Hacker News Reader

Comment by KorematsuFredt | Hacker News Reader

PS: I am strong supporter of Gun rights and proud gun owner.

I fully agree with anti-gun crowd that having vast majority of guns in hands of citizens (legally or illegally) leads to more deaths. USA's comparison with Angola is actually more serious than the numbers tell you because you need to realize that USA has far better medical response and doctors trained to handle gunshot wounds. So to truly compare Angola and USA you might have to increase USA's number with those who are shot instead of dead.

Having said that I am totally for guns in the hands of citizens. Mostly because I think it acts as a bulwark against further restrictions. After 2nd ammendment you will be seeing "commons sense rules for free speech" like we have seen in UK, Canada and Australia.

Every constitutional right has its price. Anyone who fails to see this is not honest. Give police the power to search you without warrant and we almost certainly will solve more crimes. Force individual to testify against themselves and we will most certainly keep more child rapists in jail. But then as a society we need to figure out the trade-off and in my personal case I would rather keep my guns and face a 5/1000 chance of dying of gunshot wound than surrender my guns.

> Blatant corruption, lobbying, outright incompetent representatives, abuses of power, erosion of human rights, blatant disregard for human rights. If Americans didn't fight against the Patriot act, wars, torture, what will they fight for/against? Mask mandates?

In my experience USA lot less corrupt than most other countries. Lobbying overall is a net good thing for a democratic society. Representatives are incompetent everywhere. American abuse of power is nowhere close to what EU or AU does to its citizens. I am not sure wha erosion of human rights you are talking in USA.

View on HN

> After 2nd ammendment you will be seeing "commons sense rules for free speech" like we have seen in UK, Canada and Australia.

This is extremely shaky reasoning. You've done nothing to prove that the 2nd amendment is actually protecting these rights, only mentioned the existence of two facts and asserted a causative relationship between them. Have there been attempts to introduce censorship in the US that have been defeated by armed activists? Were there violent uprisings against censorship in the UK, Canada, or Australia that failed due to a lack of access to arms? The 4th amendment was gutted into oblivion in pursuit of the War on Terror -- why didn't the armed citizenry protect our rights?

Have there been attempts to introduce censorship in the US that have been defeated by armed activists?

No, because there _are_ armed activists.

Were there violent uprisings against censorship in the UK, Canada, or Australia that failed due to a lack of access to arms?

See Hong Kong of late. Many banners seen during free-speech protests there lamented their lack of a "2nd Amendment".

> No, because there _are_ armed activists.

No, because despite whatever the talkshows say, both parties and especially the judiciary are largely committed to preserving constitutional rights. There's disagreements on finer points of where the lines are drawn, but that's handled in courts and legislation, and rarely ever guns ablazing.

Compare to Hong Kong, which is not governed by consent of the governed.

> No, because despite whatever the talkshows say, both parties and especially the judiciary are largely committed to preserving constitutional rights

Wasn't there an impeachment procedure blatantly sabotaged by one of said parties like last year? Didn't the same party blatantly say they're stacking the supreme court in their favour up to the last possible moment, in an extremely hypocritical manner after refusing to accept Obama's nominees in his last year? Didn't multiple US presidents abuse and violate human rights with illegal wars and torture, mass surveillance? Didn't a US president order the murder of a US citizen without due process? Didn't a US state create a blatantly unconstitutional law for witch hunting women ? From across the pond, it seems that most US politicians in power, mostly from one of the parties, are wiping their asses with the the US constitution.

There is a lot of historical evidence that rulers were afraid of an armed population and fear alone is enough in most cases. What are you expecting here?

> PS: I am strong supporter of Gun rights and proud gun owner.

I don't understand the pride bit.

It seems like a regrettable situation where your distrust of your fellow citizens is so strong that you are comforted by the ability to kill them with minimal effort.

(I'm in Australia, where we have some truly horrendous legislation, but I totally agree with our gun ownership laws here, and echo other people's observations that gun ownership does not seem to equate to, or ineluctably lead to, better laws / more freedoms outside the right 'to own lethal weapons' itself.)

Perhaps I could interest you in some Iain M Banks (taken from Excession) :

"It could see that - by some criteria - a warship, just by the perfectly articulated purity of its purpose, was the most beautiful single artifact the Culture was capable of producing, and at the same time understand the paucity of moral vision such a judgement implied. To fully appreciate the beauty of a weapon was to admit to a kind of shortsightedness close to blindness, to confess to a sort of stupidity. The weapon was not itself; nothing was solely itself. The weapon, like anything else, could only finally be judged by the effect it had on others, by the consequences it produced in some outside context, by its place in the rest of the universe. By this measure the love, or just the appreciation of weapons was a kind of tragedy."

> I don't understand the pride bit.

I can't speak to the parent, but I take pride in self-reliance, and taking responsibility for securing and defending the well-being of myself, my family, neighbors, and community.

I also am a volunteer, state-certified structure firefighter, and take pride in that for the exact same reason.

You might find it interesting that, as part of our classroom instruction, my structure firefighting class was asked how many of us owned guns — all of us raised a hand.

This mirrors my experience in the broader fire service.

> Perhaps I could interest you in some Iain M Banks (taken from Excession).

I love Iain M Banks' Culture series, but they live within a utopian, post-scarcity benevolent dictatorship managed by AIs with powers verging on that of a demigod.

We most certainly do not.

As for the quote? Any tool can only be fully appreciated within the context of its intended purpose, and the effects that it can produce in the world around us.

The value of a gun as a tool is a tragedy, but the tragedy isn't the gun, but the necessity for one, and it's a tragedy inherent in our mortal existence.

> the tragedy isn't the gun, but the necessity for one, and it's a tragedy inherent in our mortal existence.

Well, they're sure not necessary here in Australia. I don't think I've ever met someone who owns one, certainly no-one has ever mentioned owning a gun to me. It's just not a thing. Seems to be just "a tragedy inherent" in the USA.

I was watching every day, and supporting, the George Floyd protests, and after a while those in Seattle and Portland.. until Raz got machine guns from his car and starting handing them out. WTF?! That was the plan?! I switched off, disgusted. That suddenly all seemed insane.

Like it does hearing people from the US on HN talking about guns. It just sounds crazy. I read on HN someone from the US saying Australians wouldn't be under lockdown if only we had guns etc. It just sounds insane, disturbing even reading that. What am I gonna do with a gun?!

But maybe, when everyone else has a gun, you feel you need for one too. Just know that it's not like that in every country.

Although if my country had spent most of the last 120 years invading other countries, subverting their politics, stealing their wealth, like the US has, I'd have urges to defend myself from it with a gun, too, maybe, I don't know. It's weird though. US violence has been focused outwards, on other countries, yet to hear people from the US, they never heard about that, don't feel involved or responsible, yet are obsessed with the possibility of US government violence happening to them one day.

I don't claim to understand the situation, just I'm very glad not to live in a country where everyone has a gun. OK, now I will stop reading gun stories/comments on HN. Good luck!

I think Australia is a great example of what happens when guns are given up. You have a government that’s going on witch hunts for covid cases and exerting extreme authoritarian pressure for remarkably low covid rates.

Some would say it’s them testing the limits of their populace. What are they gonna do? Protest? That’s illegal when in lockdown.

So you're saying that covid measures wouldn't exist if there were more guns, and that would be a good thing?

Maybe the remarkable low covid rates are there because of the authoritarian pressure? Authoritarian is never a good word but if people simply won't listen when it comes to matters of public health (that affect everyone - an overflowing ICU is never a good thing) and thus endanger the health of others then they have to live with the consequences. It's not a matter of politic, opinion or ideology.

The suggestion that this should be responded to with guns is just the most perfect own goal.

No you don’t.

You do have one of the lowest Covid death rates in the world. You have a lot of states with complete freedom.

Your response to the accusation that a government is being authoritarian is that it’s OK because there’s “a lot” of places with “complete” freedom? That’s bordering on “this is good for Bitcoin” levels of Stockholm syndrome.

...except if you want to leave, lol.

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 13

    Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

The majority of Australians grumble about it but agree with the lockdown restrictions. Looking at the insane number of people dying from COVID in the US compared with Australia I understand why.

This reminds me of my first year of high school in Australia. I had come from the USA and everyone wanted to hear my war stories about people shooting each other (and for me to say 'Watermelon' over and over). It completely blew my mind how misinformed Aussies (granted we were young) were about life in America. It's a huge country, you gotta keep in mind the news and action movies sensationalize and glorify isolated violent events.

I'm not sure when that was, but in a contemporary setting, the line of questioning (and fascination about what's been normalised) would be highly reasonable.

Consider the frighteningly lengthy list of school shootings in the USA. [0]

I note that Wikipedia does not have an entry for school shootings in, say, Australia. Or in fact most other places.

I'm seeing a figure of ~ 1300 school shootings in the USA since 1970, so it doesn't appear to be an entirely modern problem.

