Hacker News Reader

Comment by bananapub | Hacker News Reader

this is your brain on American gun norms.

> Homicides involving firearms are less common in the UK compared to those involving knives. There were 29 homicides by shooting in the year ending March 2023, representing 5% of all homicides.

the UK (population 68 million) has 7 less MURDERS BY GUN IN TOTAL, than Texas (population 30 million) has CHILDREN SHOOTING PEOPLE, SUBCATEGORY: ACCIDENTAL.

https://aoav.org.uk/2024/does-the-uk-have-a-knife-and-gun-pr....

View on HN

It’s worth pointing out that the entirety of the UK fits into the footprint of the state of Oregon

Also, nations that are islands have a much easier time eliminating guns from their borders, once the populace agrees that they should be.

The sad part is that the U.S. has a huge population of people that still don’t think anyone else’s rights to the pursuit of happiness and peace take precedence over their constitutional right to own guns, and if Sandy Hook didn’t move the needle then I don’t see what will.

But even if they agreed to take that action my first two points pose a pretty impossible logistical task to actually remove guns from our society

guns could 100% be removed from our society if we decided to do it. as you said though, sandy hook sealed that forever, right? once we decided as society to accept mass slaughter of children there is nothing else left to move the needle.

but if we wanted to do it logistically we are capable of much bigger things than removing guns from society. give everyone X amount of time to return them and then make being caught with a gun punishable by minimum of 45 years to life. once the deadline expires make a few highly publicized arrest and that’s that…

Guns could be removed by passing a Constitutional amendment to repeal the 2A.

The thing is, the anti-gun people are simply unwilling to do this because their position isn't nearly as popular as they believe. There's nothing stopping them from going through that effort other than fear. If 80% of the population really did agree with them, passing an amendment to repeal the 2A should be a no-brainer for any politician that wants to get re-elected.

this would be 100% accurate if this was an actual election issue, real or spoon-fed by politicians. while 80+% may be fully against ownership what do you reckon is a percentage from that group that would vote for a candidate simply on that one issue alone?! I am ballparking less than 2% - perhaps only family and friends who lost loved ones to gun violence

I think you may be glossing over how difficult it is to pass a Constitutional amendment.

If data is right and it pretty much is that ~80% of US population is for some sort of a gun control, then passing Constitutional Amendment would be a breeze.

If majority of these 80% of people were single-issue voters and this was THE thing they cared about, it would take few election cycles but eventually this issue would carry enough clout that things would get done... of course it never will be though...

For some context around my comment, the ERA was introduced 101 years ago and still has yet to be ratified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

> The sad part is that the U.S. has a huge population of people that still don’t think anyone else’s rights to the pursuit of happiness and peace take precedence over their constitutional right to own guns, and if Sandy Hook didn’t move the needle then I don’t see what will.

Sandy Hook is just one reason why I don't own a AR-15 or other semiautomatic firearms. I'm of the opinion that no civilian (police included) needs a semiautomatic.

But I've got a .30 lever-action rifle. I usually only load it at the range. I usually only fire it at the range. I've never even aimed my weapon at another human being, despite occasionally being tempted.

I see no reason why I should allow my rights to be abridged because other people abuse theirs. The needs of the many might outweigh the needs of the few, but I do not accept that they can outweigh the rights of the individual.

I'd wonder if a reasonable compromise would be for licensed ranges to have guns that people can toy around with, and not civilians themselves.

At the very least, a ban on semiautomatics and bump stocks sounds like it'd reach bipartisan appeal.

This already happens, actually. At the range I go to, you can rent fully automatic weapons and they'll walk it out with you, and for a non-trivial cost of usually $1/round, you can spray the range down. You can also rent a number of more conventional weapons to try as well.

> At the very least, a ban on semiautomatics and bump stocks sounds like it'd reach bipartisan appeal.

I think you're assuming that Republicans are still capable of bipartisan compromise. You'll have to pardon my cynicism given recent history.

It's ironic that the right to bear arms was kind of a British invention from the English Bill of Rights 1689 which got copied to the US. It goes to show that you can change things.

They are not fully banned here but about the only thing you can get without too much hassle in the UK is a shotgun and you need a license.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com