Comment by wireprotocol | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wireprotocol | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"I’m strongly in favor out stronger gun control but find your argument here reasonable."

A few genuinely curious questions.

First, would you rather there was just no 2nd Amendment at all? I can understand that point of view.

Second, let's assume there is a right to bear arms, and that it's not going away. Do you think all of the little half measures are actually helpful? Stuff like how you can buy ammo, or what models of guns are acceptable, or what kind of grip or stock a rifle can have?

Third: rifles. Not many killings happen with rifles. They are lower than knives, and behind even fists/feet[1], even in states with very permissive rifle laws. What do you think about removing pretty much all restrictions on rifles (and accessories, including suppressors[2]), and instead restricting pistols more heavily?

[1] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

[2] For most rifles, a normal suppressor just reduces the sound from "instant permanent hearing damage" to "louder than a jackhammer and you still probably want hearing protection".

Overall I would rather 2nd amendment would not exist and I don't think it belongs in a modern world (I am a retired soldier that has served abroad, and have gone to gun ranges to shoot).

I think currently stronger background checks, strong penalties for selling guns outside of this and bans of large magazines and ways of reloading quickly.

I would support some way of limiting open arms in public places, I do not think they belong in demonstrations or Subway stores and are often used to intimidate.

I'm personally mostly OK with rifles, except automatic rifles with large capacity magazine. If you have a hunting rifle and it can be traced back to you, please have your fun.

The parts I feel strongly about are strict background checks, weapons can be traced back, and should not be used for intimidation in protests. The rest are details and I am sure we can come to an agreement.

In the weapon culture I come from if you point a weapon at someone, loaded or not, your are assumed to be hostile or an idiot that should not have a gun and will be met with extreme force.

"I'm personally mostly OK with rifles, except automatic rifles with large capacity magazine."

You mean semi-auto or fully-auto?

I ask because many states in the stats I offered allow pretty much any semi-auto rifle to eligible people with little restriction, and the deaths are still lower than knives/fists. While I agree that some rifles are scary, the data just don't seem to justify restrictions on semi-auto rifles regardless of magazines.

I think all states have laws against brandishing or threatening people with any weapon.

I generally agree about background checks, but some laws are pretty extreme, where it prevents reasonable sharing, and I don't agree with that.

I am not aware of any real problems with open carry demonstrations other than they make people uncomfortable. That doesn't seem like a great reason to pass a law, but I don't see a big problem having a law like that in city limits. You need ways to allow people to legally transport though, which should include walking.

Agree fully about ways of transporting that includes walking. I have seen many pictures of people using guns for intimidation. I remember one picture of a black kid in Charlottesville laying down with the hands up and armed protesters were pointing guns and rifles at him. To me this is a pretty serious offence.

I think we mostly agree about everything except on the margins.

No full auto for sure, semi? I don't really know. As a soldier I never used full auto in training or in action other than for the memes. It is just not a reasonable way to spend your ammo and aim well.

The issue with rifles is not really that the stats show they are dangerous but the potential they have for example in school shootings so if possible I would prefer to keep them out of the hands of civilians. Perhaps banning them is too much and instead strict background checks.

As for sharing, I don't really know enough about it. There would need to be background checks for that person as well as if they would buy the weapon I suppose? Perhaps some minor way of tracking this, should be possible now that we have Internet. Weapons should be handled with care, if you have to take 5 min to share it I am OK with that.

> Overall I would rather 2nd amendment would not exist and I don't think it belongs in a modern world

Genuine question since I see this argument online with some regularity. Why don't you think the 2A belongs in a modern world? What does the time frame (modern vs not modern) have to do with human rights?

> Why don't you think the 2A belongs in a modern world?

The forgotten premise of the 2A is that it would prevent tyranny by providing the tools so that the citizenry could demand that the government not form permanent external or internal security services beyond what was necessary for a minimal tripwire and training cadre force that would form the nucleus of an at-need force that would be sized up as situations presented with the militia and it's privately-owned arms. Liberty wasn't guaranteed by permitting the general citizeney arms to fight the central government at need, but by providing the tools so that the citizens could use the government to meet their security needs while keeping the general citizenry and not a distinct and separate peofessional warrior group as the necessary and essential component of the government providing that function.

The development of standing armies scaled to fight major wars rather than serve as tripwire and cadre forces, professional paramilitary law enforcement services, the professionalization of not just standing military forces but even the ready reserves, culminating in the all-volunteer force, have all rendered that design outdated.

The 2A might conceivably serve it's function in a modern world, but not in a country where the citizenry has accepted the changes the US has since roughly the second quarter of the 19th Century which have completely eradicated it's fundamental premise.

I would say an armed militia can still resist any industrialized nation. The US has lost numerous modern wars against minimally armed guerilla fighters. Pretty interesting such means of resistance has been so constantly successful.

Not just standing armies (but true that makes the argument much stronger), but also the militarized police force. A SWAT team is a mini army and the combined states police forces could easy invade many countries today if that was an option.

Several reason:

- Civilians today do not have the means to stand up to a modern state. For a minor example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege, note the outcome was never in any doubt just how much casualties the feds wanted to inflict

- Weapons today have much larger damage potential

- We live in a world that violence and weapons are not part of the way it used to be, for the better. I don't think we are ready to go back to having to defend ourselves

- A strong and well armed democracy was hoped to be a better solution to this

Taliban didn't do too badly in afghanistan. We've never defeated them despite over a decade of the world's most advanced military. Sure, they've had help from iran and such, but still their armaments are mostly inferior to what the average US citizen can buy with the right license and enough money.

Taliban doesn't get help from Iran. They get help from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

> and should not be used for intimidation in protests

“Brandishing” a weapon is already a crime.

I think showing up armed to a protest against the government is sometimes important - reminding the government that the populace as a whole has the means to fight oppression is an act of political speech.

Using guns to imply a desire for violence against a group other the government seems wrong to me and I would be against it if I thought there was a way to legitimately differentiate between the two.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com