In the USA (contemporary, again, sorry I'm not sure what era your experiences are from) there's ~30-40 (children-aged) victims of gun-related violence a day, with ~8 of those resulting in death. [1]

From outside that society, how people put up with this, living with regular active shooter drills, managing the additional anxiety, etc, is definitely going to be of interest.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_th... [1] https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/gun-violence/16-facts-about...

the US does seem to have a rather unique problem with school shootings. it's certainly worth investigating why this is the case and considering countermeasures. at the same time, and I know this is a cold thing to say, the issue really gets blown out of proportion for political reasons. it's about as likely for a US student to get killed in a school shooting as it is for you to get hit by a bolt of lightning.

> From outside that society, how people put up with this, living with regular active shooter drills, managing the additional anxiety, etc, is definitely going to be of interest.

I was in grade school not that long ago, and quite frankly, there wasn't much to "put up with". we did active shooter drills as or less frequently than fire drills (not often). I don't remember ever feeling anxiety about being shot at school, and I am a lot more anxious than the average person.

I know a few friends of mine who are extremely risk averse: they live boring safe lives and think I'm crazy going to those dangerous mountain bike trails. They don't seem to get the concept of freedom: their freedom ends with a choice of a tv movie for the evening and that's enough for them. Some people here really believe that freedom is more valuable than safety, more valuable than the number of deaths or whatever else statistic you might have there. Once these people pass away evenrually, the drive behind this freedom will vanish, and America will turn into Australia, with draconian control of guns, speech and whatever else, but I hope to not be alive by that time.

I think you have a strange view of freedom in Australia.

We'd have to be one of the more free countries around.

Yep, there are some laws that you would see as draconian, but are you offended because they actually impact you, or are they just something you don't like for "reasons"? Many places have laws and conventions that are different, it's about how you live with them. We have crappy and corrupt politicians. We have criminals and we have gangs. we are not perfect. The way we treat our first nations people is frankly shameful. Unemployed are in a in a hard shake, with benefits being far too low to both live and search for a job without family assistance.

We also have a country where you can walk down most streets without concern for your safety. Most places in the city you lock your doors but can get away with not setting an alarm. My current work at home office is on our back deck, and I'm happy to leave my computers out here for a few hours if I need to go out. Most places outside the cities you don't bother locking your doors. If you break down on a country road, your biggest fear is that somebody won't turn up to help you, not that they will come and rob you. Most of us don't know of anybody who has been killed by violence. I know one, she was shot by her boy friend when I was about 8 years old, way before the current gun laws were enacted. Most of the population understand that we need to work together for the common good, be it responding to natural disasters or putting on a bloody mask to help stop the spread of covid. In a disaster your neighbour will come and check that you are ok. If I want to have my say about something, as long as I'm not stupid or violent, there are many forum. I've walked all over the big (lol) cities in the country and never felt threatened or been accosted. This would be different if I were female, but I believe that is a problem world over. I still believe that the police are there to help and look after me, and have no fear about talking to them. Of course I'm white middle class male and my experience is not that of other groups, however police violence is still rare enough that it creates an outcry.

Overall, the only place I would prefer to live than Australia would be New Zealand, and then I'd have to put up with the cold weather.

See, you're putting so much emphasis on safety: your entire text is about how safe Australia feels. I just don't see what's so valuable in feeling safe on a dark alley if you have zero control over the situation should anything go wrong.

You are not more free in the US than you are in Australia. Unless you cherry pick specific laws (guns for example) as the definition of what freedom is. Freedom to me means having choices. So if you pick (say) healthcare then not having access to healthcare in the US (for example) means you have less freedom in the US than most European countries. If you pick guns then people living in failed states have more freedom than the US because there are no laws stopping them from (say) acquiring nuclear weapons (illegal in the US). My point is that claiming that you are more “free” in country A vs. B is very much a subjective assertion.

Everybody is hugely misinformed about every country, especially kids.

> Like it does hearing people from the US on HN talking about guns. It just sounds crazy. I read on HN someone from the US saying Australians wouldn't be under lockdown if only we had guns etc. It just sounds insane, disturbing even reading that. What am I gonna do with a gun?!

As an American, the gun discourse especially on tech forums like HN sounds insane to me too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Japanese_invasion_o...

You might want to consider some counterfactuals where the US kept more to itself.

Inherent? Like, sure, I'm dimly aware that there are guns somewhere, and that if things get really bad then the police ultimately call in the firearm squad occasionally, but it doesn't feel like something that's inherently necessary.

> It seems like a regrettable situation where your distrust of your fellow citizens is so strong that you are comforted by the ability to kill them with minimal effort.

It's usually the opposite sentiment for gun owners- I trust my fellow citizens with arms.

Guns are seen as an integral part of self-reliance by many. They provide you with a reasonably effective defense. One way to significantly erode individual's/citizen's power, and in turn give power to government, is take away their ability to defend themselves. People worry that as government becomes more powerful and citizens more reliant there is greater likelihood of oppressive government, in other words disarming populace is step down a slippery slope

> Guns are seen as an integral part of self-reliance by many.

For context, can you clarify if the many you're referring to there are some fellow USA citizens?

If so, I'll note that USA is < 5% of global population, and also note a very fresh Pew paper[0] which indicated more than half of that population was keen on stricter gun controls. So 'many' has some caveats around it.

> They provide you with a reasonably effective defense.

Against what? Other people with guns, or other people with feebler weapons?

If it's the former, then we're back to a basic escalation problem, and it's what most other western nation states have avoided falling prey to by, simply, not playing that game.

If you trust your fellow citizens with arms - who is it that you don't trust and that you need a weapon for 'effective defense'?

As to:

> ... in other words disarming populace is step down a slippery slope.

I really can't speak to what it looks like from within the borders of the USA, but from outside, it feels that the USA is well down that slippery slope (of eroded freedoms, and citizenry exploitation) compared to many other democratic nations - so guns in the hands of private citizens don't appear to be a panacea.

[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-a...

Yea I'm referring to fellow US citizens (I am also an Australian citizen, but the Aussie half of my family could care less about guns).

I grew up rural in US and now live in the city. It may as well be two different countries with respect to views on gun ownership, so nationwide polls won't capture any of the variation (also state to state is massive difference).

> Against what? Other people with guns, or other people with feebler weapons?

Any living threat, which could be a much much larger attacker or mob of attackers. Consider the rattlesnake, it's the same thing- a great deterrent. It's peace of mind, a last resort, something that's better to have and not need than to need and not have.

> who is it that you don't trust and that you need a weapon for 'effective defense'?

Have you ever read about the terrible things people do to eachothers? Or the barbarism of human history?

Hang on. You came in with:

> It's usually the opposite sentiment for gun owners- I trust my fellow citizens with arms.

And now:

> Have you ever read about the terrible things people do to each others? Or the barbarism of human history?

Those positions aren't precisely orthogonal, but they certainly have some conflicting sentiment behind them.

As to owning a handgun for private use for:

> Any living threat, which could be a much much larger attacker or mob of attackers.

... from a naive perspective (I've never been in that situation, thankfully) it feels like any advantage I may have, via agility, negotiation, ability to out-run, etc, would be negated if everyone involved had a handgun. Certainly if everyone in that scenario is armed, there's no clear advantage to me to be armed.

(I concur that if the other party(ies) were not armed, and I was, then that's advantageous to me. And if they were armed, and I was not, well that's also very bad for me. But that's not the likely scenario in a heavily gun-equipped scenario.)

Anyway, I'm sure you've gone through all this before, with many people smarter / more informed than me.

Precisely why many Americans are convinced gun ownership is an answer to something, despite all the statistical evidence, I'm just not likely to ever understand. Thank you for your patience with my questions.

>Precisely why many Americans are convinced gun ownership is an answer to something, despite all the statistical evidence, I'm just not likely to ever understand. Thank you for your patience with my questions.

It probably doesn't change much but Americans ask the opposite question since ownership is already legal.

We ask what you hope to solve by removing gun ownership.

From the perspective of a gun owner who is in favor of better gun control, the biggest issue with gun legislation in the US is that those proposing restrictions either have no idea what they're talking about or are just catering to those who don't.

The pro gun control crowd is too busy inventing a nonsensical category of guns to ban ("assualt weapons") to even acknowledge that the homicide rate comes from poor people killing eachother with cheap, concealable handguns.

Well, yes, that question would be asked, as the current state, that the majority of US citizens have grown up with, is now considered normal by them.

Reasonable enough, but many people have access to information about how the world outside those borders operates - which is why free healthcare, minimum wage, and other changes, are now being a bit more actively discussed.

Anyway.

> We ask what you hope to solve by removing gun ownership.

What's on offer is a significant (order of magnitude) reduction in the number of violent gun deaths. [0]

No one's trying to sell this to the USA.

OTOH various agencies within the USA are certainly trying to sell the idea that this is a bad thing. The budget differential of the two groups is enormous - consequently it'll almost definitely never happen.

[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/05/7435796...

> What's on offer is a significant (order of magnitude) reduction in the number of violent gun deaths.

I think I wasn't totally clear about the point I was trying to make.

