Hacker News Reader

Comment by giancarlostoro | Hacker News Reader

> The right to bear arms was paid for in blood and not just once.

And worse, gun restrictions only benefit criminals. There's plenty of people who legally own firearms and protect their homes and their property legally. They also avoid plenty of crime since criminals tend to run when a gun is pulled on them especially in stand your ground states.

They've tried banning everything in England and criminals will still kill people with just about anything. First it's the guns, then knives, then machetes. You can run over people, are you gonna make cars illegal too?

People who want to hurt people also don't care what laws there are, they can buy guns illegally.

Worse yet, depending on where you live, if something happens in your home, it's a lot safer to have a gun than to wait for cops to come to draw the chalk lines on you and your family.

View on HN

>They've tried banning everything in England and criminals will still kill people with just about anything anything. First it's the guns, then knives, then machetes.

If these alternatives are just as effective as guns, why do you feel that you need a gun?

Of course, you know that guns are more effective at killing people - especially large numbers of people. That's why we in the UK have not had a mass killing in a school since private ownership of handguns was banned over two decades ago.

>it's a lot safer to have a gun than to wait for cops to come to draw the chalk lines on you and your family.

You're more likely to use the gun to kill yourself or a family member than you are to use it to kill an intruder.

Killing someone who breaks into your home is most likely an overreaction in any case. The chances are very low that they've broken in with the intention of harming you rather than merely stealing something.

> Of course, you know that guns are more effective at killing people - especially large numbers of people.

A knife is quiet, you could probably kill more people with knives, a gun is loud and everyone nearby will hear it, probably what a crazy shooter would want is to strike fear into victims.

> You're more likely to use the gun to kill yourself or a family member than you are to use it to kill an intruder.

Since neither of those two are a viable option for myself, I'd rather have a gun, and only ever shoot it at a range than not have one and watch the worse possible scenario unfold before me.

> Killing someone who breaks into your home is most likely an overreaction in any case. The chances are very low that they've broken in with the intention of harming you rather than merely stealing something.

I don't know that, and I don't have to kill them if I pull a gun on them unless my life is in immediate danger. There's cases where a mother held the intruder at gun point until cops showed up to make an arrest.

> You could probably kill more people with knives

So why are you worried about gun bans? You can just use a knife instead.

I think you must know, really, that guns are more dangerous and effective than knives. That's why you want the right to own one. It's also why the US has frequent mass shootings in schools, whereas there are no instances of mass stabbings in UK schools.

Just look at the recent terrorist incident in London. The guy killed two people with a knife before being restrained by unarmed members of the public.

>And I don't have to kill them if I pull a gun on one

The first principle of responsible gun use is not to point a gun at anything you don't want to kill.

As you illustrate, hardly anyone is capable of using guns responsibily.

As an attacker who wants to go unnoticed a knife is the better option. As a defender, who wants to stop an attacker, your best bet is a gun, since you don't have to get close.

> Just look at the recent terrorist incident in London. The guy killed two people with a knife before being restrained by unarmed members of the public.

The people restraining him were armed with a fire extinguisher and a narwhal tusk, and he was ultimately subdued by the police shooting him with guns.

Also, since banning guns didn’t actually seem to fix anything, they’re now working on banning knives. So you can’t just use a knife instead. Better hope there’s a narwhal tusk handy when you need it.

>The people restraining him were armed with a fire extinguisher and a narwhal tusk

I.e., whatever objects happened to be at hand. I don't think you'd have much luck using a fire extinguisher against someone with an assault rifle.

>Also, since banning guns didn’t actually seem to fix anything

Hmm? There have been no mass killings in schools since the handgun ban. What was anyone expecting it to fix that it hasn't fixed?

Bear in mind that very few British people owned handguns even before the ban (roughly 0.1% of the population), and none of them would have been carrying their guns around while going about their day to day business. One would not expect the ban to have had any great effect on anything - beyond eliminating the specific problem it was intended to address.

> I.e., whatever objects happened to be at hand. I don't think you'd have much luck using a fire extinguisher against someone with an assault rifle.

A rifle is not automatically an assault rifle... But also, if law abiding citizens have their own guns, they can shoot a mad shooter before they cause too much damage.

I said "assault rifle".

... that is, until they ban narwhal tusks too!

Don't forget fire extinguishers! There's no reason for a regular subject to have one of those, better to leave it to the professionals.

> So why are you worried about gun bans? You can just use a knife instead.

You seem to be confused about the concept that self-defense is a different use case than mass shootings. Why is that?

> I think you must know, really, that guns are more dangerous and effective than knives. That's why you want the right to own one.

