How They Got Their Guns | Hacker News Reader

How They Got Their Guns

nytimes.com

8 pointsjseliger13 comments

Open articleView on HN

Why do we keep focusing on the guns? The weapon of choice is the least important part of the entire problem.

Until the media will stop with the hype, and focus on the "why", rather than the "how", the cycle will continue.

We need to attack these types of problems with logic rather than emotion.

Agreed, but logic doesn't sell newspapers or help politicians win votes.

It appears that there are insufficient hurdles in the US between having an idea to cause mass harm its execution.

In countries with arms restrictions, the necessity to go the black market/organized crime to acquire arms appears to set a higher bar for people who want to be mass shooters and reduce the number of people who have the ability to plan and carry out such actions.

In the US unfortunately, it appears that just about anyone, even with some past history of mental stability/radicalism is able to walk into shops and legally buy arms.

one of the issues the article brings up, but does nothing (that i saw) to debate it is in regards to 'mental health'. At what point is someone deemed 'unfit' to own a weapon? schizophrenia? depression? anyone on 'medication'? and WHO gets to make that determination? a politician more concerned about their next election than about the population as a whole.

There are people in prison and on trial who are 'forced' to take medication to make them well enough to stand trial. Also, the number of 'depressed' police officers and those currently in military service who are fighting depression is staggering.

The problem is, once you draw 'a' line, it will always slide. Hence, you see people up in arms (get it?) over their rights. Far too many people are worried about the immediate dangers than about the bigger picture as a whole. They're too worried about their own lives to see what is affecting the whole community, state, region, or country.

also - unsurprisingly, the article mentions nothing of the events that happen daily that guns are used to protect people - which put together, would equal the prevention of mass shooting, weekly, if not daily. Being the NYT, it doesn't fit their narrative.

First they came for the AR's. and I said nothing because I didn't own an AR.... where does that 'line' start, worse, where does it end?

At what point is someone deemed 'unfit' to own a weapon?

When (s)he uses it in an ill-conceived manner.

While that may sound glib, it's an unfortunate truth: you cannot anticipate all the ways in which an individual can fly off the handle. The best you can do is to provide for earlier, softer escape routes (e.g. counseling, family cohesion, social security).

Since gun control seems to go nowhere, maybe it is time to reconsider allowing the NSA domestic access?

>>Since gun control seems to go nowhere, maybe it is time to reconsider allowing the NSA domestic access?

HA! they're gonna do it whether we 'allow' them access or not... As if 'We' had any say in it...

But if they're already doing domestic surveillance and still can't prevent this, then they're incompetent. As it is now, the NSA isn't even being discussed because they're legally not allowed to snoop on domestic terrorists. Allowing the practice opens them up to criticism when events like these continue happening.

Right now, they have the best of both worlds: all access and no responsibilities.

/seems a bit off topic, but here goes:

Part of that is that 'domestic terrorist' has not been defined. As we can see with the IRS, whether you agree or disagree, the fact is that they specifically targeted companies with names thought to be associated with a specific political bent. They had 'responsibilities' and 'oversight', but the people in charge of that either didn't care or purposefully broke the 'rules'. Does 'the State' then designate those 503c orgs as 'terrorists'?

If you start defining terrorism the same way the State department does: "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

then that opens the flood gates of every agency who has armed agents to be defined as a 'terrorist' organization. Why does the EPA/IRS/Dept. of Ed have armed agents? Hell, try not paying your property tax and see what the local Sheriff's dept. does... This country is based on taxation by threat of violence...

pretty much every mass murder in states is worse than the previous.

how many are people needed to be killed at once to stop this madness with gun ownership?

(edited formatting)

well, considering MORE (legal) gun ownership promotes LESS crime, these incidents only increase knee-jerk reactions in people who already have certain agendas set in their minds. Look at the big picture.

Airplanes crash killing hundreds at a time, its STILL the safest mode of transport... Also, why aren't the 'gun grabbers' complaining about Chicago where this happens EVERY WEEKEND? Are 'gun grabbers' racist?

Violent crime is on the decrease. an 'inconvenient truth' that 'grabbers' don't like to talk about. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/...

What would constitute sufficient complaining about Chicago?

Have you looked for that? Are you sure it doesn't exist?

oh it does to some degree, but I've only seen it once here on HN. What I meant by that is that the MSM doesn't cover it nearly as much as one of these sensationalized events. You don't see the headlines much (if at all) on MSN, CNN or Huffington, but they scream about guns when something like Orlando happens.

The differences being that the guns are usually legally purchased by the assailant (aside from Adam Lanza) and that the victims are (in the majority) Caucasian.

That article was, unfortunately, longer than I expected.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com