Hacker News Reader

Comment by ad_hominem | Hacker News Reader

It doesn't detract from his greatness but I didn't like his hypocrisy in giving millions to gun control initiatives while personally owning a Panzer tank, SCUD missile launcher, MiG fighter jet, etc.

View on HN

That's silly. None of those things were in working (fighting) condition. You can be a war historian and think that private ownership of war implements is a bad idea.

His tanks are definitely capable of shooting at least blank rounds. They do it weekly at the museum. I would not be surprised if they can shoot the actual live munition without issues if you can get hands on it.

As expected as there's no federal law against owning a fully-operable tank or fighter jet. Well the tank howitzer may need to be registered as a destructive device with $200 tax stamp in accordance with the National Firearms Act due to the bore width.

It's also legal to equip them with machine guns, as long as the gun's transferable under the Hughes Amendment. An M2 Browning would set one back $20K or so.[1] But a guy like Paul Allen could splurge and get a GE M134 chain gun for $500K.[2]

One could also equip them with explosive ordnance as long as each piece of ordnance is registered as a destructive device (along with $200 tax stamp).

These are minor obstacles to the wealthy. Gun control is for the poor.

[1]: https://www.morphyauctions.com/jamesdjulia/item/lot-1009-m2-...

[2]: https://imgur.com/gallery/2u9YI

When was the last time there was a school shooting using a Panzer tank or a MiG fighter?

I can't see the pragmatism in demanding equivalence of regulation.

You can support gun control without supporting total suppression; even Japan, with some of the world’s strictest gun control laws, still lets you buy one if you qualify.

And to qualify, you usually have to be extremely rich and well-connected, thus enforcing the idea that there are two sets of laws - one for hoi polloi and one for the exalted elite. I think it's better when there's just one, and your rights do not depend on who you know.

You are the second person in this thread who has claimed that the Japanese system is elitist. When I looked and replies to the other person I couldn't find any evidence of this, so I'm interested where you got this idea.

Here's a story on how to buy a gun in Japan[1]. The only fee is $60 for the gun license course, so I don't see where the argument about having to be rich is coming from.

[1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-per...

That's just straight-up wrong. Legal ownership of a gun in Japan requires an extreme amount of bureaucracy, but it's entirely possible and most legal gun owners in Japan are (non-rich, non-well-connected) farmers.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/gun-control-how-japan-has...

I don't know how it works in Japan, but I do know how it works in some places in e.g. California.

OP may very well be referring to California. There are some districts where concealed carry permits are "may issue" -- issued at the discretion of an authority like a sheriff -- as opposed to "shall issue" -- mandatory issuing if you meet the legal obligations / restrictions. In practice, this results in celebrities and the well-connected getting permits, and "nobody" citizens with clean records and legitimate personal safety concerns being denied permits.

This is a really bad example, specifically wrt Paul Allen. Many of those arguing against him dislike the idea of having two classes of folks, the elite that can own weapons, and plain folks. Japan is the definition of this system...

I'm not familiar with the Japanese system, but according to the library of congress report[1]:

According to gun-shop websites, although obtaining a gun-possession permit the first time is cumbersome, it is not difficult if one follows the requisite steps

Reading through the requirements the only thing which seems "elitist" is (maybe) that undischarged bankrupts can't own a gun. The rules seem pretty reasonable and sensible to me.

I'm interested why you think this is about two classes?

[1] www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/japan.php

Japan doesn't have low gun violence because of strict laws, it's because culturally there is simply no desire to own guns (per-capita ownership rate is 0.3, near the bottom of all countries[1]), combined with an overall low violent crime rate due to their high trust, homogeneous society.

There's simply no comparison to the USA where firearms are a deep part of our history and culture, and where our right to bear arms is recognized right in the Constitution. That's reflected in our per-capita ownership rate.

If you look just at the laws, Venezuela has even stricter gun control laws than Japan (complete private ownership ban) yet it has the highest gun homicide rate on the planet.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...

This is simply ignorant. Most such "weapons systems" will be disabled before purchase , since they count as destructive devices. In some cases it is possible to own such items that are still capable of firing live ammunition but this requires paying a fee and going through an extensive FBI background check. This process has been shown to reduce crimes committed using such devices to a virtually non-existent level. Additionally, you simply cannot go out and buy SCUD missiles, tank ammunition, or air to air missiles as a civilian.

This is "gun control", very tightly regulated weapons which are expensive to obtain and require hopping through several regulatory hoops. It is not hypocrisy in the least to be willing to abide by that level of gun control for those weapons (even assuming he did, I have no knowledge that any of Allen's stuff had functioning weapons) and desire the process of obtaining small arms be made slightly more stringent as well.

If someone spends millions to lobby for tighter aviation safety rules, but owns a Cessna, does that make them a hypocrite in your eyes?

Let's not get into the weeds of nitpicking bad analogies. Guns are a Constitutional right. Lobbying to make it harder for the poors to exercise that right while being heavily armed yourself is not only hypocritical, but immoral. It's that simple for me.

Well, looks like you could have said that you consider any gun control advocates as hypocrites, then. (Shrug)

Any gun control advocate who is already armed to the teeth, yes. That's the definition of pulling the ladder up behind yourself.

Get the hell out of here bud.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com