Comment by LyndsySimon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by LyndsySimon | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> If you apply this rule strictly, then the mobs could first hit the police. In many countries, police officers are violent and have a de facto impunity when they break the law.

Advocates of our Second Amendment - the right to keep and bear arms - understand this. This idea was the primary reason for the Second Amendment's inclusion in the Bill of Rights.

In the words of Tench Coxe:

> Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

In my opinion, minorities in particular have reason to arm themselves and to be prepared to defend themselves if necessary. Armed protest against civil government by blacks and others has a long history in the United States: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/black-panthers-california-196...

If you're interested in this sort of history, I'll recommend a couple of books: "Negroes with Guns", by Robert F. Williams; and "This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed", by Charles Cobb, Jr.

Robert F. Williams is a very interesting personality in and of himself. Among other things, he founded the Black Armed Guard - an NRA-sponsored rifle club dedicated to the defense the black community from racial violence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Williams#Black_Armed...

> This idea was the primary reason for the Second Amendment's inclusion in the Bill of Rights.

Thank you eit bringing this up. While recent events with shootings are unfortunate, what's more unfortunate is the media taking advantage of these events to push an agenda by claiming the 2nd amendment is only for hunting and they only interview people that dat the same, then go down the road of saying these guns aren't needed for hunting and should be made illegal.

Call me crazy, but I'd wager this is all done out of initiative and agenda and not out of ignorance. Reasons being to disarm the population of any meaningful ways to defend against government suppression.

For those thinking that our own army would never attack their own people, a good amount of our military is now contractors from other countries that are paid mercenaries.

> In my opinion, minorities in particular have reason to arm themselves and to be prepared to defend themselves if necessary.

That's an interesting take, since minorities commit - by very, very far - the greatest amount of violent crimes per capita in the USA.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

Yes, and if anything that supports my position. Minorities are statistically more likely to be both perpetrators and victims of violent crime. Members of those communities therefore are more likely than non-members to have a legitimate need to defend themselves.

But, gun ownership clearly correlates with gun related violence (i.e. violent crime). Less guns, less violent crime.

I'm not sure that's true. Less gun related violent crime, certainly. But that can lead to higher rates of other kinds of violence, as those who are good with knives or their fists are now the top of the food chain. It is not clear that the total amount of violence would go down significantly. (The total number of deaths might, though.)

For example, there is very little gun violence in the UK. But the amount of knife and fist violence might surprise you.

A number of stories on the front page of the BBC (UK) in the last week have been about the issues of the rise Knife violence. The band guns, and now there is an increase of murders via a knife. Bad people do not follow the law.

How much is the increase? If it’s not close to the increase guns would see, then it’s not that big of a deal. Guns would still be far worse. And I’m assuming that’s the case.

You do realize that personal gun ownership was always banned in the UK, like, since ever, right? That "statistic" you just tried to pass about how knife attacks increased when the UK banned guns, was completely made up.

"...but handguns were effectively banned after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996 with the exception of Northern Ireland."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_Uni...

They have not always had the outright ban they have now.

Knife Crime:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089

With the number of fatal stabbings in England and Wales in 2017-18 the highest since records began - the BBC has tracked the first 100 killings in 2019 - revealing the people behind the headlines. - Mar 8, 2019

"there were 285 knife murders in England and Wales in 2017/18 — the highest number since the Second World War — and 34 in Scotland"

Not everything is black and white.

Correlation, not causation. Less violent environment leads people to wonder why they need guns, and so they give them up. Seems equally plausible as the contrary to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com