Hacker News Reader

Comment by lallysingh | Hacker News Reader

> citizens need semiautomatic rifles

How many do you plan to shoot?

Semiautomatic means it reloads automatically. A bolt action, manual-reload rifle would be useless against a mob, which was the stated threat profile.

Yes, that was my thought process. I also don't own one but am definitely thinking about it now.

You seem to be on a different thread from your parent.

I got from your parent "a semiautomatic rifle takes two hands to shoot, so how do you plan to shoot rifles?"

Good point. With your comment for perspective I am now laughing at my interpretation. :)

In a self defense situation who gets shot is up to the attackers.

You seem to misattribute perfect knowledge, control, aim, and rationality to a scared person with a gun.

edit: some examples of scared shooters acting out of fear without enough information shoot people who are not "intruders":

  - Connecticut teacher mistakenly kills son after neighbor reports robber [1]
  - Ohio Father Fatally Shoots Son He Mistook for Intruder: Police [2]

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/28/justice/connecticut-father-ki...

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ohio-father-fatally-sho...

These imperfect people trying to defend themselves are easy to avoid, you just don't break into their property so that doesn't really seem like much of an issue.

So people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves because sometimes there are accidents? Should people be allowed to drive? After all, some people drive drunk. Should people even be allowed to go outside at all? After all, people get hit by meteors and lightning bolts.

> In a self defense situation who gets shot is up to the attackers.

"Accidents happen" disproves this assertion.

> After all, some people drive drunk

In my example, your drunk driver would be the shooter, not my the shooting victim.

I'm very familiar with risk evaluation. This whole thread was because I was pointing out a big gap in your logic.

Well, we could have all citizens share the same rifle. Is that what you had in mind?

More realistically, a good engineer will always have a backup.

CA has the castle doctrine, and many states have stand your ground laws. Nobody plans to shoot anyone, for self defense it is used as a last resort when an intruder continues to threaten the occupant.

> Nobody plans to shoot anyone

So nobody has ever used a gun to commit first degree murder?

I don't think you've thought through what you're typing.

That’s taken heavily out of context. Nobody plans to shoot someone when in a self-defense situation. Planning to use a gun to shoot someone is by definition a crime, and there is a burden of proof for that.

Yes and no.

I agree that you weren't talking about a 1st degree murder situation, but your wording is still sloppy and the idea you are conveying is inaccurate.

> Nobody plans to shoot someone when in a self-defense situation

Literally the only way your logic works is if you don't pick up a gun. If you pick up a gun, you are actively planning the possibility of a shoot.

Perhaps you are making a mental distinction between shooting a specific person versus shooting any person you find in your house?

> Planning to use a gun to shoot someone is by definition a crime, and there is a burden of proof for that.

I think we are just sparring over the definition of "planning". Have a good day!

> If you pick up a gun, you are actively planning the possibility of a shoot.

That is exactly what I stated earlier. Nobody is planning to shoot someone with malice aforethought in a self-defense scenario. As you say, they are planning for the possibility that they might shoot someone. Those are two very different things.

> I think we are just sparring over the definition of "planning". Have a good day!

It matters a lot in a legal context. If you state the assertion that “everyone who picks up a gun is planning to shoot someone”, then automatically everyone who ever picked up a gun is guilty of a very specific crime. The distinction matters a lot.

I read his comment not in an absolute sense, but that most reasonable people do not want to ever use their firearm against another human. But they may encounter a situation that forces them to, and that defending their property/loved ones using a firearm is their right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com