Are you under the impression that this poster would not object to a ban on knives? Why?

> It's also why the US has frequent mass shootings in schools, whereas there are no instances of mass stabbings in UK schools.

Thank you for providing a good example of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

> The first principle of responsible gun use is not to point a gun at anything you don't want to kill.

And that's why there's always bullet holes anywhere that a gun has pointed, because they always have to shoot anything it points at? Were you similarly not aware that it is possible to pull a gun but not point it at the person?

Your first points is obscured by snark. The second seems to be based on a misreading. The third is merely the observation that empirical reasoning is non-demonstrative.

As for number four, I see that you are another pro-gun poster who is unfamiliar with the absolute basics of firearm safety. That doesn't make a great case for private gun ownership. Here's what the pinky leftos at concealednation.org have to say (see point 2): https://concealednation.org/2013/11/the-4-rules-of-gun-safet...

That's quite a lot of pot calling.

And your last paragraph is just a complete misunderstanding of what the poster said. My comment was not to denounce the rule about where you point the gun, but to note that your claim about killing was unfounded.

> And I don't have to kill them if I pull a gun on one

The fact that you don't understand this is really troublesome. Are you one of those people who believes in that old myth about swords having to taste blood before being resheathed? Because this is on that level.

Hmm? The point is that whenever you point a gun at someone there's a significant risk that you'll shoot and kill them. Hence, you should not do it if this is not your intention. This precludes threatening people by pointing guns at them, except in the case where you are prepared to take full responsibility for their death, should this occur.

So you agree with the other poster that is is possible to pull a gun and point it at them without killing them. What a roundabout way of pretending to disagree.

> Your first points is obscured by snark.

What is obscured about the observation that your comment doesn't recognize the differences between self-defense and mass shootings, and how the qualities of the weapon affect the benefits for the user?

> The second seems to be based on a misreading.

You'll have to explain why questioning an intellectually defunct implication is a "misreading".

"that guns are more dangerous and effective than knives. That's why you want the right to own one."

Considering your claim is that desiring the right to own one is some kind of evidence that guns are "more dangerous and effective", it is thoroughly debunked if the person also desires the right to own knives.

> The third is merely the observation that empirical reasoning is non-demonstrative.

It should be noted that making a gigantic logical leap from "guns are more dangerous and effective than knives" to "It's also why the US has frequent mass shootings in schools, whereas there are no instances of mass stabbings in UK schools" is to ignore the social, cultural, economic factors that affect crime. That's not a good basis for understanding of criminal behavior.

My home defense weapon of choice is my Louisville Slugger. If a crackhead in my place saw me chasing them, crazed, in a bathrobe, with that bat waving blindly, they are booking it. There is no question that they are getting clubbed with this bat.

However, if I had a gun, I'm not sure I'm prepared to end a life right there in my living room and deal with that for the rest of my life. Bloodying a crackhead with a bat I can do, and the crackhead knows that too.

As far as guns being loud, that's almost a good thing for a criminal. Witnesses run away, and by the time the cops show up you are gone and the gun is in the sewer.

> why do you feel that you need a gun?

A. In a free society, I am not required to justify my choices. I don’t have to explain my “feelings” about anything.

B. “Need”, there is that word again. In what ways are enumerated rights dependent on needs? If something better than a gun existed for personal defense, I’d want that, I don’t have to explain my “need” about anything. You seem like you are confusing rights with grants and privileges.

So you either don’t actually understand rights in the US, or you are arguing in bad faith because you just don’t like them.

I don't care particularly about gun rights in the US as I'm not American and no longer live in the US. My question was simply why someone who believed that knives were as effective as guns would feel that they needed a gun to defend themselves. I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick.

I don’t really care how it got there. You posed the question of why someone “feels” they have a “need” to a civil right.

No other right has to face such scrutiny. Do you ask people why they feel they need privacy? Or why the feel they need free speech?

Your argument is based on your own personal dislike for a right, that’s arguing in bad faith.

I'm asking why they think they need the gun, not why they think they need the right to own it.

> They've tried banning everything in England and criminals will still kill people with just about anything. First it's the guns, then knives, then machetes. You can run over people, are you gonna make cars illegal too?

We just had a Terrorist attack last week. He was armed with 2 knives and he killed 2 people before being taken down by some people with a fire extinguisher and a narwhal horn (I shit you not).

I'll take that over dozens in any shooting spree with victims in the dozens thanks.

And no, a "good guy" with a gun would have made things worse before you even start with that bullshit.

What would you call the police officer that came with a gun?

By giving up private firearm ownership you are putting the safety of yourself and your loved ones in the hands of the government. This article is an example of why it is dangerous to do that.

