Hacker News Reader

>"this is designed to be good at killing people"

You are trivializing it. If you talk to a specialist they can tell you all about stopping powers of various calibers and round capacity of a gun.

And, yes, it is designed to be good at killing people and I am glad for it. I don't want to threaten an aggressor with a dull letter opener, hardly qualify as a deadly force. When it is used, it better serve the purpose, lives depend on it.

I firmly believe there are more good people than bad in this world. I would rather have my fellow human being, my neighbor, armed and able to help, than wait for cops to arrive.

I think prolific gun ownership can be an answer to honking and road rage. :-)

>Things people who have actually lived in "gang infested areas" know: The union of "gang infested area" and "grocery shopping opportunities are available" is approximately zero (c.f. food deserts).

You may chose to not arm yourself, perfectly fine by me. When you say others shouldn't be armed either, that is when you are bigger enemy than the criminals.

Do you even believe that people have right to defend themselves, or should they let the crime unfold and then let the law take its due course?

> I think prolific gun ownership can be an answer to honking and road rage. :-)

You think that escalating a frustrating but not dangerous situation with deadly force is an "answer"?

It escalates because people think that it is safe to escalate.

If one makes a threatening move that has full possibility of being responded with serious force, people will not be so fast to escalate.

May be we will come up with an app for the "connected", electric vehicles where some permissible form of digital flipping can be conveyed to the drivers around you.

There is a flip side to this. If someone is a complete asshole to me, I should feel comfortable to express my displeasure with their behavior. That isn't escalating, that is communicating. But if I have to fear that the other person has a gun, it silences my legitimate right to communicate.

That's why I can't take any gun rights advocate seriously.

I am serious enough to give that situation a thought.

Check my other answer if you care... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14256900

> Do you even believe that people have right to defend themselves, or should they let the crime unfold and then let the law take its due course?

I don't think it is simple as that. To be sure, guns might provide positive outcomes in some situations. But does that benefit outweigh their downsides. Downsides like deaths caused by accidents with firearms. Downsides like mass shootings that would be difficult to accommolish without easy access to firearms.

As for the benefits, how often do firearms prevent homicide? It's a hard thing to measure. I'm skeptical they prevent much at all.

For one thing the type of "gang" style homicide you are imaging is not a very common variety. In 2011, the FBI only identified 11.7 percent of homicides as being carried out by a stranger to the victim. Just by the numbers, getting killed by your spouse or coworker is more likely. I imagine the protective benefit of firearms is far less in these situations.

Another point is that even carrying a firearm isn't protection against an unexpected attack.

>Downsides like mass shootings that would be difficult to accomplish without easy access to firearms.

They were easy to accomplish because they targeted places that they knew for sure where the people would be unarmed, our laws ensured it. An attempt against local gun club or police station is not going to succeed, is it?

People who want commit crimes don't care if the guns they use were acquired legally. They can acquire a gun from black market. And just like with drugs, making it illegal ensures that there would be a thriving black market.

We made those events possible by making gun-free zones.

I hope we collectively would come to senses and trust our fellow human being, instead of treating everyone as psychopathic criminal.

>Downsides like deaths caused by accidents with firearms.

Less than 600 deaths in 2013. but 16,000 deaths related to Ibuprofen. You may say one accident is too many. I would say one person stopped by us collectively from protecting themselves against an aggressor is one too many.

You are thinking about group. I care about individual. And Gun Access must be looked at through individual rights lens.

> Another point is that even carrying a firearm isn't protection against an unexpected attack.

I am not asking for complete guarantee of safety against attack. BTW, do you think cops can provide that?

I am asking for opportunity to defend myself without being preemptively disarmed, that's all.

People launch startups knowing that most will fail. They appreciate the opportunity to try.

Gun Access is an opportunity to try, if you want to take it, no one is forcing it on you, just like no one is forcing everyone to launch a startup.

One may feel secure in capabilities of police to keep them safe. One may feel secure in corporate job instead of a startup. But, one must have an option to start a startup if one so desires. One must have an option to defend oneself with guns, if one so desires.

But acquiring guns on the black market isn't going to be an option for many types of shooters. Like the mentally challenged killer in the Sandy Brooke shooting.

