Hacker News Reader

Comment by giantg2 | Hacker News Reader

I agree they have been politicized. I wonder if that has anything to do with the political fight over gun regulations that seems to be unique to the US, or at least have a unique level of divisiveness. It seemed that my grandparents generation viewed guns as just a normal tool, but also didn't have as much active legislation, news coverage, etc. It seems, in my view, it's mostly the increasing disconnect between the urban and rural areas.

View on HN

There’s definitely a fight over gun rights in the US more than other countries. It’s a positive feedback loop: gun-related violence prompts for more restrictions which in turn prompts people to acquire (and carry) guns in defiance despite not having other, more practical (self-defense, recreational shooting, hunting, etc) to do so and in turn cause more gun violence, intentionally (escalating confrontations to deadly shootouts that would otherwise be resolved without deadly force) or accidents like this one seems to be.

It doesn’t help that guns are also a political weapon - whenever a party wants to introduce gun restrictions, the other can use this as an advantage to secure votes (supported by pro-gun organisations such as the NRA). This of course isn’t limited to guns per-se but guns happen to be there and have a cult-like following often defying rationality - a perfect tool for politicians to take advantage of.

I’m not sure what a good solution to this would be. In my mind, the right to bear arms is already meaningless - my understanding is the the original purpose of the second amendment was to allow people to be armed to defend themselves against an abusive government - as using these arms to defend yourself against abusive law enforcement is already outlawed and can only result in life imprisonment at best and death (as in by deadly force used by police) at worst.

In this case (assuming my understanding of 2A is correct) I believe a solution might be to forcefully restrict gun ownership. There’s definitely going to be turmoil and collateral damage (I believe guns can be owned and recreationally enjoyed responsibly without harming anyone and it would be a shame to let that go) but the advantages of having less guns around might pay off in the end.

Theoretically, if the government became abusive enough, factions of law enforcement and military would take sides. Not that I see a civil war as being likely, although some experts see signs pointing to the possibility. It's certainly an interesting topic to research - a 1st world government abusive enough to cause the people to fight, and would they actually fight or would it be resolved through succession etc.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-close-to-violent-conflict...

I totally agree that reducing weapons around should reduce weapon related violence, and also weapon related anything.

But why does a gun in the US kill more than that same gun in almost any developed county by an N factor?

Is this also a cultural factor? Or maybe social or political?

Or maybe there is a threshold over which weapon violence rises with a higher exponential in relation to weapon ownership?

For example over a certain threshold you end up having a significant number of armed individuals that are poor, desperate and armed which boosts potentially lethal criminality. Or stupid and violent armed people.

Or maybe: over a certain threshold you have too many people that are simply both armed and stupid. Occam's razor point towards this one IMHO.

I think you're right.

I've lived almost my whole life in rural areas, and have owned guns almost my whole life. With my brothers, father, grandfather, etc. Most of my friends own guns. I have never known anyone who shot somebody (with the unfortunate exception of suicide.)

I guess it's an urban thing.

I was mostly talking about the different views on guns. But it does seem that certain crimes occur at a higher rate in one area or the other.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/ncvrw/2017/images/en_artw...

> I guess it's an urban thing.

It's probably an EDC thing:

* https://twitter.com/well_regulated_

In rural areas I think long guns are generally more useful, whereas in the non-rural, (sub)urban areas it's pistols that are carried about. Every time a gun is handled there is some probability of an ND, and the larger the number of guns, the more often the dice will roll for that ND.

Adding to that is that some people have no right/business owning a firearm in the first place because they lack self control and/or have psychological/emotional issues that need to be looked at:

* https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-news/wake-county-news/1-dea...

* Via: https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/14799401563460485...

There needs to be some kind a filter about ownership, even if it's as simple a one day course learning gun safety:

* http://www.firearmstraining.ca/actsprove.htm

* https://www.bulletproofset.ca/page8/page12/prove.html

The folks with absolutely zero discipline will be unlikely to bother with that course.

"In rural areas I think long guns are generally more useful, whereas in the non-rural, (sub)urban areas it's pistols that are carried about."

It's generally pistols that are carried in either setting. My state has has carry license (effectively only covers pistols) numbers at the county level. The number of licenses are much higher in rural areas. This also matches with the higher rural ownership numbers.

"Every time a gun is handled there is some probability of an ND, and the larger the number of guns, the more often the dice will roll for that ND."

True. The real question is what level of probability is acceptable. I would expect this to be a highly opinionated. My own view is that AD/ND happens so infrequently, and even more rarely hits someone other than the carrier (usually shooting themselves in the foot/leg), that it's a non-issue compared to many other daily activities that carry risk.

"There needs to be some kind a filter about ownership, even if it's as simple a one day course learning gun safety...

The folks with absolutely zero discipline will be unlikely to bother with that course."

We could teach it in schools. That's supposed to be the purpose of schools - educating society to be a fully capable responsible member of society. Whether that's with safety issues, self sufficiency, financial literacy, etc, it seems we are doing a poor job. The benefit to teaching everyone is that people who are non-owners may come across a situation where a gun is present.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com