Hacker News Reader

Comment by celticninja | Hacker News Reader

>Banning firearms in general won't work in America.

This is the go to reason that people give, but it just means they haven't tried. No one said it would be cheap or easy but it could be done.

As for gun smuggling, the USA used to be the source of 80% of guns used in crimes in Canada and in Mexico it is 70%.

https://www.quora.com/How-are-guns-smuggled-into-the-United-...

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/12/462781469...

https://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/10771628/gun-violence-america-...

So actually a gun ban in the USA would help both Canada and Mexico with their gun problems. In Mexico many of these guns end up in the hands of the cartels who are much more willing to use them than your usual criminals, and whilst they would still probably be able to obtain weapons they would not be able to do so in the same sort of volume and they would also have trouble locating ammunition.

View on HN

It worked get for alcohol prohibition. I'm sure it'll be about as easy for guns.

Do Americans love guns that much?? I mean, there are so many other toys to play with.

Does owning a gun cause a nice buzz? Is it a social lubricant that makes everybody at a party happier when you bring it out? Does it have an ancient history that spans across the globe? Does it result in a chemical addiction?

Haven't found a good replacement for alcohol that wasn't more illegal or harmful.

The guns are for the possibility of civil war/social upheaval/violent revolt. At the end of the day, the rule of law is a thin veneer over the force of people with guns. (It is, to a first approximation, just a way of deciding who tells the people with guns what to do.)

To head off the inevitable "but a bunch of rednecks with guns would never be able to stand up to the military!" That's first-world myopia. Look at what happened when, e.g., Bangladesh became independent from Pakistan. A bunch of farmers did not take on the undivided Pakistani army. Instead, after initial skirmishes, part of the Pakistani army broke off and fought for independence alongside the revolutionaries.

> The guns are for the possibility of civil war/social upheaval/violent revolt.

I will never understand Americans' desire to prepare for a tyrannical government, that may with some low probability happen in some unspecified future, but in such a way that it can still be defeated.

When they are simultaneously giving up lots and lots of lifes in violent murder sprees every single year. With absolute certainty and in the present.

Looks like an optimization gone wrong to me.

May shed some light:

"How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment: The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened." https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-secon...

> "Do Americans love guns that much?? I mean, there are so many other toys to play with"

- For some of us, they aren't "toys"...your disrespectful tone does nothing to help us debate where the line should be drawn for firearm ownership.

> "Does owning a gun cause a nice buzz? Is it a social lubricant that makes everybody at a party happier when you bring it out? Does it have an ancient history that spans across the globe? Does it result in a chemical addiction?"

- I think your characterization of gun owners and their motivations is shallow and insulting...sure there are your "gun porn" fans that seem to only care about purchasing the latest "tactical" rifle to share pictures of on social media, but many of us who don't live in populated cities, use our rifles and handguns routinely, or at least wouldn't traverse our properties without them on our sides for protection. Turns out predators exist, and the best way to warn off a cougar, coyote, or bear is having protection. I've killed coyotes that would have killed the livestock that feed my family.

> Do Americans love guns that much??

Yes. There are many thousands of gun owners who would prefer to kill or be killed than to be disarmed.

Note that this is not a statement of my own stance; it's a statement of my impression of that community after a lifetime of immersion in it.

I have absolutely zero doubt that banning firearms in America would result in far more deaths than it would prevent even with the most optimistic expectation of its efficacy.

It's so difficult to articulate to -some- non-Americans. We are not property of our rulers. The cops aren't going to do it, they don't want just the criminals armed. Same thing for the military. They both joined to preserve our way of life. That's ignoring the fact that they physically cant, it's built into our system. Even replacing the police and military with bluehats would not remotely work. And then there's Gen Z.

The "ban guns" stuff is propaganda for people who are disconnected from the reality of what the United States is. It's weird to see OS advocates miss the connection. They don't realize what side they are on in the war on general purpose printing.

Guns and gun ownership are a deeply ingrained and arguably sacred part of culture for a lot of America. A law to outright ban firearms would not be enforceable. Not now, and probably not even in 100 years from now. Not without a secession or civil war, anyway. Too many people would be very vehemently opposed to it and would genuinely rather be shot and killed by law enforcement than allow their guns to be confiscated. Not even a semi-automatic ban or something like that could ever happen; at least not for many generations.

Not everyone feels this way, but more than enough people do to make a universal ban completely infeasible. The question right now is if there can even be any federal legislation passed to address issues like gun access to the mentally unstable and people on watchlists, let alone high-capacity magazines or gun modifications or a ban on certain classes of firearms.

Guns aren't toys.

They are an important tool in America's system of checks and balances: Guns are not for shooting deer; guns are for shooting politicians.

The 2nd Amendment is very clear; in fact, it's probably the clearest portion of the entire Constitution:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

In order to protect the freedom of each state from the imposition of some tyranny, it must be possible to gather groups of patriots who are armed with the highest quality equipment; therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

America was born out of armed revolution against a tyrannical government, and Americans are taught that they must be wary of enemies both foreign and domestic. To Americans, the government is at best a dangerous servant, and at worst a tyrannical master.

The gun is known as "The Great Equalizer" for a reason. To restrict gun ownership is to transfer even more power from the weak (the individual) to the strong (the State); that is anathema to those who understand what it actually means to be an American.

When is it appropriate to shoot a politician?

When he's doing Stalinesque things.

More drinkers than gun owners.

Plus you are choosing one example were prohibition failed, what about when it works, particularly with regard to guns and reducing the incidence of mass shootigs? You choose to ignore the real world evidence that shows it works because it doesn't fit with your political stance.

I don't mind, but be honest with yourself that that is what you are doing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com