Hacker News Reader

Comment by blagie | Hacker News Reader

> Everyone has a gun on their person with no licensing requirements. Yet at the NRA conference they ban guns.

That's not what the NRA is pushing for, any more than there are Democrats pushing for mandatory sex changes for all kids (yes, this is cited on similar right-wing comedy shows, and individuals on the right believe it). Pushing for a right doesn't mean 100% of the population will exercise that right.

And yes, most venues (as well as schools, government buildings, etc.) will not allow guns. If there's a security guard, police, or similar within spitting distance, there isn't a reasonable self-defence argument.

One of the interesting pieces of data is looking at 2nd amendment support versus distance to the nearest police station / police officer / likely law enforcement response times. It explains a lot about where support / opposition comes from.

View on HN

The NRA is absolutely in favor of constitutional carry [0] and permitless carry [1].

[0] https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/constitutional-c...

[1] https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210413/texas-permitless-ca...

Please reread what I wrote. You should correct your statement to:

"The NRA is absolutely in favor of A LEGAL RIGHT TO constitutional carry and permitless carry."

I have a legal right to spend all of my money on Pokemon, (in my jurisdiction) to pro-Nazi free speech, to paint the outside of my house bright pink, or to walk around wearing a mankini in the middle of the winter. Very few of the people who advocate for me to have those rights advocate for me to actually do any of those things.

Are you really arguing that it's okay for the NRA to support dumb laws because most people won't make use of them?

No. I am not.

I am arguing about the importance of accurately understanding everyone in a discussion and avoiding strawman attacks like the ones you're making over and over.

If you'd like to understand the importance of that, I'd refer you to CPG Grey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

And to Sun Tzu: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/17976-if-you-know-the-enemy...

My general stance on most polarizing issues is to:

1) Keep the debate civil

2) Make sure everyone understands each other (starting with myself)

3) Push towards Pareto-efficiency

What's interesting is that in most discussions, left-wing extremists always believe I'm right-wing because I can articulate right-wing views and don't buy into left-wing Facebook conspiracies, and vice-versa. In other words, both sides lump me into "they" or "enemy" as soon as I either:

- contradict disinformation

- clearly explain an opposing viewpoint (without stating whether I agree with it)

- even use simple trigger words

Very much as you did.

It's okay to understand opposing viewpoints. If both sides did that, there are solutions to most polarizing problems -- guns, abortion, LGBTQ, etc. -- and not even very hard ones.

I'm posting a long-form comment so you can reread what I wrote, reread how you read it, and perhaps debug yourself. You'll be much more effective in advocating from your views if you stop doing this.

If you believe someone is intentionally "arguing that it's okay for [organization] to support dumb laws because most people won't make use of them," the problem is very much on your end.

I'm not entirely sure you picked the best example because the Democrats aren't pushing for that to be a right at all. It's certainly true that Republicans bought into the hysteria, my home state passed a bill banning it despite it having never once occurred and such a thing already going against the standards of care.

But Constitutional Carry does allow for anyone who can legally acquire a gun to be armed if they choose. I honestly don't mind this since basically anyone can get a concealed carry permit already and these bills just remove the paperwork and fees. I would love to see annual car registration done away with in the same manner, pointless busywork.

So if you're doing a bit on a comedy show or news program that's "what does $bill maximally allow for" then you do get everyone is armed in public without a permit (which again is fine I don't know why people care, this could already happen right now) but you don't get "every child gets a sex change."

There are LEOs that were prosecuted by states and the federal government for not taking action while children were being shot by another child.

LEOs are expected to take fire to protect civilians. Protect & Serve is their credo.

I wouldn’t trust LEOs to protect me, so I sure as hell fire am not trusting a low paid rent-a-cop to perform a similar duty.

Nope. I believe that my mindset is prevalent and not an outlier.

I would trust a security guard more. They have consequences for misconduct or failure to do their job. (Assuming they aren't an on-duty LEO who is "overemployed.")

Not enough that I think they'd protect me in a situation that requires a gun. Just more than a cop.

A security guard's job is to act as a witness and deterrent, not to intervene to protect you.

Only a private bodyguard can be expected to fight for you.

Observe and Report.

>And yes, most venues (as well as schools, government buildings, etc.) will not allow guns. If there's a security guard, police, or similar within spitting distance, there isn't a reasonable self-defence argument.

Can you give me one example of a valid "reasonable self-defence argument"? Legit question.

The extreme scenario:

I live in a home surrounded by miles of fields. There is no one within miles to hear me scream. Without a gun, anyone could come by my home, kill me, rob my home, and be gone before the police would even show up, if I even had a chance to call them. If I didn't call the police, they could literally move in and stay for months before anyone would notice.