Very very very few politicians in the US (I can't name a prominent one but I'm hedging) are for any sort of firearm prohibition that would put us in line with any of the nations we are often compared with. So, given that, the restrictions being proposed will not and should not be expected to bring us in line with those nations. Therefore, the question I'm asking is, given the proposed restrictions, what benefits should we expect.

The point I wanted to make was that the answer to that question, "what benefits should we expect?", is basically none from the current viable proposals and that's why, while I am for more gun control, I am against most existing and proposed gun control measures as I feel they are either completely ineffective or overly burdensome for their effectiveness.

I find the oft-said quote of "If we can save even one life..." type of argument a massive red flag.

Okay, so if I understand you correctly, you're saying that - with the constraint of what's currently being proposed, a small set of tentative / cautious controls around gun ownership - that there's not much to gain, so consequently there's not much point trying ... ?

If that's roughly it, then I'd suggest:

a) the cautiousness is a political necessity - and does not preclude the option of pursuing stronger, but similarly sentiment policy changes down the road. First steps, and all that.

b) my understanding is that even very basic, not hugely contentious (almost bipartisan support for) ideas, such as removal of full automatic and ridiculously high calibre from the marketplace, stopping sales at gun shows without background checks, cooling off periods, requiring safe storage gun cabinets, etc - would result in a measurable decrease in deaths (murders, massacres, suicides, accidents).

In any case, it feels like even if (b) wasn't a highly likely, the cost of doing it is relatively low to the potential (but, really almost guaranteed) outcomes.

> I find the oft-said quote of "If we can save even one life..." type of argument a massive red flag.

I don't speak for all non-American citizens, but outside of the country looking in, it feels like (media, social groups, etc) this past year or four we've had an alarming reveal about the attitudes of a surprisingly large portion of American society -- even if something trivially inconvenient is requested of them, that demonstrably will save the lives of other citizens, there's an instinctive and violent push-back.

So, yes indeed - suggesting that some lives could be saved probably isn't a sufficient and satisfactory argument for many people there. But that's a separate problem.

The love of guns by certain segments of society can be tied to the US history of fear of slave rebellions and Indian raids.

You're saying this like it is an accurate portrayal of the entire modern positive sentiment towards guns. The honest truth of it is a lot of people just really do not like the government.

"Certain segments" != "the entire".

I am aware and that is what I am pointing out, but he's said this multiple times in a way that insinuates everyone who owns a gun is doing it for racist reasons.

"Some cows are green" is not an insinuation that "all cows are green."

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

I guess I should add, if you can't find a way to respond to a comment without violating the guidelines, it's better to downvote, or flag if it's called for, and move on. I've discarded quite a number of half-written responses (and hastily deleted a few freshly-posted comments) on that basis.

I didn't violate the guidelines. It seems clear what their intent was and I added information to the conversation. I could still be wrong. To me, if he was trying to usefully inform other readers he would have commented on why his/her perceived historical connotations are meaningful.

> I could still be wrong. To me, if he was trying to usefully inform other readers he would have commented on why his/her perceived historical connotations are meaningful.

Aha. See, if you had phrased that as a question, there could be room for curious conversation. Instead, you took the least generous interpretation and ran with that.

There's far less generous interpretations available. I could have transparently accused him of race baiting.

If I did something similar, like ran around pointing out that children can actually consent do actually have a working theory of the world in a thread about CP you'd probably question whether or not I have a load of CP on my computer. There is something as too much benefit of the doubt.

So... maybe?

I haven't said anything multiple times.

don't forget fear of being raided by the mongol hordes and viking skirmishers. We musn't forget these ever present dangers

> Have you ever read about the terrible things people do to eachothers? Or the barbarism of human history?

We live in a tiny window of prosperity and safety. WWII was only 76 years ago. Syria is a short plane ride away. Afghanistan is a contemporary product of our own hubris.

Yet people still assume, for reasons that I genuinely cannot fathom, that this tiny window of privilege that we're lucky enough to inhabit will last indefinitely, and never backslide.

> Have you ever read about the terrible things people do to each other? Or the barbarism of human history?

Nearly all perpetrated by the armed against the unarmed. The lesson of "might makes right" is to be suspicious of might before it makes right.

" They provide you with a reasonably effective defense"

No, they don't at all. Just the opposite actually.

I get the 'Guns to defend against Tyranny' argument, that's kind of reasonable.

But as 'personal defence' they don't work nearly as well as having strong gun regulations which keep guns out of the hands of the morons. It's much safer walking down the street in Canada where you can't legally carry a gun, because there are just so few guns the baddies have a harder time getting them, and use them much less.

I do think we ought to be more concerned about authoritarian creep ... but guns are probably not the best solution to that either, as if it gets to that level it's very, very bad. Legislative, civic reform, voting, literacy etc. would be more helpful there.

But your premise rests on the trust that criminals won’t obtain guns illegally if more restrictions are created. On mobile, so don’t have the numbers, but I recall a large amount of gun crime is done by illegally obtained firearms.

It doesn't rest on the premise that bad guys won't obtain guns illegally ... because they for sure will and that's the case everywhere.

Supply and Demand applies to the Black Market as much as it does to legal markets.

Again Japan is a great example: there are pretty much no guns allowed, anywhere, and guess what? There is almost zero gun crime.

There's no doubt that anyone with basic resources and need could obtain a gun if they really put their minds to it, but that's part of Supply and Demand, it's just not worth the extended effort in most cases. But if you have them lying around, with easy access, and your whole crew has them, and your rival gang is also easily and well armed, well, then you have a problem.

The argument that guns are good for personal defence just does not add up, it's just irrational at face value that everyone running around with guns (even legal ones) creates safer conditions.

The only place they would be useful is in highly dangerous situations, ironically made dangerous at least in part because historically lax gun regulations. If I lived in Mexico, I may very well own a gun, but in Maine, it would be basically pointless for the purposes of 'self defence' there.

Switzerland has high gun ownership, but they do not really have pistols and they do not carry them for self defence.

Mexico has strict gun laws, but they are not enforced, so the laws don't have much of an effect.

USA -> Can/Aus -> UK/Europe -> Japan form a fairly straight forward examples of ever stricter gun control leading to considerably less gun crime.

Note that some of those places have elevated levels of physical assaults, and knife attacks, but that leads to considerably fewer injuries and fatalities.

The 'stand against tyranny' argument notwithstanding, I think there's some legitimacy there, but that's another can of worms.

> Again Japan is a great example: there are pretty much no guns allowed, anywhere, and guess what? There is almost zero gun crime.

I think the relevant counterfactual example you're looking for here is, "If Japan had much more liberal gun laws, would murder rates go up?" I don't think anyone's specifically concerned about gun murders.

"I don't think anyone's specifically concerned about gun murders. " That's because they don't exist. They are made impossible because of the restraints.

Consider that Japan has so effectively kept gun violence out, that we consider their 'no gun deaths' an artifact of their culture.

Reference my comment on this thread for data on Japan, France, US, Canada.

If you add in Korea, which is similar to Japan, you see that guns are not completely restricted but very rare - and guess what - homicide by guns, though still rare - does materially exist above the levels of Japan.

So yes, if you allowed 'some guns' in Japan, there would be some gun crime.

The homocide rate in Japan is about 1/2 that of Norway, which seems about right, it's not like they don't murder people there.

My bet if that gun laws in Japan were the same as Norway, you'd see 1) that more of the homicides would be by guns and 2) the homocide rate would creep up a bit because it's just so easy to reach for a gun.

Of course, if guns were as widespread in Japan as they are in the US there would be much more homicide, but still considerably less than in the US.

Put another way: while culture is obviously an important factor - that culture is driven by gun availability.

And other things as well of course: if everyone has healthcare/welfare, well, that's going to start to limit the very negative situations people get into on the margins. I'm not making an ideological point here, rather than trying to illustrate systematic effects.

>Put another way: while culture is obviously an important factor - that culture is driven by gun availability.

I think that's incorrect. You really need to do experiments to get at this sort of causal story, though econometricians think they can sneak their way around said experiments. It's definitely a feedback loop and the availability of guns seems like a very, very small part of what goes into a "culture".

Anyway, what I really came here to say is I think you misinterpreted my comment: I didn't mean japanese people don't really care about gun murders, I meant all of us shouldn't really care about gun murders. From a public policy perspective, the thing we care about is just plain old murders--with what tools people decide to commit them is irrelevant. The relevant counterfactual you need to consider is, "If Japan had more liberal gun laws, would the murder rate go up?" if the claim you're interested in is "Do gun laws influence the murder rate?", NOT "If Japan had more liberal gun laws, would the gun murder rate go up?". It seems likely that the gun murder rate would go up to me, but who cares? What if the overall murder rate went down? What we really care about is the # of people murdered.

No, it rely on the fact it’s harder for criminals to get guns if it’s harder for everyone.

Canada is 80% white (so considerably more homogeneous than the U.S.), enjoys somewhat lower levels of inequality, and doesn't have a long, porous border with a developing nation that has endemic corruption, violence, and organized crime. It's really different.

I imagine you have some proof or statistics that it's Mexicans doing most of the gun killing/dying in the US? Or am i misunderstanding what you're insinuating?

