Hacker News Reader

The argument is: If you (USA) accept that kids are harmed due to lack of gun control, then do not use harm to kids as an argument against E2E encryption. It is hypocritical.

Just because the victim is the same class of people does not make those equivalent or make us hypocritical.

"Those very clearly have a use other than the death of humans."

"Via defense or justified actions is irrelevant; it's a tool of war."

Your two statements above conflict. All types of firearms have been used in war, yet you want to make exceptions for hunting rifles. How do you explain this? Also, how do you differentiate a weapon designed for slaughtering versus a tool as you use both in relation to firearms?

It is exactly the same with guns. Mind you i come from country with relatively hard to get gun licenses.

What about sports shooting? Collecting? Personal defence in dangerous areas? Hunting(which because we fucked up ecosystems in some areas, culling is necessary)?

Also over here modern black-powder guns are legal, without license. And they are both VERY dangerous(way more dangerous in a crowds) and relatively cheap. There is a legal requirement that you have to load the bullet as separate parts(gunpowder, bullet etc).. but what's going to stop a criminal from going on rampage and from preparing them in advance?

Gun violence is a symptom of a worse issue in the society, banning guns will just hiding the symptom of the issue. Why they go on rampage? Why some people need it for personal defence(dangerous neighbourhoods? work-related?)? Why do we need to cull the wild animals from time to time?

Heck, if someone wants to go on rampage people they don't need guns, in a big crowd chef knife will be as deadly. And you can legally buy a machete too, or chainsaw, or axe, or whatever.

Bombs can be made from household items and there are plenty of instructions online. There is a schematic of timed detonator on Wikipedia on Casio watch page (google Casio terrorist watch).

It all boils down to proper culture of handling weapons, and not treating them as toys.

The difference between impaling strips and guns is simple: one is used, legally, in specified areas(shooting range, countryside for hunting, at home for defence etc.), while other is mounted permanently and used in public space. One shouldn't keep the gun assembled while transporting it - except if it is for personal defence.

I seriously have no issue with people using impaling spikes in wreck racing, as long as they are within regulation of the race. but on public road? hell no.

In a perfect would we wouldn't need guns at all, as there would be no reason for them to exist.

Can you explain why a black-powder gun would be more dangerous? I don't see what would make them so much more dangerous than a typical rifle.

You basically load the cartridge in by hand every time. If you leave some space between the powder and projectile, you risk the gun blowing up.

> What about sports shooting? Collecting? Personal defence in dangerous areas? Hunting(which because we fucked up ecosystems in some areas, culling is necessary)?

I covered that in hunting rifles. Various types of rifles have legitimate uses. However, it's an argument not in good faith to say that anything with a possible sport should be legal.

I can't make a rocket launcher sport and demand that rocket launchers become ~freely~ fully legal because it has a sport. This is a bad argument.

> Gun violence is a symptom of a worse issue in the society, banning guns will just hiding the symptom of the issue.

I agree entirely. You can have both however, mental health and restrictions. See: most first world countries other than the US.

The funny thing in these discussion is we already do have tons of regulation. The line is already drawn, we're not discussing drawing it, we're discussing whether or not we should move it.

Your arguments could be made about various rocket launchers or, hell, missiles and bombs. The line is already drawn there however, and the same argument for and against various rocket launchers (some legal and some illegal I believe), missiles, bombs and etc could be used in both cases.

Neither argument for or against guns inherently wins the argument; there's subtly in both. However it is my belief that the same reason we don't let people own larger scale weapons of destruction is valid for the larger scale automatic / semiautomatic weapons.

I am in full support of hunting rifles. Less so AKs and the like. I don't care if you have a sport around AKs - in the same way that I wouldn't care if you had a missile "sport".

edit: words

AKs and ARs are used for hunting and use the same rounds as other non "assault rifle" weapons. There is no ballistic difference. Both are just as deadly. Moreover, many more people are killed with knifes than rifles[1].

1. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

> Moreover, many more people are killed with knifes than rifles

I'm sure. Just like I expect cars to be more dangerous than guns, too. But you're drawing odd conclusions. My point was that tools have a place. A car is a tool. A knife is a tool. A hunting rifle is a tool.

A rifle with the capability of mowing down herds (or people) with a high rate of fire has little merit in my mind. I speak generally, because I don't explicitly mean automatic/semi/etc because that's a whole other debate. Hunting rifles don't need "mow down herds" capability. Likewise, if you can walk into a store and shoot 50 people with ease, I question if you really need that capability for hunting.

