Hacker News Reader

Comment by foldr | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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.

> 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.

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com