Hacker News Reader

Comment by hueving | Hacker News Reader

There is a non-trivial portion of the population that feels rifles only exist to kill other people. How would you convince them to take such a course?

View on HN

Well, as adults that can make their own decision, that would be up to them, of course.

Hopefully this isn't too political, but I will try and answer your question.

Part of self-reliance is the ability to make your environment safe. This is why you learn first-aid, CPR, how to use a fire extinguisher, how to properly use a knife, etc.

In the United States, there are more firearms then people. This trend shows no signs of stopping any time in the near future.

Statistically speaking, in a group that focuses on outdoor activities and self-reliance, there will be multiple gun owners. Some will probably have concealed weapons permits.

Taking a gun into the wilderness is a sensible precaution. There are any number of dangerous critters, especially the ones with rabies.

While in the backcountry, you will also run into other people that are armed.

Our hypothetical non-gun-person is therefore going to be around guns.

Guns are dangerous.

Not knowing how to safely handle a gun makes non-gun people potentially dangerous to both themselves, and other people.

The responsible thing is therefore to learn how to safely handle a weapon, including how to unload and clear it.

They don't need to ever buy one, own one, or even like guns.

But knowing gun safety is right up there with knowing CPR.

You don't learn CPR by reading a book. You do it by practicing in a controlled environment.

Same for gun safety.

I was in body pump class, and the instructor said 'show us those guns'. after class, one of the attendees told the instructor they were pro gun control and were offended by his comments, and asked that he didn't say it anymore.

There's always "that guy".

This sounds so ... American ... to me. I've spent over a 100 days camping in the backcountry (and many more day trips) and never once carried a gun. Only once have I seen someone carrying firearms and it was a ranger specifically tasked with destroying a problematic bear.

It just seems so much easier to just avoid wildlife in most places.

It's very rare in the United States, as well. There's a small number of folks who carry rifles for protection against bears, particularly in places like Alaska where you're extremely likely to encounter bears and also possibly angry moose; most just carry bear spray, or just have a bell and talk or sing, so they don't accidentally sneak up on a bear.

I've hiked in probably 30 of the 50 states, and have met a very small number of people openly carrying guns of any sort (maybe some had concealed pistols for defense against people; that's a reasonably common thing, and there's a permit for concealed carry in most states).

Aside from the handful of states that do not regulate concealed carry, every state has a permit process for concealed carry. There are none remaining now that prohibit it outright.

It would probably be hard to convince them. But I'd try by drawing the parallels with encryption and illegal activity. To rephrase your statement

    There is a non-trivial portion of the population
    that feels encryption only exists to hide illegal
    activity. How would you convince them to use a VPN?

Well, it also helps that encryption is a non-violent technology.

I am very much pro-encryption-for-the-masses, but also consider it to be important to be able to argue multiple angles on any issue.

So, playing Devil's Advocate, here is what an anti-encryption person would say in response:

Nobody really needs encryption, and the common availability of military-grade encryption powers terrorism on a global scale.

Terrorist groups use encryption to organize and coordinate attacks, such as the mass shooting in Paris that claimed 137 lives, with an additional 400 injuries.

If this technology could be countered by intelligence agencies and law enforcement, it would become almost impossible to use the Internet to coordinate terror attacks, or to secretly support terror groups.

Thousands of innocent lives could be saved if we just limited encryption to low-strength variants, which are still strong enough to safeguard emails and documents from nosy coworkers.

And really, what legitimate use is there for strong encryption? If the government wants your salsa recipe, they are just going to throw you in prison until you tell them. Your online payments will still be secure if the government holds a master key. The only reason you would need strong encryption without government oversight is if you have something dangerous to hide.

>Terrorist groups use encryption to organize and coordinate attacks, such as the mass shooting in Paris that claimed 137 lives, with an additional 400 injuries.

This is not true, and you should not allow someone to get away with statements like these. The Paris attackers made extensive use of unencrypted burner phones. Far from supporting it, this actually deals a fatal blow to the idea that terrorists could be stopped, if it weren't for that pesky encryption. They demonstrably can't.

I'm frightened that, as a meme, "paris attacks demonstrate the need to weaken encryption" actually got off the ground. It demonstrates the power of government propaganda is sufficient to completely invert the lessons of an event to suit them.