How many people in a crowd do you think you can kill with bolt action hunting rifles? Likewise, how many people in a crowd do you think you can kill with a knife?

I despise these arguments of "but I have sports with X guns!" or "but I use X gun to hunt!". You can fish with explosives but it's not needed nor is it legal in many places.

I support rifles for hunting, but there are limitations on the types of rifles, rate of fire, real use cases and etc.

"I support rifles for hunting, but there are limitations on the types of rifles, rate of fire, real use cases and etc."

Can you explain what those limitations are? Your mention of use cases and what is neccessary may conflict with others'. For example, quick follow up shots are necessary when hunting multiple feral hogs to reduce their environmental impact.

> Weapons are uniquely special in that they are specifically designed to maim and kill. Via defense or justified actions is irrelevant; it's a tool of war. Arguably, if there was E2E software that was specifically designed to maim and kill it might be received in a similar manner as guns.

This is nothing more than a politically motivated lie.

You cannot escape the fact that guns are overwhelmingly used for peaceful purposes that do not include maiming and killing. If this were not the case, Americans would all be dead or maimed by the guns that outnumber people in our country.

Even where the evidence strictly supports your claim, it counters the intent you imply. FBI standards for selecting ammunition, for example, test penetration through clothing and material designed to simulate a human body, but the intent is to stop lethal threats with a minimum of collateral damage. Quite opposite to being "designed for slaughtering", they are designed to minimize harm, while serving a defensive purpose.

> Via defense or justified actions is irrelevant

I think you'd find the opposite to be the case if a person were threatening your own life.

I'm against most restrictions on gun ownership as I assume you are, but I can't agree with your analysis here.

Though I'm currently living somewhere it's not legally possible, I have carried a pistol for self defense in the past. I never had to draw it or fire it at anybody. Nobody is dead or maimed because of my pistol. When carrying a pistol, I was always especially careful to try to de-escalate any potential conflicts, because I do not want to maim or kill anyone.

Its designed purpose, however is 100% to maim or kill other people. I carried it in case I needed to maim or kill someone (or more likely, use the threat of doing so) to prevent harm to myself. It isn't a piece of sporting equipment that's only incidentally deadly, like a target pistol, but a purpose-built defensive weapon.

Claims that the subset of firearms designed primarily to be antipersonnel weapons are something else come across as disingenuous to neutral observers. I hold pro-gun positions because I believe individual armed self-defense is a good thing, not because I think we should consider guns primarily as sporting equipment and only incidentally as weapons.

Even then... outlawing guns won't stop criminals from using them.

guns have legitimate uses such as defense and hunting.

Maybe you missed the part where I discussed defense and hunting.

They're not designed to maim or kill, just to accelerate a piece of mass. Police regularly use beanbags and target shooting is an olympic sport. Designing firearms spans all of STEM and keeps people employed well.

If the US government wanted to reduce the lethality of firearms, they would ban calibers, not accessories. Even so, a .22LR olympic pistol is enough to take down a bodybuilder with one critical hit. So olympic shooters could become murderers overnight, or have their weapons stolen. If not, why suspect that average people would instead?

You can do the same with e2e encryption. It’s not secrecy, it’s literal 1s and 0s.

If the encryption was successful and 'unbreakable' it better be just 1s and 0s.

This line of argument is disingenuous.

Blades are, at one level of abstraction, designed to sever fibers and occasionally other materials. A straight razor is designed for a human to use to shave hair. A nakiri is designed for a human to use to slice vegetables. An executioner sword is designed for a human to use to kill another human by decapitation.

Likewise, many firearms are designed primarily to be good for shooting other people to incapacitate or kill them. I do believe most people should be able to obtain such weapons, but I don't find it difficult to imagine why someone might think otherwise.

If that's the case why do such laws exist as foldable knives and switchblades being illegal to carry but sturdy full-length ones are fine, in some countries? Why is banning pistol grips considered having prevented or hindered lethality?

I think bans on types of weapons, and on tools that can be used as weapons tend to be based on public perception of who uses them, and for what purpose. Politicians do not consult masters of knife-based martial arts or designers of fighting knives when drafting legislation about knives. Politicians backing gun restrictions in the US famously tend to be unable to explain the function of features banned by their legislation.