Hacker News Reader

Comment by slim | Hacker News Reader

> Firing a gun with no hearing protection is a pretty jarring experience

That's perfect UX for the use case

If an intruder breaks into your home, (seemingly easily) overpowers you, and begins doing horrible things to your wife and wife's son, would you still have such a negative opinion about guns?

And the statistics on that are? Also if it's the police doing it, you're not allowed to defend yourself even if they don't announce/identify themselves.

> Also if it's the police doing it, you're not allowed to defend yourself even if they don't announce/identify themselves.

You are allowed, it's just that they are allowed to kill you if you do.

> You are allowed, it's just that they are allowed to kill you if you do.

To be fair, in practice, they are allowed to kill you if you don't, too, they are just more likely to avail themselves of being allowed to if you defend yourself.

I like how you all are talking about this, when the number of people killed by police each year is in the hundreds, while the number of people who are assaulted every year by random strangers is in the hundreds of thousands.

I find the concept of being killed by someone who was allowed to do that more offensive than the concept of being killed, much less assaulted, by someone who wasn't. Neither is a realistic threat. On the other hand, we can easily change what's allowed.

>neither is a realistic threat

tell that to the 450,000 women raped every year?

Not sure why you are comparing police killings to non-police assaults, except to make sure that the comparison is as irrelevant as possible.

Solely because the data you are suggesting (very wrongly) doesn't exist.

Anyway, the point is you are way more likely to be a victim of rape/burglary in your own home than you are to be killed by police anywhere, for any reason.

The previous poster was making it seem like dealing with this edge case is very important, meanwhile is happens somewhere around 1k-10k times less frequently than the situation I presented.

You're also more likely to be a victim of rape in your own home than you are to be injured by a table saw.

Should table saws include any safety mechanisms?

>also if it's the police

"and the statistics on that are"? Well, in that scenario I'll be doing the same thing and I will have to let my lawyer and public opinion get me out of jail

Now, for the question you've asked me: there are 2.5 million burglaries/home invasions in the USA per year. 25% of these occur when someone is at home. Quite interestingly, there are 450,000 rapes per year in the USA as well, which lines up quite scarily with the above number.

If someone is in my home, I'm not going to rely on my kung fu to save my family, who are depending on me for their protection.

You’ve just described a scenario in which one wouldn’t care if the gun had a silencer or not, so I think you’ve failed to make your point, whatever it was.

I'm not pro-gun and do not own any, but if I had to fire a gun in that instance I sure would prefer my ears to be able to tell me if there were someone else in another room shortly after the fact.

No, it would be nice to have a silencer in this situation actually, since I will be letting off around 15 shots into that person's chest, at about 162 dB each time.

> and wife's son

holup

It's a meme: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/my-wifes-son

Reply on news.ycombinator.com