Here in Japan, there is of course a black market for guns. But basically the black market is so prohibitively expensive. This eliminates a huge swath of the population, mainly everyone that isn't rich.

And again, I don't dispute that there are other ways to kill. Only that most of them are vastly less efficient, reducing the possibility of sprees like those we see in the US.

Also 600 deaths is nothing to scoff at. Hard to know, but my intuition is that 600 deaths is higher than the number prevented by guns.

We can't draw a line on a plot chart and say see that's why we shouldn't have guns.

By that measure, given the car accident deaths, we shouldn't be driving around.

Because someone was dumb, I shouldn't be allowed to defend myself with guns? that doesn't make sense.

> They can acquire a gun from black market

and if they are caught with such a gun, they can face serious consequence. A BM gun is illegal every step of the supply chain.

> I am asking for opportunity to defend myself without being preemptively disarmed, that's all.

If someone with a knife or cosh gets you unexpectedly from behind, they now have a gun. A failed startup won't cause other startups to fail.

>If someone with a knife or cosh gets you unexpectedly from behind, they now have a gun.

You are trying to ensure a certain outcome in a situation where you have no control.

I am only trying to make sure that I don't stop a person from having an option to defend themselves using guns.

I can't guarantee outcome, neither can you.

I am with the victim's right to defend herself/himself using guns, if they chose to do so.

You are with criminal to ensure that potential victims would be unarmed.

God, I am so happy that I don't live in the US. Citizens having guns does not increase the security in your society. When will you understand that your high rate of people getting killed by guns, compared to other western countries, is caused by your way of thinking that more guns is the solution to all problems?

> God, I am so happy that I don't live in the US.

Whatever floats your boat. Enjoy.

> Citizens having guns does not increase the security in your society.

It is not a mechanism to address a communal goal of increased security of our society. It is a recognition of individual right to defend themselves.

>your way of thinking that more guns is the solution to all problems

Solution to all problems? We do understand that it is not a solution to all problems, already.

> It is a recognition of individual right to defend themselves.

It's a recognition of the individual right to feel defended. Statistics (and the results of every other developed country in the world) suggest that feeling is wrong.

It's binary, not statistics.

Would you grant that there has been at least one case where gun was used successfully to defend oneself?

If so, then for that person, that option was worthwhile and exercised successfully. All statistics be damned. And I for one, doesn't want to revert the outcome of that event because of statistics.

It is highly individual decision to exercise an option available to them. Success or failure of that option has nothing to do with it, hence statistics of outcome of the event doesn't have a bearing on the option being available.

Should I not have right to give $20 to a homeless person? Statistics may say it would most likely get used for drugs. Does that mean society should outlaw donating money to homeless persons? You may publish stats and provide alternative means to help homeless, but individual decisions to donate to homeless can't be outlawed, can it be?

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

What may be moral as group goal as seen by outsider bystander, may be immoral when seen from individual perspective.

People are not statistical samples, people are individuals. I associate myself with individual first, before group. I prefer individual safety first, I value it more than some perceived group benefit.

>Also, most US states make one pass a test to prove that one is capable of operating an automobile to some minimum standard of "not killing people".

I think that's generally only for operation on public roads. I'm pretty sure that you can go buy a car, have it transported to your private property via trailer, and then drive it around your property all you want without a license.

Also, see https://www.quora.com/Can-you-buy-a-car-without-a-drivers-li...

Or you steal a car.

I can't fathom this fascination with law-abiding criminals.

> It's much easier to kill a person with a gun than a KitchenAid mixer.

KitchenAid makes knives as well.

> Also, most US states make one pass a test to prove that one is capable of operating an automobile to some minimum standard of "not killing people".

How many car thefts are there per year?

What makes you think that that process you describe for a test to prove one is capable of operating an automobile ensures that car won't be used as a weapon? If anything, it ensures that person with such intentions is properly trained at using the car up to the point of using it as a weapon.

Even if those test do somehow check for "minimum standard of not killing people", Why do you think someone who just wants a car to be used as a weapon would put herself through those tests instead of stealing one?