Of course, one of the strongest reasons for encryption is not having omnipotent government. Absolute power and all that...

Then why is it classed as a munition? Check mate.

Because that's the loophole the government needs to attempt to limit export of it. Why does the FDA want to class inflatable pools used for water births as "medical devices" that need millions of dollars in studies before they can be sold and used, but on the other hand class stainless steel operating tables as not medical devices?

Rifle shooting doesn't seem to be an important component.

As a non-american scout my experience includes all the same things, except the shooting.

In many cases, it's less about knowing how to shoot a rifle (though that is a factor as well) and more about how to safely handle one. Even if you do not care for guns, there are many around, and knowing how to safely handle one and treat it with the care needed helps to prevent deadly accidents.

I'd add to that the ability to recognize when a weapon is not being safely handled, and either confiscate (in certain circumstances) or correct the person with the weapon, or just vacate the area.

A rifle really is the best tool for: hunting large game for food and defending yourself from hostile megafauna.

It usually only takes one target or skeet shooting session to convert someone. Shooting things is really fun, when you do it in a safe way.

They could certainly opt out of any shooting education, it wasn't compulsory when I was a Boy Scout. Though I think the fact that they'd be shooting at paper targets would be a pretty immediate rebuttal of their beliefs.

Well, it doesn't help that most of the gun enthusiasts' arguments for why they need their guns involve killing other people. That and I don't think that anyone needs a semi-automatic "assault-style" weapon to hunt for food. Most of the guns that we see in the news and the gun debates are not guns that I ever saw someone hunting with.

"Most of the guns that we see in the news and the gun debates are not guns that I ever saw someone hunting with."

Correct. Hunting rifles are typically much more powerful and lethal than handguns and "assault style" AR-15 and AR-derivative rifles.

They shoot farther and with more velocity, they use larger (sometimes much larger) projectiles and are much more accurate.

On the other hand, rifles are just a fraction (< 5%) of gun deaths in the United States.

When I lived in Arkansas, I took several deer with an AR-15. Now that I'm in Virginia I can't do that, because the cartridge isn't considered powerful enough to be humane. Here, I use a AKM in 7.62x39mm.

I'm not sure what you mean by "assault-style", but assault weapons are inherently automatic weapons, not semi-automatic. I find it very odd that you specified "semi-automatic" which is, by far, the least dangerous of the two. Are you advocating for bolt-action rifles?

The very definition of "assault weapon" is political. I use it to mean both semi-automatic and fully automatic rifles that were designed for combat. This is a common definition, but obviously, not fully accepted.

Nobody "needs" anything. Do you "need" a car that can exceed 80mph on a road?

We want to have certain things, and once you have accumulated the resources to get them, you can purchase them.

You can have guns solely for target shooting. Hunting is a PITA.

There's no reason for guns to necessarily be included in an outdoorsmanship course, of course.

But I'll note that part of the reason the gun debate is so poisonous is advocates that are unwilling to draw a distinction between the use of guns against animals and the use of guns against humans - regarding any distinction between different types of guns or contexts of ownership as heretical.

I was in scouts. Learning about rifles and shooting is completely optional. If you don't want that merit badge, you can just get something else.

There are a staggeringly large number of firearms in the United States. Firearms are incredibly dangerous objects. Just about the only way to make one more dangerous is to have no idea how it works. I would also think that from an intellectual point of view, one would want to have at least a basic understanding of something you oppose so strongly, which is almost never the case when it comes to firearms.

"There is a non-trivial portion of the population that feels rifles only exist to kill other people."

I find it odd that you say people think rifles only exist to kill people. Pistols are used in the vast majority of shootings, and rifles in the vast majority of sport uses.

People with strong anti gun stances aren't very rational about there uses.

Take them bow hunting. They'll wish they had a gun real quick :)

I'd offer it to them if they'd like, but why push them into it?

For what it's worth, there is also a non-trivial portion of the population that feels that confidence with weapons is an integral part of the American individualist spirit.

lol. methinks you pull stats and scenarios outta your butt.

You are asking how do we convince people who refuse to use guns how to learn how to use guns safely...

Maybe you could just let them not use guns?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com