Hacker News Reader

Comment by jrs95 | Hacker News Reader

Police entering someone’s home are going to have to be prepared even if there was a very low chance of encountering someone with a gun. If you’re going into a house and you don’t know where someone is, pretty much any kind of lethal weapon is going to be a serious risk. If they weren’t risking being shot, they’d be risking being stabbed.

View on HN

Except that in UK if someone calls the police to go and check on someone, they won't even have a gun on them. They will knock, enter and leave, without having a gun drawn or even on their person. They will have a baton or a taser, but not a gun. The only situation when a gun would be released for use is if the caller identified the situation as dangerous. But a "wellness" check on someone? Absolutely not.

This is a good point. I think it’s difficult to argue that gun control doesn’t save lives in these situations or even overall. But then your options for armed resistance against the state are quite limited, which is the entire purpose of the second amendment anyways. It literally has nothing to do with hunting or sport.

>But then your options for armed resistance against the state are quite limited, which is the entire purpose of the second amendment anyways.

That oft-cited point becomes less valid when one considers that armed revolutions can occur and have occurred without an explicit right of gun ownership having being granted by the state beforehand.

It's almost as if someone planning an unlawful (however unjust the law) rebellion wouldn't be deterred by gun control laws.

I think your options for armed resistance against the state are going to be quite limited by the fact that they have cruise missiles and you have a 9mm.

Armed resistance against the state being enhanced by the American idea of "gun rights" is a fantasy unsupported by history.

> armed resistance against the state

This is literally what terrorism is, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com