You must grant that stopping people from committing crimes is an unsolved hard problem. It's OK to work on that problem, what's not OK is to act as if it is a solved problem. Till the problem is solved, we must allow people to have an option to defend themselves with guns if they are so inclined.

Why can't we make statistical decisions about tools based on the sort of capabilities that they provide and the trade offs that come with those capabilities?

Because communal goals can't trump individual freedoms.

Communal goals must maintain freedoms that our battle tested constitutional rights guarantee.

I am fine with such analysis. But, we must keep above guidelines in mind when looking at pros/cons that the analysis reveals. You may say 500 accidental deaths are not too many and we should take away rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Each homicide is where the victim could have availed the option of defending self with guns. Whether such attempt to defend was successful or not, doesn't matter. What matters is that we as society didn't stop that person from having that option. 4.9 homicides per 100k people, that's 16,170 opportunities where a person could have used that option but failed. Then there are incidents where threat of gun stops a homicide. Is 500 accidents are OK as a cost? First of all, I don't agree that gun accidents are a cost that we are paying for having gun rights, there could be knife accidents or bow/arrow accidents if guns are banned. I look at it differently, imagine if you can go to each of those homicides as it is in progress, hit stop button on the time machine and tell the victim that please realize that you use to have an option to defend yourself in this situation with a gun, but we intentionally took it away because few other people were careless in their use of guns. Do you find it ethical to do that? I don't. And therein lies my stand on this.

Play it little differently, imagine each successful use of gun to defend oneself or their loved ones. Using time machine, do you feel comfortable going back to each such incident, take the gun away from the victim and ask them to use the phone instead. If you go back enough in time, then there wouldn't be phone, you would have to ask them to fight with frying pan. Can you do that? If not, how is the situation different today? How can we ask someone to not defend themselves and face a more powerful adversary with bare hands? Are you ok with people dying or being raped or looted where they had used guns successfully to avoid those outcomes? If you are ok with it then how are you not the enemy of those people?

Yeah, modifying the Constitution is the way to really get it done.

As far as whether I am okay designing policy using statistics, even if there are two sides to those statistics, with horrible anecdotes on the side the policy impacts negatively, the answer is yes.

Welcome to Eugenics!

Do you think this is a good argument?

I didn't say that policy should exclusively consider statistics, I just meant that one sided anecdotes don't invalidate statistics.

I think it was a very valid argument, otherwise I wouldn't have made it. You can take time to re-read and think about it more.

Let's try one more way...

We may know all the statistics of every baseball player that make up both teams.

But, we can't declare winner based on stats alone. We still have to go out there and play the game.

If we ban guns based on stats, then it would be equivalent to asking baseball players to not use bats during the game... because stats!!! What's the point of taking bats to the game, you are going to lose anyway. Right?

I may not take on a professional baseball team, my decision.

Someone may decide to do just that, they may succeed, they may not. Should they not play because of stats? Should they not carry bats to the ballpark because of stats?

Should the society stop the game from happening, outlawing it but declaring winner at the same time, because of stats?

That is the equivalent of society banning guns from citizens. You declare the criminal who carries gun anyway an automatic winner, you don't let the citizen have a chance at the game, you use force (police) to stop citizen from attempting to play.

Sports leagues have competition committees. They do things like look at statistics related to specific rules and, as they see fit, make changes to the rules.

So for instance, professional baseball players play exclusively with wooden bats, they don't allow the very best bats that can be constructed because it changes the game in ways they don't like.

Sports league controls the environment of a game completely. And, even at most professional levels, you still get doping and deflate-gate.

You don't control the events in the world with its full complexity.

Are you claiming you can control what weapons criminals can bring to my house?

What should be your punishment if you fail at maintaining that control?

I can't see how you can keep the promise of maintaining control over guns used by criminals. I see you as someone who is trying to limit my options while having no means to make situation any better for me.

I hope you can see why gun control supporters get seen as enemy to personal well being, not just a nuisance, by the gun rights advocates.

Yes, the idea would be to limit your options, with people accepting the negative consequences of that rather than accepting the negative consequences of easy gun ownership.

It's not that I don't understand your position. It's that it's not the one that is best for society.

lol

And I wholesale reject your idea.

You have stated a preference. A wish for world to be a certain way, with no proof that the world behaves that way, all the while world is behaving exactly opposite of how you claim it to be.