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding.

Honest question: would you trust your fellow citizens to have access to nuclear weapons as well?

As another gun owner its not necessarily people that my gun can defend me and my family from. I grew up living out side of town out in the country. I have in my yard seen bear, cougar, coyotes and while hiking/camping/fishing also come across wolves and various snakes. Around age 12 I started carrying a .22 caliber pistol loaded with snake shot when fishing in case of rattle snake.

Obviously anecdata, but on point: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/25/us/feral-hog-death-trnd/index...

Woman in Texas was killed by feral hogs.

> It seems like a regrettable situation where your distrust of your fellow citizens

It is other way around. People who want gun bans do not trust the fellow citizens and hence want to restrict their freedom of owning firearms. Gun lovers on other hand are some of the nicest people around, we want everyone women, lgbtq, blacks, whites, asians and everyone to own firearms and we trust them to be responsible for it.

Pride part :

1. I come from a long line of fighters. Weapons are part of our lifestyle and no government or law can stop my family from being armed. (Though we will always obey law).

2. Guns are a symbol of individual freedom. There is an inherent responsibility to protect one and their private property and community. I will not hesitate to use violence to fight a tyranny.

Australia is practically under house arrest today and we see articles like :

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/coronavirus/nsw-covid-upda...

Welp, I guess it’s time to finally give the Culture series a go.

Always a good idea.

So if more Texas liberal women were armed, they would still have the right to choose to get an abortion?

If they can shoot the men trying to rape them maybe they won’t have to?

A) most abortions aren't in response to rape. [0] B) most rapes aren't surprise attacks in a darkened alley or parking garage; it's by an acquaintance or intimate partner of the victim. [1]

[0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-a... [1] https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics

Have you ever tried to pull a gun on someone attacking you? I think most people find it easier to fantasize these 'armed defense' reactions then to actually experience one.

The CDC[0] links to a report[1] mentioning estimates of anywhere from 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. I’m not necessarily agreeing with the previous comment, just adding some context.

0: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.htm... 1: http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2013/Priorities...

The authors (one being the notable Alan I. Leshner, MS, PhD) clearly states in the report that those numbers are unreliable:

>> The lack of standardization across databases limits their comparability (NRC, 2005). The absence of clearly defined concepts complicates data collection and interpretation. For example, definitions of “selfdefense” and “deterrence” are ambiguous (NRC, 2005; Weiner et al., 2007). There is no standardized method for data collection or collation, which prevents researchers from harnessing the potential power of data across multiple datasets

There's tons of footage available on the internet. Usually from Brazil.

Yes.

The general idea is to first avoid such situations, and then to have your hand on your gun's grip, or pull it before it's too late. You know, the whole CONSTANT VIGILANCE! thing.

If you're walking around in Condition White all the time you're unlikely to succeed. But that doesn't describe many if not most US concealed carriers.

The fact that you cast this as "fantasy" tells us it's not something you've ever seriously considered.

LOL, yes, if we were only all just like Joe Zamudio in 2011:

>> “I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready,” he explained on Fox and Friends. “I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this.” Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. “And that’s who I at first thought was the shooter,” Zamudio recalled. “I told him to ‘Drop it, drop it!’ “

https://slate.com/technology/2011/01/joe-zamudio-and-the-gab...

>> But the man with the gun wasn’t the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. “Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess,” the interviewer pointed out.

No. The point of trade-off is that you get some you lose some. They got guns rights and lost abortion rights. Or like back then with the Prohibition and women's suffrage https://time.com/5501680/prohibition-history-feminism-suffra...

"It became clear to them that giving women the right to vote was only way they could ban alcohol."

What evidence do you have for suggesting that a citizenry with guns serves to protect other freedoms? The US generally isn't among the top countries on the various international freedom indexes[1] despite our prevalence of guns. We are usually behind Canada, New Zealand, the Scandinavian countries, and a few other European countries depending on the specific criteria being evaluated.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices

I have a very simple litmus test. In how many countries can you openly (with lots of publicity) organize "Draw a Muhammad" or "Burn the bible" events.

Interesting. Kids in many countries throughout the middle east and northern Africa have essentially unrestricted access to firearms, including shit you can't buy in most US states, but your "Draw a Muhammad" litmus test wouldn't fly. What does this indicate?

Let's burn the American flag instead. How's that gonna go in rural counties of the US? Will it be safe, or will the response be armed?

The litmus test is to measure freedom and not effectiveness of guns on freedom.

It is pretty hard to organize 'Draw A Muhammad' workshop in non-muslim countries like Canada, UK or India. That tells you how less free those countries are.

Secondly, freedom is used (always) in the context of Government. In India, Canada or UK it is not the fellow muslim you have to worry about but the government jailing you. In the absence of a robust violent respons from society government will take away your freedoms one by one to simplify their own life at your expense.

> Let's burn the American flag instead.

Please do. It is an important freedom Americans have and constitutional granted free speech right. American flag is burned, insulted on regular basis in USA. Just like flag insulting national anthem is another form of protest in USA. I have not heard of anyone being punished or killed in USA for burning American flag. Most certainly the government can't punish you for the same.

> It is pretty hard to organize 'Draw A Muhammad' workshop in non-muslim countries like Canada, UK or India. That tells you how less free those countries are.

Sorry, bub. I live in Canada, and you're extremely misinformed about the law here. It would not be hard to organize a "draw a Muhammad" event here. If Megan Murphy speaking at the Vancouver Public Library is any indication, you could even do it on government property, replete with security to keep you and the protesters away from eachother.

Or, change my mind. Show me the legal precedent where Canada jailed somebody for drawing Muhammad. I'm curious about the UK, India and Australia, too. But I'm calling bullshit on your claim about Canada.

The closest I've seen was a dude got fined for distributing hate speech targeting an individual. He couldn't afford to pay the fine, and that was the end of that.

How about getting an abortion as the test of freedom? My point is that “freedom” is very much a subjective definition.

>Let's burn the American flag instead

The response will be armed

You will not be Shot unless you tried to harm someone first

You will be yelled at, called names, and maybe at most hit across the head

They will try to stop you, put out the fire, and prevent you from burning the flag

They will not shoot you dead...

You're saying that I should expect to be assaulted and arrested in response to an exercise of free speech. That's a fail.

If I persist, or defend myself, as people attempt to stop me, are you positive that I wouldn't get shot by some trigger-happy kid like Kyle Rittenhouse?

And what happens if I physically intervene to stop them from putting out my flag?

Honestly, depends what state you are in and if defending property is legal.

That is a poor test in my opinion. I do not value symbolic personal liberties like bible burning or drawing Muhammad more than economic or press freedom which have a much larger cascading effect on our lives. And the fact that the US is lacking in those two latter categories compared to many of our peer nations calls into question whether our freedom regarding guns or speech actually protects our other freedoms.

The US is not lacking in either press or economic freedom compared to ‘peer’ nations.

Did you click through to the link in my first comment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Freedom_of_the_World

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_Press_(report)

There are 2 indexes each for economic and press freedom. Our rankings on the economic freedom lists are 5th and 20th. On the press freedom ranks we are 44th, and 37th.

You seem to be looking at the the rank order alone, which just means there are a lot of closely bunched countries near the US on the indices.

If you look at the heat maps and the actual indices themselves, along with the countries with comparable numbers, you’ll see that those lists precisely support my claim.

Thanks for providing this corroborating data.

You are simply factually wrong in your description of this data. 3 of the 4 indexes I listed provide defined tiers. The US is in the top tier on only 1 of the 3 lists. On that one list there are 60 counties in the top tier. On the other two lists we are in the 2nd tier defined as "satisfactory situation" and "mostly free". The organizations behind the lists clearly think there is room for improvement. This data does not corroborate your point.

I am not factually wrong.

Here is what I said: “The US is not lacking in either press or economic freedom compared to ‘peer’ nations.”

Whether or not there are countries who have better ratings, any honest reading of the list sees that the US ratings are similar to peers.

When you consider how large and diverse the US is compared to most countries on the list, the ranking becomes more impressive.

The first list puts the US above all of Europe except Switzerland, and above all of Scandinavia, and Canada and Australia.

The second list puts the US above Sweden, Germany, and Japan for example.

The third, doesn’t have ranks, but places US in the ‘satisfactory’ category along with most of Europe, Canada, and Australia.

The fourth, is the only one in which the US does a little worse on their points scale, however *it is back in the top tier described as ‘free’ alongside all its peers, and above the UK, France and Japan in the ranking.

It’s just bullshit to claim these lists indicate that the US is lacking compared to peers.

I started writing out a longer response to you, but then realized it isn't worth it. If you aren't going to acknowledge that we maybe have room for improvement when we are internationally ranked in the 30s and 40s in press freedom then I don't see much value in continuing the conversation on how our freedom might be lacking.

> If you aren't going to acknowledge that we maybe have room for improvement

This is a completely dishonest representation of what I have said.

