Hacker News Reader

Living in those types of places shouldn't be the benchmark for living in a first world country. I'm not saying that where I'm living is perfect, far from it. I'm saying that despite the fact that I could make far more money in the U.S as a programmer, I couldn't live there because I wouldn't want to live somewhere that continues to allow this to happen.

I can't reply to you anymore unfortunately but: Where's the right place? when is the right time? I'm not trying to make this about me, I'm trying to understand a completely foreign concept to me. Unprovoked mass shootings seem to be a very regular occurrence for years now, and yet until the recent one in Parkland there doesn't seem to be an appetite for change.

Statistically, you are more likely to die from a mass murderer in Western Europe than in the USA. In both places the chances are vanishingly small and people can still live without fear.

What does "allowing to happen" mean? Why are the US & EU complicit in the cases of mass killers? Criminal justice is post-facto, and unfortunately any sort of preventative measures (profiling, banning, surveilling) infringe on human rights.

HN is a site devoted to tech, right now the tech world is dominated by US companies. Therefore many non-US based readers of HN will be devs or work in the tech industry and could have the opportunity to move from safe countries in the EU to work in the US. In the same way that the GP wouldn't choose to move to the United States most people would not choose to move to the middle East for their career due to the risks. The GP has simply indicated that the risk of being shot in the US is too high for them. Now you have lived there and have never seen anybody who has been shot. I live in the UK and I have never seen anybody who has been shot either. But if we look at the overall statistics, you are much more likely to be involved in a gun related incident than I am.

I think you are taking it personally as someone disliking your country when in fact it is a rational response for someone to want to expose themselves to less danger. In the same way that you would not move to Egypt for a better paying job because, as a woman, you would be much more likely to experience sexual harassment and/or sexual violence there than you would in the US.

And where else would this be discussed, everyone says "don't politicise" these events, but if you dont talk about it now when do you discuss it? Brought up next week and we will be in the aftermath of a different tragedy or some other crisis. These events need to be addressed when they happen, otherwise nothing will be done.

>You don't have to live here, but it bothers me that you feel so free to say that on HN.

Yet, isn't the freedom to say what they think a core tenant of what it means to live in the us? Why would this bother you?

>And it seems to me that talking trash about the US while this incident is still live is just not exactly sympathetic pro social behavior.

Saying you don't want to live someplace because of a perceived issue, isn't trash talking.

>There are better times and places to hash out the fact that the US has a problem.

When is it time to hash this out then?

I think it's deeply ignorant, maybe even delusional, to say/think access to guns, and the "gun nut" cultural resistance to making formalized, standardized, rigorous access to guns harder than easy, aren't a significant part of the problem. And that's because there is no other demonstrated factor that distinguishes the U.S. from other countries: we don't have more mental illness than other countries, we don't have fewer instigators of irrational anger.

Right after Parkland, a teenage cousin of mine initially did not want to go to the (voluntary) student walkout. Why? He told me his school in San Francisco gets numerous shooter threats. It's that common. And he felt being in a protest with a bunch of people clumped together made a very good target for another shooting.

This level of fear proves there is an inadequate balance between 1st and 2nd amendments. In effect, the 2nd amendment is being used to abridge free speech through fear. And I absolutely think gun nuts love this, it's exactly what they want, to shut down rational debate and conversation.

I find it odd that as an American, from a military family, you take issue with his/her ability to speak freely.

Then maybe you are completely unfamiliar with the military culture of showing respect for those who have suffered and died and being sensitive to the survivors left behind.

If you're trying to make a point, I'm afraid I've missed it

At this point, I intend to bow out of the conversation. I feel a great many people have missed my point and arguing it isn't going to accomplish anything good.

I probably shouldn't have replied to any of the replies to me. We all make our mistakes.

> it bothers me that you feel so free to say that on HN.

Freedom to express one's opinion is not a uniquely American value, especially on the internet. You're free to be bothered, but it's invalid to criticize someone for commenting about why US gun culture makes living in the States a non-starter.

If his freedom to speak and criticize is to be respected, then so is mine. It cuts both ways.

Naturally, but some of your replies have been needlessly rude towards them. It's also important to be sure that your criticisms are valid.

The first rule of gun culture is don’t talk about gun culture

The first rule of being a decent human being is to not walk up to someone who has just had something terrible happen to them and gloatingly say something like "He he, there's your problem. It's your fault this is happening to you. Glad I and my neighbors are so much more civilized."

I cannot fathom how anyone can mistake such comments as evidence of civilized behavior.

Nobody here has done that.

But nobody's walking up to the victims and saying this. HN is an open -- and international -- forum for discussion.

Given that the US is affected by gun-related violence unlike essentially any other developed nation, it's completely reasonable to bring the American gun fetish up anytime there's a shooting, to draw attention to it and to (hopefully) enact change which can prevent these kinds of tragedies in the future.

I understand your averse reaction to the root comment in this context (and posted a moderation reply above), but the site guidelines do ask "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize," and this surely isn't the strongest plausible interpretation.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Nor was that the framing of my initial reply. As stated elsewhere, I probably should not have replied to any of the replies to me. It's a bit like the telephone game where each reply perverts the original intent a little bit more.

The only winning move is not to play.

My apologies for the failure on my end.

It’s bad that in Australia our police beat up pensioners, I cannot imagine how bad things would be here if we had a free-wheeling gun culture.

Actually, scratch that - I can. Until we cracked down on guns in the 90s we had massacre after massacre. I think I forgot how it was because we’ve not had one since the Port Arthur massacre.