>What would you call the police officer that came with a gun?

Superfluous, in this instance. It clearly would have been possible to arrest the guy without shooting him. (I believe that they only shot him on the off chance that the suicide vest was real.)

Two things:

> off chance the suicide vest was real

Would you argue that what the police officer did was wrong here? Is lethal force not justified with the credible threat of violence? I would argue that someone threatening you with a Airsoft gun with the tip taken out so it appears to be a real gun is enough to justify deadly force in self defense, you don't have to verify that gun is real. In hindsight, it is clear that you could have arrested him without shooting him, but that was not at all clear in the situation, and having that firearm could have saved dozens if the vest was real.

2. > In this instance

And, for arguments sake, if this was a different situation where the vest was real, what would you say?

Aren't these tangents? I didn't say that they shouldn't have shot him, just that it clearly wasn't necessary to shoot him in order to remove the threat. (It's obviously possible to apprehend someone armed only with a knife without shooting them.)

"gun restrictions only benefit criminals"

All the data from other countries that god rid of guns supports the opposite of this. Show some statistics or stop saying this.

"are you gonna make cars illegal too?"

Ones that can be easily used to kill people? Hopefully, eventually, yes. We already heavily restrict them, license them carefully, track them meticulously, require them to be registered, and constantly improve technology and legal standards to make them less likely to kill people -- unlike guns in America. Soon all new cars will have technology in them to make it very difficult to run someone over with.

"People who want to hurt people also don't care what laws there are, they can buy guns illegally."

So I suppose you're in favour of having no laws at all? Since people will just break them? This argument only works if you're in favour of total anarchism.

Both gun crime AND the overall murder rate dropped substantially since Australia heavily restricted guns in the late 90s [1] - i.e. people don't just switch to other weapons - murder, plus accidental death, actually decreases.

"They've tried banning everything in England and criminals will still kill people with just about anything."

Nope. Not having guns works:

Homicide rate per 100,000 people in 2017 according to UN-CTS:

United Kingdom: 1.2

United States: 5.3

[1] https://crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/

Go ahead and compare rural US where all the guns are to rural Europe. Similar rates of crime and violence. Take out the major US metropolitan areas that have gun control and see what happens to your comparisons.

When you compare an island the size of Mississippi with 29 citizens of 250k population and a much larger homogenous population, historically weak self-defense and higher reliance on government, etc etc to the whole of the US - I personally don’t think that’s an apt comparison at all.

Why is it size AND population similar countries aren’t ever compared when making this “gunz are bad” argument?

>major US metropolitan areas that have gun control

They don't have gun control in the sense that the UK and most other European countries have gun control. You can even get a permit to carry a concealed weapon in NYC, for example.

> You can even get a permit to carry a concealed weapon in NYC

Ok, I’ll do it for you. Rural crime in USA is 2.0 - 3.5 / 100k in USA depending on region. Where all the guns are, the shootings aren’t.

NYC... for example... SHALL ISSUE state, you’re effectively wrong. Only the connected and elite can get carry permits in NYC. That’ll change soon with the latest SC case coming up.

You’re right, it’s not “the same” gun control. Like Paris where guns for private ownership and stored in your home are effectively banned, yet, worse mass shootings than any in the US ever. Or Norway where black rifles are banned, but worse mass shooting of kids than any in the US.

You’re right, it’s not the same - but what we can look at is IN THE USA, the places with the most gun control have the most shootings, in inconvenient fact.

Ok, so... by your argument. It’s the people carrying legally in the US that are going around shooting people?

And I believe I proposed the question of why size AND population aren’t compared ever? I think it’s because when you compare Russia or Mexico or Brazil to US, with much stricter the gun control the argument falls apart. You need to pick small population and or small isolated homogeneous populations to make your argument - if you think that’s legitimate keep at it.

> Where all the guns are, the shootings aren’t.

So there are shootings without guns?

Norway and France both have vastly fewer shooting deaths per year than the US.

Are you arguing crime or events? France and Norway beat US in events, gun control doesn’t seem to work there.

If you are talking crime, yes USA crime is higher - in the areas with more gun control. I’d argue the cause of the crime is our poor handling of drug and poverty and not focus on the tool used.

Guns have increased DRAMATICALLY since the crime highs of the 1990s, but crime has dropped to just above the lows of the 1960s.

You have ZERO data for causation of more guns equal more crime because we have opposite evidence.

So while I can’t say more guns EQUALS less crime - I can definitely say more guns hasn’t CAUSED more crime like you are saying.

I don't know what you mean by "events". More people get shot in the US.

