Hacker News Reader

Comment by cobrabyte | Hacker News Reader

By that logic, we should limit owning and operating a motor vehicle to special car parks because we're scared of the mental fitness of our fellow citizens. Why take the risk?

I'd much prefer you arm yourself if you are genuinely worried about crazy people. It's precisely why I never leave the house without arming myself. The world is full of crazy people and those people don't follow laws.

It may surprise you to find that lawful gun owners are some of the most law-abiding citizens out there. CCW permit holders, for instance, are 37 times more law-abiding than the population, as a whole, and they're roughly 9 times more law-abiding than our own police officers.

So, no... your irrational fear of people with guns will not keep me from defending myself. The 2nd amendment doesn't give us the right to bear arms... it ensures that the natural right to bear arms is not infringed upon.

View on HN

> By that logic, we should limit owning and operating a motor vehicle to special car parks because we're scared of the mental fitness of our fellow citizens. Why take the risk?

We do regulate where you can drive a car, though. Large swathes of cities can block off the use of cars in certain areas, and of course you're only allowed to drive them on the road, according to strict regulations. We even have a licensing and registration system for cars that says you can't drive one unless you pass a test, and that your car must meet certain specifications to be road-legal and actually get registration.

It would also be extremely difficult to impose the kind of regulation we have around cars, on guns. It's extremely unpalatable politically. While we ban certain modifications (though a lot of those bans have expired) typically there's no mandatory registration, save for some states.

This is a common argument, but what are the benefits of cars, vs guns? Clearly cars offer numerous benefits despite the dangers, whereas guns (in public spaces, rather than hunting or military etc) are just a hobby, a fetish, or a "security crutch". The "defense" argument doesn't really wash (buy better locks, or running shoes), and the "militia" argument doesn't either (can you hit a drone, or pierce tank armor with your full-auto?).

The crazy people who don't follow laws can easily get guns now, since they are generally available. They wouldn't be able to get them if they were generally illegal and only available at shooting ranges etc, unless they were willing (and able) to put in much more effort (and money).

Some crazies might be sufficiently motivated and able to do that, but most won't be. That few are most properly dealt with by specialists, not have-a-go armed citizenry.

We're not going to see eye-to-eye on this topic and that's okay.

We can't uninvent the gun and we can't, realistically, make them illegal.

As for shooting drones and tanks, look to our wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam. It doesn't take much to bog down a well-oiled fighting force like ours.

Perhaps not.

We can't un-invent the gun, but that's not to say we can't radically restrict ownership, and of course we can make them illegal, why not? It just takes everyone to agree to compromise.

War is clearly a different situation, but the Afghans and Vietnamese didn't fight with a bunch of hand guns. Do you think they had RPG's, grenades etc, stacked up in their basements awaiting an opportunity to rebel? Of course not, they found the means with the cause.

If you want to talk about guns, make videos about shooting them (preferably from a range), or otherwise advocate, I completely support that right - but I will be swayed by your arguments, not the fact that you are waving a gun around.

I guess that's my point. Guns are not power. They belie weakness, even cowardice, and infect the rest of society with insecurity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com