Here it is again:

> The US is not lacking in either press or economic freedom compared to ‘peer’ nations. Whether or not there are countries who have better ratings, any honest reading of the list sees that the US ratings are similar to peers.

Nowhere did I say there wasn’t room for improvement or even claim the US was at the top.

If you’re going to lie about both what I said, and what the links show, what do you think we can accomplish?

These lists seem to show that the US is pretty much on par with the rest of the western world. I'm not sure how you could look at these and say that the US is behind it's peers very much, especially on the economic freedom measures. Only the second press freedom list seems to have the US at the low end compared to other western countries, but it's still above the UK, South Korea and a few others.

Here is what I said initially:

>We are usually behind Canada, New Zealand, the Scandinavian countries, and a few other European countries depending on the specific criteria being evaluated.

The countries we are behind on all 4 lists and therefore unanimously behind:

    - New Zealand
    - Switzerland

The countries we are behind on 3 of the 4 lists and therefore countries we are "usually behind":

    - Canada
    - Australia
    - Ireland 
    - Denmark
    - Finland
    - Netherlands

The countries we are behind on 2 of the 4 lists and therefore countries we are on par with:

    - Germany
    - Norway  
    - Sweden 
    - Iceland
    - Belgium
    - Austria
    - Portugal
    - Czech Republic
    - Lithuania
    - Slovenia
    - Andorra
    - Liechtenstein
    - Luxembourg
    - Estonia
    - Cyprus
    - Jamaica
    - Costa Rica

So that is a yes on "Canada, New Zealand... and a few other European countries". I don't know why you and the other poster are pretending that naming countries that we are ranked higher than disproves this statement. The only thing that isn't backed up by those rankings is that I said "the Scandinavian countries" when it is only Denmark and Finland ahead of us while we are on par with Norway, Sweden, and Iceland.

You also said this:

> And the fact that the US is lacking in those two latter categories compared to many of our peer nations

Which is still bullshit.

As I said before, whether or not there are countries who have better ratings, any honest reading of the list sees that the US ratings are similar to peers.

Is your enter point through these several posts that my definition of "peer" is too broad? It should have been obvious in context that I was referring to something along the lines of "western democracies" since I listed countries before ever using the word "peer". It honestly seems like you are arguing just for the sake of argument at this point.

> It should have been obvious in context that I was referring to something along the lines of "western democracies" since I listed countries before ever using the word "peer".

I already dealt with that in this response:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28560646

> It honestly seems like you are arguing just for the sake of argument at this point.

That doesn’t seem honest to me.

I said "compared to many of our peer nations". You are acting as if I said "compared to all our peer nations". Pointing out countries we are ahead does nothing to disprove that there are 8 countries in which we are "usually behind".

But either way, I give up. This isn't worth spending any more time on. Congrats, you win!

> I said "compared to many of our peer nations". You are acting as if I said "compared to all our peer nations"

This is where the misunderstanding arises. You are actually incorrect. I’m not acting as if you said compared to all of our peer nations. I clearly and repeatedly accepted that we are behind some of our peer nations.

You on the other hand, are using the fact that we are not literally at the top of the list, to argue that we are behind our peers in a general sense.

If you weren’t you’d simply say “we aren’t at the top of the list - there are 8 countries ahead of us”, instead of the false, and more generic sounding “compared to many of our peers”.

Along that line of thinking it's now illegal to burn the US flag.

No, it is legal to burn the US flag assuming it's your flag (in the United States)

Sort of, there are still laws against it in almost every state.

https://apnews.com/article/803cf0e75e924afbbbe9c77f15517da5

Wow, it is infuriating that people are still getting harassed for that. However, the fact that it is constitutionally protected basically precludes any of those charges from being pursued. Apparently, sometimes flag burners are harassed with other petty crimes like theft/littering.

Those aren't enforceable, and haven't been for decades.

How often do you make use of your freedom to make meaningless antagonistic gestures to Muslims or Christians? Would you rank it as more or less important than the freedom to go for a run in public without being shot or harassed (which is not really afforded to Black Americans [0])?

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/sports/running-while-blac...

How should I make sense of the fact that I saw several Black Americans jogging this week. Are they scofflaws and rebels?

You clearly didn't read the collected stories in that article. The NYTimes requested letters from Black people on their experiences running after a Black man, Ahmaud Arbery, was murdered awhile running and a big part of the national narrative consisted of false allegations that he had just burgled some place.

It seems a lot of Black people are afraid to run because they know there's a real risk that they'll be shot by white people who will assume they've committed a crime. They're afraid people will immediately assume they're scofflaws, as you joked (?), and hurt or harass them.

So you may have seen black people running, but that may be because you live in a more progressive neighborhood with BLM signs that has made Black runners feel less like they'd be murdered in your neighborhood than in other neighborhoods (as one person explained in that article).

If we're measuring freedom, the right to exist in public without a reasonable expectation of violence and harassment seems important.

Okay, but you said "Blacks are not afforded the freedom to run," not that some people (how many?) have apprehensions or misgivings about doing so (not a lack of freedom). Apartheid in South Africa was a different thing from "some people are afraid, possibly irrationally so".

Lastly, this has nothing to do with gun ownership? You can find people expressing exactly the same sentiments all over western Europe.

Actually, what I said was

>...the freedom to go for a run in public without being shot or harassed (which is not really afforded to Black Americans)".

I could quibble about that claim, or point that I've read countless tweets and anecdotes from Black people describing that they have to carefully plan their routes and wear shirts from ivy league schools because they've been assaulted or harassed by white people in the past and they just want to make whites feel safe, or look back to my upbringing in Grosse Pointe, a wealthy suburb just east of Detroit that was hardcore redlined [0] where I saw Black people routinely harassed for existing in public. But the core of this is that Black people in American don't have the freedoms white people do. Black people don't get personhood here, unlike people who look like me [1].

And as a homicide researcher, I assure you, gun ownership is extremely relevant to the denial of freedom to Black Americans.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Metro_Detroit...

[1] https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1255088329634308096?s=20

Citing several small countries with many significant differences from the U.S. isn’t solid logic. All of those countries are much smaller, much less diverse, and enjoy the geopolitical shelter of the U.S.

Are you suggesting that a country needs to take away press freedom as its population increases or it becomes more diverse? Otherwise I don't see your point. I can concede that economic freedom might become more complex for larger countries, but why shouldn't press freedom scale? We rank in the 30s and 40s on those press freedom indexes. If you want to eliminate smaller countries, why can't we keep up with a country like Germany who is ahead of us on both lists?

I don't think the suggestion is that a country "needs" to take away freedoms as it grows larger or more diverse. It's just that a larger and more diverse country is simply more likely to have to grapple with tensions between different groups of people. This may lead to some freedoms being challenged.

> In my experience USA lot less corrupt than most other countries. Lobbying overall is a net good thing for a democratic society.

You rightly mention lobbying and corruption together. But somehow you miss that they are on the same continuum. From my EU perspective lobbying in the US is corruption, as the lobbying comes with money and paid-for political promotion.

The situation around guns itself is a clear example: as I understand it, a majority of US people is in favor of more limitations to gun rights (banning automatic weapons, screening psychiatric patients and criminals) but politicians are only expanding gun rights (open carry etc).

If democracy would work as intended then "common sense" limitations would have been introduced long ago.

Note that I am not talking about corruption in the criminal sense: US politics and supreme court have fully legalized and embraced it, conflating it with lobbying.

With regard to your gun control points, there is a bit of nuance you missed that people (like me, if I wasn’t trying to help you steelman your argument) will criticize.

Specifically, there are already heavy restrictions on automatic weapons, which are basically never used in criminal acts. Every automatically gun in the US has to be registered with the federal government for $200 and a lot of paperwork. In effect it means if you’re wealthy you can own automatic guns, which is a violation of the 2nd in a lot of people’s opinion.

What I think you meant when you said automatic is “assault “, which is what most of the gun debate is currently center on, so called “assault rifles”. The issue is that the term is not clearly defined, and under most proposed bans would include many rifles which were traditionally considered hunting tools. Even that is a bit of moot point, because the 2nd was not written with hunting in mind.

Another hot point recently is “ghost guns”, which like “assault rifle”, sounds scary enough on the evening news to grab eyeballs. “Ghost guns” are being used to justify government overreach by banning the sharing of gun plans for DIY construction. The issue is that again, almost no DIY guns are used in crimes. What are used are stolen handguns that have had the serial number scratched off. The stolen guns are grouped in with DIY guns as “ghost guns”.

Automatic weapons were only ever rich people toys. Unless you've got a squad of buddies and one of them is laying down covering fire they're not very useful and they convert money into noise real fast.

Small correction. The term "assault rifle" is pretty well defined.

I think you're thinking of "assault weapon" which gets thrown about a lot and for which there isn't a clear definition.

SKS rifles cost over US$600, a $200 licensing fee isn't infringing any rights compared to the right to a fair and speedy trial.

The term 'assault rifle' is used loosely by us, but in terms of law there are definitions: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1296...

> The term 'assault rifle' is used loosely by us, but in terms of law there are definitions: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1296...

