Hacker News Reader

Comment by asdff | Hacker News Reader

It would be a bad idea to use force against train robbers. They would just start packing guns themselves. Often times these robberies are coordinated by organized crime who control robbery rights over certain sections of track.

View on HN

Are you suggesting people should not defend property because the attackers will just escalate force and continue their crimes?

Then by that logic, I now understand the push to reduce the punishment of so much crime.

Imagine if the military had this mindset.

'We should surrender our lawfully owned territory in case force might be used against us in the future'

It's not the military in this case. It's loss prevention. The protocol of every single major retail corporation for theft is to just step back and not intervene or be a hero, because an employees life is ultimately not worth the $30 in loot from Target or whatever is in that Amazon bubble mailer.

These appear to be two groups, opportunistic, and organized. I imagine some basic security hardening would deter the opportunistic ones but different strategies would be needed for organised groups.

> Often times these robberies are coordinated by organized crime who control robbery rights over certain sections of track

That doesn't appear to be the case here from all accounts I've read - do you have any citations for that?

Everything I'm reading is pointing the finger addicts, the homeless, and homeless addicts...

The letter mentions they are opportunists and organised. I'm reading that as 2 classifications of criminals.

It could also be a bad idea to be a train robber because the enforcers could start packing guns themselves. Why does the advantage go to the bad guys?

I guarantee you arming random train yard workers or whatever you are envisioning is going to just lead to them being killed before they hear a peep and their guns being stolen, serials stripped, and sold. The bad guys will have the drop and the good guys aren't going to shoot first. The only good guys with guns that are able to stop bad guys with guns are SWAT who come in and can create a controlled environment to conduct a controlled response. Arming security guards and your average grunt cop just does more harm than good. Taking a gun out into the field should be a thoroughly planned affair like how SWAT operates.

> They would just start packing guns themselves.

what makes you think they aren't already doing just that?

They would be charged with a weapons enhancement instead of just petty theft

Basic criminals don’t like being shot. Large reason why gun free cities are so dangerous.

Are gun free cities more dangerous? Could you provide a source for the claim?

Look at Chicago.

Google suppresses nearly all pro gun or right wing content, so searching on mobile is difficult.

Pardon my skepticism, but "Look at Chicago" is not compelling evidence, nor is "all of the real evidence is censored." Surely there's a reputable collection of documents and research you can provide that would back up your claims?

So why don’t you search with something else? And it should be rather trivial to find the most violent cities and towns in the US and look up gun laws there.

Or you just stop watching right wing media that contrary to evidence paint all democratic run cities as violent hellholes.

A cursory look at San Francisco and Oakland should be adequate proof.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com