Comment by jonstokes | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonstokes | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

As someone else pointed out about this post elsewhere, there are very few things that any of us actually "need" -- do you need running water and indoor plumbing? Or, to bring it a little closer to home, does anyone really need an outdoor uncovered pool, or a drink of alcohol?

But anyway, before this gets derailed, the point of the post was really about laying out the rationales for the AR-15, while openly acknowledging that many people will still find them insufficient. What I really wanted to do, though, is move the discussion away from the "rednecks with small penises" rut that it seems to be stuck in. The "need" phrasing was the framing I chose in order to hook into the "nobody needs an assault rifle" phrase that's repeated over and over again.

At any rate, again, I acknowledged up front that I wouldn't be able to convince everybody, or even most people, and that I was ok with that as long as people on the other side of the "assault weapon" debate could gain some new information about these firearms and their appeal to non-crazy, non-penis-size-compensating, non-military-fetishist normal people.

Thank you for writing this article. On balance, I disagree with the justification but it's so much more clear and thoughtful than the popular discussion about gun rights from either end of the political spectrum.

Hooking into the "nobody needs an assault rifle" refrain is important, in part because it is evaluated differently by people on each side of the issue. Because powerful weapons can actively project harm from one person to another, they are in a different category from other opt-in dangerous things like an outdoor uncovered pool and drinking alcohol.

Driving a car is frequently cited in these debates as one of those "you don't need it, but it is incredibly dangerous and causes huge numbers of deaths" activities, but I still think that gun ownership is a few steps higher on the risk-vs-utility scale, and therefore should be treated differently - there needs to be a dedicated debate that isn't sidelined by analogies to other risky activities. Those analogies complicate more than they clarify.

I don't think anyone disputes that there are many things that we do that we don't need to do. These are luxuries and desires and many are allowed and legalised and many are not.

However not all luxuries are created equal.

If indulging in your luxury creates circumstances where others are now at more risk then I don't think that is OK anymore.

Having deadly weapons broadly available definitely increases homicide and mass shootings, the evidence is irrefutable.

My point and many others is that luxuries are not rights, they are not things you need and as such should not be protected beyond general freedoms. However there is a cap on freedom and that is when it infringes on the freedoms or rights of others. In this case the right to be safe and the freedom to live life without fear of these sorts of horrible things happening.

> Having deadly weapons broadly available definitely increases homicide and mass shootings, the evidence is irrefutable.

Really? As I understand it, gun ownership has increased significantly over the last two decades, and homicide and mass shootings have gone down over that same time period.

It sounds like you think it's "obvious" that availability of firearms drives people dying from firearms, but the studies I've seen don't indicate a link.

Kind of like how availability of porn doesn't drive incidences of rape, even though intuitively, a person might expect that it should.

Take a look at the stats of mass shootings or even just homicide committed with a deadly weapon in countries without gun control vs those without.

The difference isn't just striking. It's actually pretty awful to think about.

It's beyond conclusive that broad availability of firearms if not the cause is definitely highly correlated.

> It's beyond conclusive that broad availability of firearms if not the cause is definitely highly correlated.

Based on my time hanging out at Slater Star Codex, the amount of shooting deaths varies in the US largely based on culture. If you take a country like The Netherlands and find the equivalent culture in the US, violent crime rates are basically identical—despite the fact that the US has far more guns per capita (within their respective, equivalent cultures).

Frankly, talking about the "US" as if it was culturally homogenous is so misleading that it's borderline unethical. Once you tease apart the statistics, guns don't stand out as a problem for certain cultures (again, AFAICT based on discussions with other people I trust).

Well, comparing Mexico (tons of gun control) to say Vermont (not much gun control) doesn't make gun control look very effective.

You're looking at the wrong statistic - the number of guns Americans own has increased significantly, but today only about 32% of American households have guns present compared to close to 50% in the late 1970s[0]. The same poll found 22% of individuals owned one or more guns in 2015 compared to 31% in 1985.

[0]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/number-of-households-with-guns-o...

So you're saying that "people who want guns" have far more guns than they used to, and yet, gun crime has decreased?!?

That's not exactly a strong argument for increased gun control.

(FWIW The statistic that is useful isn't "gun ownership" across all cultures in the US, it's within specific sub-populations. There are huge discrepancies among violent crime across different sub-populations in the US, and without breaking them out, violent crime statistics make little sense, either individually or over time.)

Slice and dice how you like. Your implication that "more guns" == "less crime" is, at best, unproven, and your citation of incorrect trends doesn't change that. Conversely, the rest of the large, highly industrialized, developed nations with liberal democracies have tight gun control laws and homicide rates a fraction of the US's.

Also, I have no idea what your "porn is to rape as guns are to murder" comparison attempts to illustrate. I don't know how to point porn at someone and..well, that's as far as that needs to go. As syllogisms go, that's pretty damned broken.

Whether anyone "wants" or "needs" an AR-15 or any other type of firearm, the rest of us need to know that anyone around us with such a weapon has some basic competence in using it and is responsible enough to do so. I had to pass a written and and practical test and I have to show financial responsibility to operate a car. If you can do that with your AR-15 then I won't object to your having it.

I suspect you are a careful, conscientious, and responsible gun owner and would have no problem demonstrating this, but there are a lot of people who have guns who are neither careful, conscientious, nor responsible. I hope you won't mind having to demonstrate your competence so that society can stop the other people, the irresponsible ones.

And of course, you might say that even if we had such requirement to demonstrate responsibility, the irresponsible people would circumvent the system and have guns anyway. I'm sure that's true for a few, but it would remove many guns from irresponsible hands and it would give law enforcement a reason to arrest the others and get them off the streets.

I read an article earlier that pointed out that in police shootings in NYC that they hit their target less than 50% of the time. Unfortunately, even light training isn't enough. And short of sending everyone into the military for active duty in combat, most people won't be thoroughly literate.

It's about personal freedom and liberty... I'm in favor of them, even if I choose not to own one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com