Hacker News Reader

Comment by pdonis | Hacker News Reader

> The problem is guns.

No, the problem is guns in the possession of people who can't use them responsibly. Guns aren't magic. They don't take over a person's mind and make them shoot other people. The people who misuse guns would misuse any other weapon you gave them. Or even things that you might not think of as weapons.

But the vast majority of gun owners are not such people; they are responsible law-abiding citizens. So any policy about guns, at least in the US where we have the Second Amendment as part of our Constitution, has to be based on letting responsible, law-abiding citizens have guns. Otherwise you are punishing responsible, law-abiding citizens for the misdeeds of a very small number of people who are not responsible or law-abiding. That's not a good idea.

View on HN

> No, the problem is guns in the possession of people who can't use them responsibly.

The problem is that guns are so readily available that even those that cannot use them responsibly can still get their hands on them. Three of the four guns used in Columbine weren't even purchased by the killers but by a fellow school mate who had turned 18 and could buy them for the killers. Similarly, with the Sandyhook shooting -- it wasn't even the shooter's gun that was used.

Your examples are not arguments for restricting gun ownership per se. They are arguments for holding people responsible for giving guns to irresponsible people.

In the Columbine case, was the school mate prosecuted for, at the very least, negligently contributing to homicide?

With the Sandy Hook shooting, was the owner of the gun prosecuted for allowing the shooter to have it?

I don't see how holding the third parties responsible would prevent the acts themselves. That's a retroactive measure. Reducing the availability of guns is proactive.

>With the Sandy Hook shooting, was the owner of the gun prosecuted for allowing the shooter to have it?

No, because she was the first person killed by the very weapon.

> I don't see how holding the third parties responsible would prevent the acts themselves.

You don't see how, if people know they are legally responsible for what guns they own are used for if they give them to someone else, they would be more careful about who they give them to?

Obviously prosecuting someone after the fact is retroactive for that particular act. But that in no way means it does not send a signal to other people to proactively change their behavior. That is how most law enforcement has its effect. And it has the advantage of putting the responsibility where it belongs; whereas if you take away everyone's guns because a few people can't use them responsibly, or can't be bothered to be careful about who they give them to, you are punishing the wrong people.

But the U.S. accepts other things that are regulated, a couple of examples:

Speed limits: Speed doesn't cause accidents just people who go faster than their ability to control the vehicle. Many people are sensible and wouldn't do this.

Drugs: Many people can take drugs and enjoy them and not descend into anti-social and criminal behavior.

> the U.S. accepts other things that are regulated

Sure, and if "regulated" means a person has to show some proof of being a responsible citizen, that's fine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com