There are obviously lots of confounding factors in relation to crime statistics in different areas of the USA. It's more revealing to look longitudinally at the positive effects of gun control legislation in e.g. the UK and Australia.

NYC has an impressively low homicide rate, if there is such a thing, and has become a very safe city in the last decade or two.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-citys-murder-rate-hit-...

Yes, so what?

> And worse, gun restrictions only benefit criminals. There's plenty of people who legally own firearms and protect their homes and their property legally.

The real question is why are the US ranking so high in violent crime and murder rates compared to other developed countries. You shouldn't feel the need to "protect" your home in the #1 power in the world.

I don't think it's guns, there's other countries where you have gun rights that don't have this problem. Then there's countries where guns were forced out of citizens hands and the government went rogue (Venezuela).

>The real question is why are the US ranking so high in violent crime and murder rates compared to other developed countries

This question has been asked time and again and the gist of the answer is that the people who make their living moving around illicit substances drag up the average. For people who don't associate with drug trafficking the US is basically on par with Europe.

> the people who make their living moving around illicit substances drag up the average.

Isn't that happening all around the world though ?

The US isn’t a European country that happens to be in the New World, it’s a New World country that somehow managed to become a superpower. It makes a lot more sense to see the US as an overachieving Mexico or Brazil than as an abnormally violent Britain or Germany.

As usual, colonial powers have difficulty acknowledging the effects of their colonialism.

Gun ownership doesn't help public safety anywhere near as much as you think.

The number one and number two uses of guns inside a home are suicide and murder of a loved one, respectively. Defending against a home invader is statistically uncommon at best. But people get angry every day, and we all have moments of weakness and vulnerability.

To your point about criminals, have you ever been robbed? A robber isn't going to announce his intentions from 20 feet away.

Does having a gun under your shirt help you if somebody pokes a knife into your back? Maybe you could draw and murder them in revenge as they leave I guess.

I know that gun-safety classes are mandatory for any kind of concealed-carry permit. But I can 100% guarantee that they don't prepare you for the psychological reality of killing somebody.

And let's say you actually find yourself in a situation where drawing your gun makes it better instead of worse - do you use it? If so, prepare yourself to pay every dime you have to a defense attorney, and to give up a year of your life to court proceedings. Even in a stand-your-ground state. And that's assuming you don't miss and hit somebody else by mistake.

Human-nature is to stand by and watch when something bad goes down. Carrying a gun doesn't change that. And a three-day course on gun safety doesn't prepare you for the reality of drawing on a human and firing.

On the other side of the argument - when guns are easy to buy, lots of people buy them legally. Then some of those people have them stolen or sell them. And others resell them.

When guns are cheap and cheerful, it's easy for a criminal to get one. When guns are expensive and hard-to-get, some criminals might still get one. But a lot of other criminals won't go through the effort. Why find an illegal gun dealer when you can buy a kitchen knife at Costco? And believe it or not - that's a big win for overall public safety.

Also if we could get guns out of the hands of the general population, we'd be able to make a better case for de-militarizing our police. And that would be a _huge_ win for public safety.

The US's founders weren't gods, and they didn't have a crystal ball into the future. We shouldn't treat their words as some kind of immortal and perfect document, to be interpreted on a word-by-word basis like bible scholars. And when the US was founded, the common gun needed a ramrod to load the single shot it carried.

Some good points but I disagree. I got caught up in a situation where I really needed a gun. You say that guns aren’t useful for street crime. That just isn’t true. My experience made me an overnight 2A advocate. It’s insane that we give all this power and leniency to criminals and strip innocent people of the ability to stand up for themselves. Nobody will ever convince me that guns don’t help because I have lived it. I am living proof that that isn’t true. And it’s a shame that people in liberal communities have to live it in order to understand it.

There are countries with guns and low crime. Uk has no guns but a stabbing epidemic. The key to public safety is preventing crime with good education, opportunity and very generous disincentive, preferably a swift execution for violent crime.

For my particular situation, in the USA, the people who want gun bans are the same people that refuse to let police do stop and frisk. So it just doesn’t make sense for me to give up my right to have a gun. We shouldn’t need a ban in the first place. It’s other things that cause the underlying violent behavior.

You are so right about the civil suit. Especially in liberal states, you might as well just shoot yourself instead of the bad guy. But that’s a problem with the legal system, not guns. The legal system in general is responsible for all kinds of problems. A person who loses their case should have to pay the other persons legal fees, too. Lots to change. In the meantime I’ll defend myself in a way that is legally sound and with a gun camera that automatically captures an image of the guy attacking me before the trigger is pulled.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com