Hacker News Reader

Comment by microcolonel | Hacker News Reader

If only they'd realize the same thing in regard to gun ownership.

Gun control is a completely different kettle of fish, because it is so unlikely for someone to recover from an attack; these aren't beanbag shotguns we're talking about. Also, there are no procedures that you can follow to prevent an unexpected bullet from quickly killing you, whereas with, say, an unexpected DoS, you can take measures to mitigate it after it has already started to hit you. With a security breach, you can lock down, wipe and recover from backups. But that bullet, it is just so uniquely final (and therefore, off topic, hence the downvotes).

The National Research Council conducted a thorough review of evidence some years ago and found no correlation between the introduction of gun control measures and reduction in violent crime. In certain jurisdictions, there is a negative correlation (probably unethical to do a RCT, so we'll never know if causal) between certain thresholds in gun ownership rates and the rate of violent crime. The accidental injury and death figures are not convincing when compared with other common risks.

If your respirator monitoring machine gets hacked, or your records can not be retrieved to show a drug sensitivity, you could die from complications in an ER. I know for a fact that the hospitals near me run Windows XP, connected to the public internet, on mission critical systems. If a system which controls a switchable lane freeway signal gets hacked, even with generic malware which accidentally causes a crash, a distracted driver could plow into another.

P.S. I'm facinated by your turn of phrase kettle of fish, here it would be a can of worms. Especially strange to me considering what I would think a kettle is [0][1][2][3][4]. Turns out there's such a thing as a fish kettle [5].

[0]: https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle [1]: https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle [2]: https://www.google.com.au/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle [3]: https://www.google.co.nz/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle [4]: https://www.google.co.in/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle [5]: http://www.phrases.org.uk/images/fish-kettle.jpg

I think that study found that there was no correlation between the introduction of right to carry laws and gun violence.

They also found it was pretty hard to study general trends, due to an overwhelming number of factors and poor quality of source data.

> They also found it was pretty hard to study general trends, due to an overwhelming number of factors and poor quality of source data.

If the effects of gun laws can be lost in noise among crime statistics, and the right of the people to keep and bear them shall not be infringed, it seems pretty outrageous to suggest that there is any reason to introduce equivalent laws which a) infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms and b) have had no effect that can be detected in the statistics in any implemented form.

Vital records and the corresponding court records are an excellent, high-quality datasource. If your "life saving" laws can not be detected in vital statistics, then you have failed.

I've always wondered why we don't just put restrictions on hand guns, but leave rifles fairly unrestricted.

It seems like the majority of problems gun control advocates have with firearms is because of hand guns, which are small enough to be easily concealed by people that shouldn't have them in places they shouldn't have them. It also seems like the majority of the practical arguments that control rights advocates have center around the utility of firearms. And if you're making a case for firearms as a check on the government and military, you really want rifles over hand guns anyway.

If the major problems with guns are that they are easy to conceal and transport surreptitiously to locations they should not be, focusing on those attributes makes sense.

Your mistake is that you've brought reason to a gunfight. The NRA's response would be to say that banning handguns is a slippery slope to taking all the guns.

Yeah, I understand the NRA's expected response, but that doesn't account for the other side not attempting the argument. Unless they do and I just don't see it.

The NRA has the response it has because banning pistols as a prelude to banning or licensing all guns has already been tried. They're not idiots, many of them have lived through most of the history of the gun control movement, some have lived through all of it. Also, they can read. They know the aim is banning all guns. The '60s NRA was willing to meet gun control people in the middle. Now they're not because they've learned that the gun control people are not willing to stop there.

> They know the aim is banning all guns.

But it's not, for all people, and framing the discussion that way is very disingenuous of them. I don't want to ban all guns, I just want to address the problem (because I do think there is a problem), so not everyone wants that.

There is a coalition of gun control people. Some of them want to ban or heavily restrict handguns but don't care much about long guns. Some of them want to ban all guns. The ones who want to ban handguns don't appear to object to banning all guns. If they do object it's not a priority and they're politically irrelevant.

That doesn't seem to be a very helpful point of view. You also didn't support it in any way. Would you take me saying the reverse without requesting evidence for that opinion? e.g.

There is a coalition of gun rights people. Some of them want absolutely no restrictions whatsoever. Some of them are accepting of some controls on certain types of guns. The ones that are accepting of certain types of controls don't appear to object to shutting down any control of guns. If they do object it's not a priority and they're politically irrelevant.

Is it possible your view on this is colored by the narrative that's been presented by people with a vested interest? It wouldn't be the first time that a loud minority controlled a narrative and thus the issue. It's easy to believe there are no moderates, or they constitute a minority, if both sides think the other side is unreasonable and reaching too far, as that can cause people to vote against the perceived agenda of the other side rather than for what they themselves really want.

I think that what you wrote is basically accurate. There was previously a potential lasting bargain where handguns would have been heavily restricted and long guns not so much. The trust and belief in the good faith of the opposing side is now gone on both sides.

It is absolutely possible that my views on this topic have been coloured by people with a vested interest, i.e. people who care about it. I don't believe there are no moderates, nor that they constitute a minority. I think the immoderates care more, spend more and are better organised so they have a disproportionate effect on what happens.

Given the choice between getting 80% of what they want and 5% people will choose the first, avoiding defeat at the hands of the enemy has a higher priority than actual perfection.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com