"Assault rifle" has a very specific meaning: an intermediate-caliber, magazine-fed military rifle capable of both semi-automatic and automatic fire. That common meaning has been more or less fixed since WWII when it was adopted from the German word Sturmgewehr.

"Assault weapon" is a legal term that is defined by law (e.g., California's assault weapons ban or the failed federal Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 that you cited). "Assault weapon" includes not only semi-automatic rifles, but also shotguns and pistols that have certain characteristics. The definitions are long and complicated because they attempt to ban only weapons having the visual and ergonomic features of military weapons, while ignoring weapons of similar caliber that do not have those features.

Many people in the US cannot afford that. It’s an arbitrary 33% increase on an already expensive purchase. That’s a pretty strong disincentive for a lot of people. Not to mention people who would prefer to engage with the federal government as little as possible, for a wide variety of reasons.

As for the definition, if you read the definitions of the prohibited components, they are broad enough to ban essentially all rifles, which is likely the goal. For instance, “pistol grip” seems like a well defined thing at a glance, but it is later defined as “ 45) The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumbhole stock or Thordsen-type grip or stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.”

That last clause especially is extremely broad. Define functioning as a grip. Is that any piece that enables holding the rifle?

One of the many things you're ignoring is that $200 was originally over $4,000 in today's dollars. And had quite the chilling effect, even if at the last minute handguns were removed from the remit of the NFA of 1934, that's why it has the bizarre "Any Other Weapon" category, it was intended to effectively ban for almost all citizens in the middle of the Great Depression all concealable weapons, as well as full auto.

And you don't get to decide if $200 today plus a very intrusive application process infringes on our rights.

>> As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-...

Also, the supreme court already weighted on some rights regarding weapon registration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Freed

>> United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the National Firearms Act's registration requirements do not violate the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Try putting a pre-emptive background check, $200 fee, and 10-12 month waiting period for approval on any other constitutional right, whether that right be explicitly stated, or implicitly "discovered".

> SKS rifles cost over US$600, a $200 licensing fee isn't infringing any rights compared to the right to a fair and speedy trial.

$600 for an automatic rifle? I will literally pay you as much just to connect me to the seller.

Correction.

SKS is semi-automatic.

So don't need the $200 ATF machine gun stamp.

Just to clarify, fully automatic rifles ("machine guns") in the U.S. cost tens of thousands of dollars (and have, thanks to gun control legislation, been an absolutely amazing investment). For instance, an M-16 would cost you maybe $30-35k plus the regulatory hoops.

Strange, isn't it, how polling organizations don't quite seem to capture what the people actually want and vote for.

Actually, your list of "banning automatic weapons, screening psychiatric patients and criminals" is already in place, although the first is limited to a few hundred thousand in civilian hands. Two last time I checked had been used in crimes, the first incident a murder by a policeman.

> From my EU perspective lobbying in the US is corruption, as the lobbying comes with money and paid-for political promotion.

People with money and influence will always try to impact law. In EU it happens through actual bribes which is far worse. (Pretty much like India). In USA an immigrant like me can join hands with 10K immigrants and find enough support in congress openly by hiring lobbiest to advocate for the cause I care about. That is how democracy should work.

It is easy to see lobbying as bad by taking examples you don't like but in reality it is a great example of how people can convince their representatives to pass right kind of laws, legally and with enough regulation. In most countries this happens to secret middleman and nights in shady hotels.

> a majority of US people is in favor of more limitations to gun rights

It is not clear if that is the case. Of course majority of people is irrelevant because this is not a mob rule. That is why we don't allow crowd in SF determine what people in Montana want. It is all fair game.

Secondly, people like me who care about guns care about it lot more to actually form lobbies. On other hand folks who dislike guns only talk about it but will not lobby or donate for the anti-gun causes.

I recommend this excellent video about why NRA despite with a shoe string budget is so much more influenced than many other lobbying groups.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdt6Jj64TVU

> shoe string budget

> Revenue (2018) $412,233,508[0]

I don't know what shoestrings you're buying, but I suggest shopping around.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

> shoe string budget

> Revenue (2018) $412,233,508[0]

That could buy a lot of machineguns, according to the ATF.

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-mach...

That's pre-embezzlement revenue. Perhaps the remainder is just a shoestring?

> In EU it happens through actual bribes which is far worse. (Pretty much like India).

What on earth are you talking about?

Please note that automatic weapons are already banned from civilian possession. Regarding psychiatric patients and criminals, this has an exact opposite effect that you want. People are far more scared of seeking psychiatric help when they know that they’re going to lose their rights. This is an open secret in gun community to never mention to a doctor that you have guns, and this is an indirect message to not seek psychiatric help unless you wanna lose your guns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origina...

As someone who both owns guns, has a concealed carry permit, and has been in therapy and takes anti-depressants, the pervasive fear about getting red flagged and having your firearms taken away seems like overblown fearmongering.

Can someone point me towards some statistics or reports of such occurrences?

I don’t understand what are you trying to challenge here? My claim that people think that, or their belief that this does not happen?

I don’t know how can I prove that people think that. You just need to be in the gun community and talk to people who would never put it in writing. My own gun trainer told us the story of a man going to the doctor for getting his hand hurt while doing repairs at home, the doctor chatted with him and he mentioned that he lost his job recently that’s why he had all this free time to do his work, the doctor reported this and his guns were taken away. (Please note no more details were provided than the story).

The point is that mental health is a very tricky game, there is an immediate loss of trust due to the fundamental nature of what it is. I personally don’t think you should own guns if you’re taking antidepressants.

> I don’t understand what are you trying to challenge here? My claim that people think that, or their belief that this does not happen?

> I don’t know how can I prove that people think that. You just need to be in the gun community and talk to people who would never put it in writing.

I wasn't trying to challenge anything, just presenting my own anecdata that I personally have not run into gun ownership issues even with my own mental health trials. Nor has my brother, who like another commenter got put into a 72-hour involuntary hold and continues to own and purchase firearms without issue. Contrast this against your own, opposing anecdata from your trainer.

I'm well familiar with the belief and that people live with such fear, I've heard it plenty at ranges, gun stores, sporting goods stores, from colleagues and in bars. Recently, my girlfriend quit her job and her father was near frantic in his insistence that she not cite 'stress' in her resignation letter as that alone would supposedly start some rube goldberg slippery slope mechanism to her losing her right to own guns. Again, to me this feels like such an overblown fear of the evil eye of big government boogeyman and near incredible, which is why I was asking for stats or reports to try to put some numbers to the stories. I certainly won't discount that guns are, on occasion, taken away from their rightful owners without proper due process; but are there any DOJ, FBI reports, etc?

> just presenting my own anecdata that I personally have not run into gun ownership issues even with my own mental health trials. Nor has my brother, who like another commenter got put into a 72-hour involuntary hold and continues to own and purchase firearms without issue.

Ok, so your point is, that making laws which stigmatize mental health (which is what it is) have no impact on people seeking out mental health counseling?

No, my point is that I haven't seen, and am asking for, data to back up the belief that the pursuit of mental health is causing mass seizures of people's belongings.

If anything, my point is that maybe this pervasive (and possibly unfounded, which is why I'm wondering if there is any actual hard data) fear of having guns stolen is impacting people's mental health by disincentivizing them from seeking the help they need.

> No, my point is that I haven't seen, and am asking for, data to back up the belief that the pursuit of mental health is causing mass seizures of people's belongings.

Ah, but that was not my claim. My claim is, association of mental health and guns will cause (and is causing) people to avoid seeking mental health.

I don't know how can I be any more clear, but you can read my past comments again.

No stats, but I have been placed under a 72-hour involuntary hold and even I could still purchase guns in my state.

Being committed by judicial order for having a mental illness/developmentally disabled, or being found not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial are the three disqualifiers for gun ownership in my state. It is likely different in each state, so YMMV.

There's a reason that national, electronic, centralized medical records happened before we started hearing these pushes for red-flag laws.

you have got it almost completely backwards. :P Automatic weapons are for all intents and purposes banned. Politicians are constantly passing new gun control. It is far easier to pass new gun control laws than it is to remove them. "Common Sense Gun Control Laws" is a term coined by the Democrats that is used to refer to any gun control legislation that they are currently trying to pass. If they pass the law than the next thing they want becomes "Common Sense"

Yes, personally I would much rather put my trust in my neighboring citizens than the government. I trust myself and other citizens to stand up for our rights more than I trust the government to protect them. So, I'd rather citizens be armed than the government. IIRC Switzerland has an interesting citizen militia/gun ownership situation as well.

Switzerlands guns culture and history is very different. Quite the opposite actually. Civilians were armed, required to own guns for a long time, so local lords and later governments could send them to conflicts quicker.

The argument that you need guns for personal defense, against the government or as part of self-reliance is extremely rare. Also legally there are not many cases where their use would be considered justified self-defense by a court.

There has been some "americanization" in recent years with people copying NRA arguments but not a prevalent mindset anywhere in the country.

The reasons why there are some many guns around are simply because people often take (or had to in the past) the military service riffle home and because shooting is a fairly popular sport. Not because of a perceived need of needing it for defending oneself or family.