I am a law abiding citizen. You are affecting my chances of survival. You intend to use police force to negatively affect my chances of survival. You intend to outlaw basic right to fight for survival, updated to work with modern era weaponry and challenges. I see you as detrimental to my well being without proper cause or ethical reasoning.

I reject your idea and your preference. Feel free to try again with a better version, if you like.

Where have I stated any intention to use force?

There's a difference between stating what I believe would be best for society and having any belief that society will actually choose that course of action.

>Where have I stated any intention to use force?

here...

> the idea would be to limit your options

Your proposed options are more restrictive than my options now, while not giving ethical/moral reasoning for it being more restrictive.

If I don't agree with the options you propose voluntarily, you will make new laws and use police force to stop me from buying a gun or limit kind of gun I can buy etc.

I didn't do anything wrong and I don't intend to do anything wrong.

Making a law that targets me is a threat to use force (criminal/civil court proceedings and law enforcement) against me.

> Because communal goals can't trump individual freedoms.

They can and do, and in ways I'd be willing to bet you support. The entire function of government in society is to restrict individual freedoms in favor of communal goals:

- the freedom to harm others in body or property

- the freedom to keep your entire income earned in the United States

- the freedom to move across political boundaries without restriction

- ...

Everything a government does can be framed as "restricting individual freedoms in favor of communal goals". In the case of guns, I happen to be convinced that one of the essential functions of a state is to maintain a monopoly on the use of force [0].

> Play it little differently, imagine each successful use of gun to defend oneself or their loved ones

I can tug heartstrings too! Let's imagine each successful use of a gun to hurt oneself or someone else. How about each instance where a woman was raped at gunpoint, or a child killed himself or a friend with their parents' gun, or somebody killed themselves on a whim (it frequently is, when guns are accessible). How am I not an enemy of those people if I say "It was ok for those people to have guns"?

Let me clarify, I'm not really in favor of a total ban on guns, I'm just not willing to rule out restricting them in the same way we restrict the other dangerous things our society has created.

[0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-monopoly-on-violence

Does one have freedom to enslave another? Do I have freedom to get into a slavery contract (sale myself into slavery) with another person?

Do I have freedom to commit crime without repercussions?

Of course not. I have freedoms as long as they don't impede on freedoms of another fellow citizen in broadest sense, and fellow human being in restricted sense, in their pursuit of happiness and liberty.

Freedom to protect oneself from aggressor is basic human right. Guns is an extension of that right in modern era. Of course, nukes are not OK as individual weapon of choice. Without guns, basic human strength plays a disproportionate role in ensuring individuals right to self preservation against aggressor.

>Let's imagine each successful use of a gun to hurt oneself or someone else.

Let's.

Improper use of a tool hurt people and bystanders all the time. Guns are no different than cars, book shelves, swimming pools, knives, electricity and chemicals in this regard.

>How about each instance where a woman was raped at gunpoint

What's your point? Is he criminal in your mind because he has gun or because he is raping someone? Can you ensure in your gun-free world even criminals won't have guns? I don't understand this obsession to stand up for law abiding criminals. Ha raped her, but at least he wasn't at gun point. Whew! that was close.

>child killed himself

A gun hating friend of mine has a Shepard dog that my friend openly says is for protecting house and house members. The dog has hurt couple of kids but that's fine in his book, but a gun, oh, no, we must say no to guns. If guns have to go then all dogs above one feet height must go as well, each car must drive at 5 miles an hour and must come with padded cushions on the outside, each knife must be wooden, no metal knives.

>I happen to be convinced that one of the essential functions of a state is to maintain a monopoly on the use of force [0].

Which state isn't? The right to bear arm by common citizenry is hard fought and hard won right. I am not willing to outsource it to government because it makes it feel good. You could depend on police to save you in each and every situation, your call, I won't force you to own guns. But, you saying no one else should be able to defend themselves either is attack on those who want to. You are worse than the criminals who attack their victims.

For abortion, the right wing makes same arguments. They don't want to avail abortion in any situation and they want to remove that as a option from all other humans beings as well.

I am for abortion and for guns. Let people, individuals, decide what they want.