Former Gun Company Executive Explains Roots of America’s Gun Violence Epidemic | Hacker News Reader

Former Gun Company Executive Explains Roots of America’s Gun Violence Epidemic

propublica.org

18 pointscmurf15 comments

As an ar-15 owner, I'm still philosophically open to seeing about reducing the availability of rifle caliber carbines with interchangeable magazines. I'm interested in red flag laws.

This was an interesting perspective with some numbers to back it up. Survivalism/tactical prep was not nearly as much a pop culture thing 20 years ago.

But also, has ar-15 violence fine up significantly? I believe most deaths are still from pistols.

>>> But also, has ar-15 violence fine up significantly? I believe most deaths are still from pistols.

I don't think it means much either way. I expect an increase in the use of AR-15s in crime for the same reason I expect an increase in the use of white cars in bank robberies: there are more of them now. In Ireland we used to see news stories a lot about how "the Glock" was "the gangsters weapon on choice", "favored by criminals" etc. Why? That's what was available to criminals. Why? Because that's what gun owners preferred generally, so there were more of them around.

So yes we might see an increase in the use of ARs in crime but that doesn't mean that there's any meaningful link between the choice of guns and the crime. And while they have advantages over pistols in terms of firepower, that rarely matters in the kind of incidents that most people are worried about (like a shooter being locked in a classroom full of children for example).

"guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people" is the usual rhetoric I see.

This is perfectly fine, if you didn't have a country with a mostly failed education system, increasingly extreme views due to the media, and more and more people getting financially crushed by "trickle down economics".

I get that guns aren't the problem. Unfortunately you have enough of a population that can't be trusted with guns.

Because that rhetoric is true. The number of deaths due to accidental discharge is fairly low. The problem with just banning guns is there is no attempt to solve the underlying problem. That a person picked up a gun with the intention to harm someone else. You take the guns away, that problem still exists, so people will find other tools to use. This happened in Australia. After that great gun ban, the number of homicides remained mostly unchanged. The number of gun deaths decreased by quite a bit. But the number of homicides using other tools increased significantly.

For anyone who didn't read the article, it basically boils down to gun sales and corporate profits. Being responsible would be less profitable for the companies.

Repeal the Second Amendment.

And don't flag this story.

Good luck with that.

As a huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I'm glad you posted this and I hope it doesn't get flagged. I could hardly disagree with you more than I do, but it's nice to see someone acknowledge that they just don't agree with the law and would like to see it changed as opposed to looking for ways to maintain that the law is something other than it is (which everyone on all sides of pretty much every major debate has been doing, not just guns).

Yeah, I get tired of telling liberals, what you really want is Second Amendment repeal. So say that instead of burbling about "assault weapons" (which is politician for tacticool-looking rifles generally of smaller caliber than many hunting rifles), "common sense gun law reform", etc. Because you're not getting much done and you're putting conservatives on high alert, and you'll get punished for it come election time.

Get the support. Repeal the amendment. Go full Lincoln: start implementing strict gun measures through statutes and EOs. Don't give a shit this time if conservatives get mad; if they threaten war, round them up and make examples out of them. And while the constitutionality battle winds its way through the courts, drag repeal toward the center of the Overton window until, like gay marriage, it becomes an obvious policy winner with overwhelming bipartisan support. Just in case, pack the court with liberal justices who will opine the RKBA back to a collective right which it was generally agreed to be until the far right took utter control of the NRA and the Republican Party.

Oh yeah, and sue, sue, sue. Sue gun manufacturers, ammo manufacturers, gun rights organizations, and politicians who voted and advocated against gun laws. The First Amendment only protects you from jail for your heinous speech; as we've seen with Alex Jones, it doesn't protect you from billion-dollar judgements if you choose to spread lies about the dangers of widespread gun availability, gun culture, and the violence these enable.

Repealing the Second Amendment is impossible. It's a ludicrously high bar. Even ordinary legislation on gun laws is nearly impossible, and a Constitutional amendment is much harder.

I believe it would be great if we could repeal the Second Amendment and replace it with something clearer and better suited to the 21st century. As it is, pretty much every discussion about guns ends with "The Second Amendment says no", and the conversation stops there.

As it stands, I think that the vagueness of the second amendment (due to the prefatory clause the gun-rights supporters claim means nothing at all) could have been used to have a coherent discussion. The Supreme Court agrees that the prefatory clause is irrelevant, and that's the end of it. There is no appeal from the Supreme Court except amendments, which might as well not exist.

So I don't think it's helpful to deflect that onto the fact that we can't talk about the Second Amendment. You know that it can't be changed, and between that and the Supreme Court, you've got absolute power to set the rules to whatever you want them to be. Everybody else is at your mercy, and so it's entirely on the "huge supporters of the Second Amendment" to listen to what people actually want -- not to get shot -- and find ways to bring that about.

With respect, the height of the bar to getting what you want is your problem, not mine. The gist of your post seems to be that your right to what you want is a forgone conclusion and if you don't see a way to get it legally, then I have to find some other way for you to get it.

The truth is that if you can't persuade me to give you what you want and the law is not on your side, then you don't get to have it. And that really is the end of it. That's what it means to live under the rule of law.

It's a good thing that repealing the 2A is nigh on impossible as far as I'm concerned. I don't see it as an obstacle. I see it as part of the bedrock of the American social contract.

> Repeal the Second Amendment.

Lets just repeal them on order, starting with the first. That one has caused a much larger amount of death and political destruction due to dis/misinformation over the last few years. /s

And then the guns would magically disappear?

Repealing the Second is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. It should be followed up by passing and enforcement of restrictive gun legislation. No grandfather clauses, you have 120 days to obtain a license or your guns will be seized.

American gun owners are like Arch Linux users: you know who they are because they'll tell you. They might clam up after the gun laws pass, but the FBI and ATF will still know where to conduct raids to nab a few high-profile targets.

Repeal the Second Amendment.

I do not believe this would get any traction and would just lead to endless legal battles. Only lawyers and firearm stores benefit from this. Firearm stores because people scramble to stock up on everything to get grandfathered in.

I would much rather see our governments both state and federal provide

- more health services for people. Physical health first and then mental health to shore up any gaps as the two are very tightly related. This must include testing of the endocrine system and finding root causes of imbalances rather than throwing pills at the symptoms.

- higher taxes on unhealthy foods and other habits including dangerous prescription drugs especially those prescribed off-label as many SSRI's are off-label. Higher taxes on companies that make the unhealthy food components.

- significantly higher scrutiny on prescription drugs, especially anything that affects the brain and anything off-label. This should include more health programs to get people off these drugs via healthier lifestyle choices. Medical professionals get awarded tax rebates for every person they successfully remove from all the SSRI's.

- removal of financial incentives for medical professionals to prescribe any drugs. Conversely, tax rebates for medical professionals that observably and provably via lab results make patients healthier without using drugs.

- better security where firearms are not permitted thus preventing groups of soft targets. e.g. approach a mall, school, theater, etc... and security already know if you are armed

- better legal protection for people that lawfully conceal carry and better protection for those that defend others against unstable people whether that be a security guard or a random citizen.

- mandatory advanced training and psychological testing of those that conceal carry to include scenario based active-shooter training. Training must be renewed every five years and this becomes an endorsement on the state-ID or drivers license. This endorsement would replace all CCW's. Endorsement not required in states that are constitutional carry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com