Yes, everyone in Switzerland has a gun but you left out a very important detail: ammo is illegal to own.

Sadly, our neighborhood thinks everyone is a potential criminal and hangs signs around saying "I don't call 911" with a picture of a gun. This is not inviting to other neighbors, and not a way to build trust with one another.

I grew up in an area where people have these signs and bumper stickers, and never had a problem socializing. I saw no evidence that people couldn't trust their neighbors or community. I've seen these in rural and urban places as well, and still haven't seen any issue like what you're suggesting. What's the problem supposed to be?

How do those signs introduce trust by advertising violence? Furthermore, I do not want my children playing with other families who have guns inside the household. I don't see it as safe.

Why hang a sign that insinuates "I may shoot you", unless that person really means it?

Because the neighbors know that violence will only be directed against those causing harm in the neighborhood, restoring peace should criminal activity cross a line, and deterring criminal activity by assuring perpetrators will not benefit from their vile actions.

I know other families who have guns are willing & able to protect my children. They've thought about such situations, and have means to protect the innocent.

The signs are clearly intended for would-be criminals, that is the well understood meaning of a phrase like "we don't call 911" or "this house protected by Smith and Wesson". Nobody who lives next to such a house thinks these signs describe them or are meant for them at all, because they aren't criminals. The "I may shoot you" interpretation never occurs to them, because they don't think "I may rob this house" either.

You make a fundamental mistake by thinking that the sign has any effect on how much I trust my neighbors. Unless it's a NAMBLA flag, I am not going to let a bumper sticker or slogan override my personal experience of a person. Most people are like this.

The problem is not specifically criminals, but how people react to others under stress, and how they view guns in their lives. Do they turn to guns quickly, or do they find peaceful solutions? The posted signs are one way to judge, and I really do hope most people are peaceful, even though they portray violence. My family's safety could depend on their true nature.

An example of someone's recent true nature:

>> A Washington man was arrested after officials said he shot and killed a neighbor for revving his engine too loudly.

https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/state/washington/article...

Those familiar with guns know their place, and are (on the whole) actually much less likely to harm others without cause - precisely because they are familiar with the likely harm.

One cherry-picked anecdote is insufficient. A million or so crimes, murders included, are deterred/stopped every year - most without firing a shot.

> A million or so crimes, murders included, are deterred/stopped every year - most without firing a shot.

The data don't really suggest that this is the case. Compared to other western countries, America has the same rate of crime. The difference is, of course, that criminal activity is more likely to involve firearms and thus death.

>Unless it's a NAMBLA flag, I am not going to let a bumper sticker or slogan override my personal experience of a person. Most people are like this.

If you have lots of personal experiences with a person, that's great. But many people don't have real relationships with their neighbors. Bumper stickers and slogans absolutely will impact such relations, they make first impressions. I certainly wouldn't trust almost-strangers with tons of flat-earth stuff to tutor my kids, would you?

In my experience, conservative and moderate-leaning people do not require a priori confirmation of ideological alignment with a person before they try to know them. Especially if they live next door. In conservative places, where you would expect to find more armed households, you would also see more neighborly relationship in my experience.

That's fantastic. Does this sense of community continue to apply when a black family moves in?

The derangement of liberals knows no end, I see. Just nakedly projecting his own internal reality without a hint of self-awareness.

Being brown myself, I promise you that your cherished pet minorities are doing fine in the suburbs. None of us are looking to urban whites as a savior, and you don't need to involve us in your feud with rural whites. Many of the people who I know that are gun owners are black -- they're very neighborly as well!

I'm glad your experiences have been good. But that doesn't make it true for the country as a whole. Here's a quote by Former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich:

"It's more dangerous to be black in America[...] It's both more dangerous because of crime, which is the Chicago story. But it is more dangerous in that you're substantially more likely to end up in a situation where police don't respect you where you could easily get killed. I think sometimes for whites it's difficult to appreciate how real that is."

That's completely unrelated to whether your rural neighbors will be friendly, though. In fact, both things he mentions - crime and police - are going to be primarily experienced in urban, democratic areas by African Americans.

Are you suggesting that racism is a predominantly urban phenomenon?

Respectfully, you may think you're developing a coherent argument, but you are jumping around between several unrelated points.

Does racism exist? Of course. It probably is even higher among rural and suburban individuals, on some kind of self-reported metric.

Does it have an appreciable, significantly negative impact on the lives of most non-white people in 2021? The evidence is pretty dubious on this point IMO, but of course it depends on your definition of impactful.

Is it related to gun violence? I don't see how.

What argument? I was literally just asking a question. If you thought I was making some statement about gun violence, I suggest that you calm down and stop reading too much into random comments on the internet.

Sure, I guess if someone is asking a loaded (and flippant IMO) question, they can be said to be "literally just asking a question." But I'm not sure how seriously to take "I'm not making a comment about gun violence" several comments deep into a thread about gun violence.

In this thread? I have mentioned nothing of weapons. I really don't know how to tell you that threads and conversations quickly change topic. I'm genuinely curious what statement on gun violence my question was supposed to be making.

I am suggesting that "being African American" is a disproportionately urban phenomenon.

Which goes back to the original point: gun violence is a geographically limited phenomenon.

Is this still true? This article (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.calhealthreport.org/2018/04...) suggests that it's no longer the case in California.

If you follow through to the referenced article, they show a map of CA with extremely high variability between counties. Moreover, the county boundaries themselves are quite broad geographically. For example, it shows Contra Costa as having 5+ gun deaths per 100k, but do you think that's Walnut Creek and Pleasanton's contribution? Or Concord's? Similar questions could be asked about Alameda or Los Angeles counties.

Can you elaborate on how this disqualifies the study findings? I also read it, they say:

"To describe the urban-rural distribution of firearm mortality, we used the county-level metropolitan/nonmetropolitan classification from the United States Department of Agriculture’s 2013 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes, which defines nonmetropolitan (rural) counties as having communities of fewer than 50,000 people with less than 25% of the workforce commuting to a metropolitan(urban)county".

Does that work?

I'm not sure how to reconcile that note with figures 5, 6 which show county level aggregation. Moreover, I just noticed that this survey deals with firearm mortality and not homicides by gunshot.

Broadly speaking, if someone says "we should severely curtail gun ownership because at a per-county level some counties have very high firearm mortality rates," it does seem reasonable to me to object on the basis that:

1. in terms of the intersection of quality of life and foundational rights, I care more about the rate of homicide, not gun mortality (which includes accident and suicide). Rights imply responsibility, so the appropriate question is whether people are capable of being responsible with their rights. It is irresponsible if you harm others with the exercise of your freedom.

2. on the basis of individual cities and towns, high gun ownership (freedom) does not seem to correlate to higher homicide (irresponsibility). That phenomenon seems restricted to dense urban areas where gun control is already in effect, and other geographies -- mostly poorer regions where stronger gang and drug enforcement seems warranted.

I'm trying to understand the problem with defining rural and urban areas at a county level. Aren't they looking at per capita fatality rates? Obviously urban centers massively out populate rural ones. I don't really see how rural land around an urban center is poisoning the results here. Ultimately, the authors found that gun violence per capita isn't significantly greater in urban counties than in rural ones.

"A statistician is someone who drowns while crossing a river that is three feet deep, on average"

If you understand that joke, you understand the objection.

Suddenly, the entire study of statistics and demography is unsound to you after I ask for clarification on your issues with a paper's conclusions.

I don't know what sort of answer you're looking for. I've lived in California my entire life, and saying all parts of Contra Costa or Los Angeles or Alameda counties are equally prone to gun violence is a statistical slight of hand that bears little resemblance to reality. Anyone who lives here knows that.

Unfortunately, in 2021, dense minority-dominated districts tend to be high in gun crime. If you don't live in one of those area, it's like a European country, in terms of living standards and crimes rates.

> Furthermore, I do not want my children playing with other families who have guns inside the household. I don't see it as safe.

So we get to the crux of it. It's not the signs that prevent you from socializing with your community.

On to the signs. "Posted, no trespassing" is an indication that bad things may happen if you jump a fence. Maybe all it is is getting arrested and charges pressed. Do signs like that make you feel unsafe?

Signs like that are intended to deter the wrong kind of people, that is, those who would harm you. They have the added side effect of bringing together like minded people, and deterring socialization from people with a problem with it.

> On to the signs. "Posted, no trespassing" is an indication that bad things may happen if you jump a fence. Maybe all it is is getting arrested and charges pressed. Do signs like that make you feel unsafe?

No. Those suggest a normal, decent, measured response, rather than a spirit of escalation. A sign like "talk shit, get hit" would worry me though.

The elephant in the room is race.

I'm just as ready and willing to shoot the white meth-head around the block if he breaks in as I am a black crack-head who breaks in.

Seeing neighbors with signs like that make me feel more welcome, not less.

I don't even care about the tyranny aspect- I own guns because I like owning guns and it's my right. I don't need to justify it to anybody.

