of a firearm, and wait 10 days. A cell phone bill didn't count as proof of address, only fixed utilities like water & electricity. I'm sure this denied many renters the ability to purchase firearms. Also I could only purchase firearms on California's roster (a whitelist of firearm makes and models). Popular firearms such as 4th generation Glocks were not on the roster, though cops were allowed to buy them. Also firearms couldn't have threaded barrels (it's a felony to put one on your gun) and magazines were limited to a capacity of 10 rounds. Carrying a handgun for self-defense was impossible, as the local authorities only gave out permits to those with political connections. This caused a scandal in 2020 when the Santa Clara County Sheriff was caught issuing concealed carry permits to bodyguards at Apple in exchange for iPads.[1] Thanks to Bruen[2] it is now possible for any law-abiding citizen to get a permit if they jump through all the hoops (which includes fingerprinting, a psych eval, and examination of your social media posts), though it can take over a year to process the application and costs can exceed $1,000. At some point the law changed to require a background check to buy ammunition, which always failed for me. I never figured out why, but my guess is that my name didn't fit in the state's database. This sort of thing happened to around 10% of legal gun owners in the state. I never got it sorted out before I moved away. 1. https://www.reuters.com/business/apples-security-chief-accus... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_&_Pistol_... |
| |
|
| ▲ | Spivak 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You have described the lawmaking process of basically any country. We can't actually write laws to solve real problems because real problems are hard and you can actually tell whether they've been solved or not, but we can write laws to solve imaginary problems and then when nothing changes declare victory. You can pretty much tell when any given administration has run out of ideas once they start making a huge amount of noise about laws that affect to first and second order literally nobody. 3-D printed guns is basically California's version of illegal immigrants voting in elections. Both things happen to a vanishingly small degree that it's not worth taking any action on either, but you can make them sound like they're the greatest threat to America if you have a megaphone loud enough. |
| |
| ▲ | nickff 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I’ve observed this behavior, but never came up with such a succinct (perhaps pithy) way of describing it. | | |
| ▲ | Gormo 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How about "when your career depends on appearing to solve problems, fake ones are much easier than real ones". | |
| ▲ | vkou 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > but never came up with such a succinct (perhaps pithy) way of describing it. Here's one. "Life is complicated, so is rule-making." | | |
| ▲ | nickff 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is indeed pithy, but does not capture the contrast of the great-grandparent comment. |
|
| |
| ▲ | xienze 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Both things happen to a vanishingly small degree that it's not worth taking any action on either Eh, small thing there. Ever notice how when discussion about voter ID laws in the US come up that commenters from other countries are absolutely blown away by the idea of not having to show an ID when you vote? Because it’s such an obvious thing to not just leave up to the honor system, like we do? Point being, everyone else seems to think this “thing that could never happen” is worth safeguarding against. | | |
| ▲ | Spivak 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're right it's a very obvious thing that you should have to show your government issued ID to verify who you are to a civic function, and that relying on the honor system is something that seems like it could never work because elections are serious and people have vested interest in particular outcomes and so would obviously look to cheat. But this is what I'm talking about it being a theoretical problem. It's so obvious that this could be an issue but it's not an actual issue and the USA stands as an example that, counterintuitively, you actually can rely on the honor system. And so because the system currently works as it is and there's no real problem to point to I think it is reasonable to be inherently suspicious of the motives of a government that wants to make a thing harder without being able to point to a concrete problem. A less controversial example on hacker news would be having to show your government ID to access porn. We are all rightfully suspicious of the motives of a government that wants that when to most Americans it is plainly obvious that there is not a real problem being solved. It's so obvious that you should have to show proof that you're 18 in order to access 18 and up material but we have more than two decades of proof that just asking them if they're 18 and up works well enough. | | |
| ▲ | xienze 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think you’re making the mistake of assuming that this thing that we can’t really verify (because we can’t make sure <person voting> = <person registered> at the polls) isn’t happening, precisely because we can’t accurately verify it. It’s not a theoretical concern that voter rolls can be stale (because of not removing dead people or people who have moved in a timely manner) or otherwise inaccurate. And attempts to actually purge voter rolls always meet stiff resistance as some nefarious ploy to disenfranchise voters. There is at any time a non-zero chance that you could vote using the name of someone who’s either dead or not around any more. So why so much resistance to safeguarding against that? Nevermind the added benefit that a national ID card could be used as a real replacement for Social Security numbers. But again, so much resistance to something that every other country thinks is a good idea. Which is even more assuming since we point to “well everyone else does it that way” for so many issues. But voter ID? Oh, well that’s complicated, couldn’t possibly work here. | | |
| ▲ | throwway120385 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | They meet stiff resistance because they're always done at election time and only selectively. Voter ID laws are a non-starter because historically they've been used, along with literacy tests and civics tests, to disenfranchise people who can't get an ID. For example, in Idaho you must have "proof of your identity and age" like a birth certificate or citizenship certificate, plus proof of residency like a utility bill or rental agreement or employment record. These things are easy for most people to provide, but people who are in unstable living situations may find these things impossible to provide. Requiring those people to provide ID at the polls would effectively disenfranchise them. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | xienze 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Regulating actual guns that are frequently used in crime? Unlikely. Well, two things. First, your phrasing implies there’s no regulations around firearm ownership at all, which is not true. Second, much to the chagrin of California and similar states, that pesky second amendment exists. Which makes the kind of regulations they _want_ around firearms (i.e., regulate/tax them out of existence) kind of tricky. But presumably regulations around what you can do with a 3D printer are much easier to handle from a constitutional perspective. |
| |
| ▲ | 0x457 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Which makes the kind of regulations they _want_ around firearms (i.e., regulate/tax them out of existence) kind of tricky. Not really. They do whatever regulations they want all the time. It's just sometimes federal government steps in and forces certain local laws to not be enforced. I was able to get CCW permit in LA only due to such intervention. | |
| ▲ | postalrat 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There also exists a pesky fourth amendment that should protect people from laws like this but unfortunately it doesn't have the industry and lobbing that the second amendment has. | |
| ▲ | sellmesoap 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The 28th amendment: right to keep and bare 3D printers |
|