Let me start off by saying I love playing with guns, and really frankly anything gun related. I don't know why it is but I've just been fascinated with them since I was a kid.

Ok that said, I don't understand how guns protect us from the government. I think the biggest threats area slow and mundane. Ie erosion of rights or increasing power of some portion of the government over decades. There's no one cataclysmic event that overnight would make sane people take up arms and start popping off.

Likewise, let's say the government went all evil-like. Like in a movie. And you somehow got a huge citizen resistance trying to fight the government forces, unlike in real life where apparently the country would be split and half would join the government forces. The government has armor, air support, artillery, surveillance, and logistics. This isn't the 1700s. Just access to small arms is meaningless unless the 2nd amendment is broadened to include all weapons. And even then, machine guns, manpads, tanks and heat are just tools and a tiny, inconsequential part of warfare.

You always see gun people plinking away at stationary targets. Arguing about mlok vs picatinny. Maybe practicing their tacticool speed reloads. You rarely see people practicing force on force cqb, urban fighting, how to fight as a team.

IMO citizens being well armed is deterrence. It makes the likelihood of 'evil martial law' government less likely by increasing the perceived cost. If you truly disarmed the entire country (something I consider basically impossible), it makes a military coup/governance much more feasible. One of the main lessons of modern history is that insurgencies are incredibly cost effective ways to fight a stronger opponent. You basically have to be willing to commit terrible crimes against humanity to overcome them.

Of course this is all theorizing. I don't America is in danger of that sort of civil war just yet.

The moment anybody tried to organise armed resistance to the government, they would instantly be declared “terrorists” and taken out by legal means or by force. The US government agencies have such information supremacy that it is nearly impossible for any armed groups to organise without the government knowing about it.

The biggest threats are slow and mundane because the population is heavily armed. Anything fast and oppressive (ex.: Australia's Covid lockdown) would be seriously opposed. The "Waco" incident was a fast and oppressive move (violent SWAT-type raid on a group for a small paperwork/tax violation), those targeted fought back, gov't didn't do it again for decades.

Government isn't going to attack lots of individuals via tanks/artillery/etc scattered thru innumerable suburban neighborhoods.

Every year >20,000,000 US individuals partake in live-fire live-target drills, acting practically as lone wolves, as well- and self-equipped snipers in Operation "Deer Season". Just 0.001% of those, sufficiently motivated, would paralyze an oppressive government.

Yes, most "plinking" aren't practicing for serious combat. But they are practicing, and even with a high attrition rate they would, as a diffuse group, take down and/or demoralize violent oppressors. And that's not counting the small but far-from-trivial number taking CQB training seriously.

This year's legislative freak-out over thousands of unarmed & mostly-peaceful protesters occupying the Capitol wasn't so much what they did, but that they represented an enormous number who are well armed.

The majority of Australians agree with the “oppressive” COVID lockdowns. Especially given how badly the US is handling it.

The US government probably seems less corrupt than the EU because of its laid back approach to a lot of policies. However, that's exactly the type of corruption that a lot of people are talking about.

The country needs a lot of change to tackle big problems like climate change and increasing wealth inequality however the government is sitting back doing nothing because many representatives are lobbied by big interests to let the big interests continue doing what they're doing.

Why blame lobbyists for this?

You can see for yourself what actual Americans think the "most important problem" they're facing is:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/Most-Important-Problem.asp...

Global warming and income inequality are so low they barely register in the poll at all. Representatives follow their constituents.

Over the last few years it's become increasingly clear that many people don't think for themselves and will believe in whatever their favorite media tells them. A lot can be done to convince the population that climate change and income inequality aren't major issues.

Also, that poll seems flawed because it asks a superlative question (what is the "most" important problem) instead of using something like ranked choice where perhaps climate change and income inequality were everyone's second and third options.

I think there are many rights violated as a result of lobbying. Access to basic healthcare is curtailed in the name of profit, largely as a result of the power of lobbyists. I think this has a very large functional effect on the freedom of everyday people. Even if they have reasonable means they may be essentially forced to continue working for an employer who provides health insurance or risk personal financial ruin if poor health befalls them.

The power exerted by 3 letter agencies is greater than any other western nation in my opinion. They are massively bloated with excess capital and power, and it has allowed them to indefinitely extend their jurisdiction until it significantly overlaps with people's right to privacy.

That said I doubt either of these issues would be much improved without guns. An armed population seems mostly incidental. One downside of focusing on armed resistance, however, is that you can easily delude yourself into thinking you're better protected from tyranny, when in actuality the war is already being lost in courtrooms and political backrooms without a shot being fired.

Lobbying is simply an open system of advocacy where all the other countries have closed and informal systems.

> face a 5/1000 chance of dying of gunshot wound

Isn't that a very high estimation?

It's very optimistic to say the least...maybe the OP was assuming the shooter is just a really poor marksman, or using a BB gun?

That said...I'd take being shot by a bullet any day compared to being shot by a modern bow/crossbow. Definitely a better chance of surviving the bullet.

The stat might reflect reality. But reality reality probably includes a lot of people shot in extremities and shrapnel bouncing back from steel targets.

If someone is shooting to stop a threat they're probably gonna have better than 5/1000 odds of permanently stopping the threat.

USA ranks 25 according to this:

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020#

So yes better than 50% but not great.

As a proud owner of a pair of pants, what are you so proud about?? You went and bought a gun??

As mentioned elsewhere, the pride usually stems from self reliance.

If you want self-reliance, then get a medical degree. This will bring you further than owning a gun, especially in the US.

Don't be ridiculous.

In america, are you allowed to shoot a police officer who is violating your rights?

Yes!

> In December, a jury in Corpus Christi, Tex., acquitted a 48-year-old man who spent 664 days in jail after being charged with attempted capital murder for wounding three SWAT officers during a no-knock raid that targeted his nephew. The jury concluded that the man, Ray Rosas, did not know whom he was firing at through a blinded window.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/18/us/forced-ent...

Spending nearly two years in jail is not what I would describe as "allowed".

So, he served a two-year sentence. Now do Breonna Taylor.

Breonna Taylor wasn’t charged in court and persecuted (technically it was her bf who was shooting back). Irrespective of whether her death was legal or not, The question was simply about the legality. Kenneth Walker, boyfriend of Breonna Taylor, was never prosecuted.

Yes, the charges were eventually dropped, but Walker spent a couple of months in jail. Taylor's killing was an extrajudicial execution, as her murderers weren't charged. Walker can't sue the cops, thanks to qualified immunity, but the cop he shot is suing him.

How can be be sentenced for the crime if he was acquitted?

Yes; it usually doesn't end well, and as NoImmatureAdHom notes the rights violation has to rise to the level at which lethal force is justified in self-defense, but it does happen and people get cleared of the inevitable charges, that's happened in my home town although the shooting did not kill the officer. And armenarmen's link doesn't include the case where black grandmother was killed in her dwelling, that didn't end well for the police.

It's always retrospective, of course, because whether you are "allowed" will be determined in court afterwards. The answer is sometimes yes. Usually you're only allowed to kill, or attempt to kill people when your or someone else's life is immediately at risk.

No...because no matter what the reality is, you will be painted as a criminal, and charged/convicted as such. It's more likely there is no charge/conviction step, and instead you will be murdered by another police officer under a false pretext of a "firefight". The story that we all hear will not reflect reality; you will take the truth to your grave.

There are numerous examples of this happening, a couple mentioned in responses to you, but in Indiana I know that a law was passed a few hears ago (with quite a bit of protest from police unions) saying basically that you can treat a cop as an armed intruder if he forcibly enters your house without a warrant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/02/10/s...

In America you can do anything you want because you're presumed innocent until proven guilty... in theory at least. Times are a changin'.

What rights of mine have gun owners protected? The 2nd amendment has protected the 2nd amendment, through compliant courts that have turned gun ownership into an entitlement.

I think "no taxation without representation" was a major one (unless you live in Washington DC, sorry)

Over the years, taxation has gone up and down. Representation has gone up and down (universal suffrage, countered by gerrymandering and voter suppression). I don't see a relationship.

The USA is just as corrupt but the price is substantially higher. With the resources of a business you can almost certainly get away with many things.

Situations like China effectively exterminating populations they don’t like are why gun rights are so important. Order men to re-education camps and forcing their women to sleep in same bed as police/watchdogs gets a lot less appealing if the woman can shoot their government mandated rapist.

Mao used a policy of "rifle taxes" to disarm the rest of the country, and I shouldn't have to repeat his single most famous quote.

Yeah, I cannot fathom the carnage and full blown civil war in Northwestern China if Uighers had guns.

Or maybe nothing would have happened because the CCP would have chosen not to use concentration camps on an armed population.

Yes, in the same way that nothing wrong happened during Cultural Revolution when armed factions of Red Guard fight with each other. Also, I'm not sure how you imagine small militia fighting with worlds biggest army.

All we know is that you are certain that the CCP would have crushed the Uighurs no matter how well armed they were. That’s all well and good.

My point is that a society which trusted all of its civilians to be armed would be very different from the communist China of today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com