The reason this does not happen is because everyone has a gun. Everyone knows I have a gun. If I see you coming on my property, I WILL shoot you. You don't know if the first shot will be a warning shot, birdshot, buckshot, or a 5.56×45mm NATO. You might get lucky and I might not spot you. Or you might be crippled for life. Without guns, crime is free. With guns, crime doesn't pay.

That's a scenario surprisingly common in rural America, parts of Appalachia, and other very low population density areas.

Now, I actually live in a dense city. There's a police station a few hundred yards away from virtually anywhere I might go. There are security cameras everywhere, thanks to Ring, Wyze, and friends. The city has a ShotSpotter system.

Crime rates are low, and more guns don't make me (personally) safer. Most of my neighbours want to ban them. However, I can understand there's a bias there.

As a footnote: If it were possible to hold clear conversation, I think there are solutions which work for everyone. However, people talk across each other.

> The reason this does not happen is because everyone has a gun.

Probably not. The reason we're not permanently locked in a life or death battle against each other is that very few humans like committing violence. It's a pretty terrifying view of the world to think that all that's preventing someone from perpetrating a home invasion on you is the threat of violence.

> very few humans like committing violence

How many people commit violence, and how many people are victims of violence, are two very different things. You could live in a society where only 1% of people commit violence, and yet the remaining 99% are living in fear, because each of them was repeatedly a victim of violence.

But if you have 1% of people ready to initiate violence, and let's say 3% of people willing to use violence in self-defense, suddenly life becomes much safer for you, even if you are among the remaining 96%. Not because the bad guys would hesitate to hurt you, but because they are likely get in trouble before they get to you.

People often confuse these two numbers. For example, they look at some statistics and think "20% of women report having been victims of domestic violence... oh, that means that 20% of men must be violent abusers", and they don't realize that the statistics also include some violent men who abused five or more partners each, so the actual number is probably much smaller than the 20%.

Without wading into the "good guy with a gun" debate, tl;dr: almost no humans want to effect the level of violence required to execute a home invasion, even if the risk of being shot is zero. A big deal is made about guns as deterrents, but the simpler answer (and the one that explains why it's also safe in rural areas of other OECD countries with gun control) is that humans just aren't that violent--when there's enough to go around anyway. That's all I'm saying here.

Your scenario _sounds_ convincing, but does it really work? Surely an attacker has a massive advantage in the element of surprise. If you see them coming (short of some sophisticated surveillance system), it's because they were impatient.

Or I have a dog.

> The reason this does not happen is because everyone has a gun. Everyone knows I have a gun. If I see you coming on my property, I WILL shoot you. You don't know if the first shot will be a warning shot, birdshot, buckshot, or a 5.56×45mm NATO. You might get lucky and I might not spot you. Or you might be crippled for life. Without guns, crime is free. With guns, crime doesn't pay.

Your perceived safety might be higher because you have a gun. This absolutely does not correlate with reality, extensive literature has looked at the perceived/real safety measure. Very rich resource linking peer reviewed research: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-guns-...

Anchoring it to your reality though, have you ever shot anyone invading your property with your gun to act as counterfactual? How many people in your area shot invaders? What about accidents and misuse? I do not mean to minimize your experience and how safe you must feel, but it would be naive to close a serious matter like this with just your perception.

So the problem with a survey like this is that it does not break out among the scenarios I listed:

1) Rural, minimal police, minimal government, large plots, no collective security.

2) Dense, urban, heavy policy, significant government, right housing, extensive collective security.

Indeed, it focuses on the latter. Virtually all of the addresses, photos, and stories talk about cities, or at least towns.

I don't want to over-post so I'll answer the other comments too:

1) Violence does not require more than "very few humans" to "like committing violence." The point of security isn't to protect against the typical individual but the violent outlier.

2) Most violent individuals aren't sophisticated. What's more, one instance of violence has little impact. Serial violence does. If an individual robs one house, that's not enough to live off of. If an individuals robs houses regularly, in an area with guns, they will be shot. That's a pretty good deterrent.

For gun safety to move forward, both sides need to understand each other, and everyone needs to address the major issues of gun advocates, such as:

1) Day-to-day safety (on the scale / in the settings I described)

2) National safety (if Jan 6th had worked, and we had a coup; if China invaded; etc.)

3) Rule-of-law (we do have a 2nd amendment, and changing that would require an amendment)

Otherwise, it's simply a push of more guns versus less guns, with idiotic laws being shoved through opportunistically on both sides.

> yes, this is cited on similar right-wing comedy shows, and individuals on the right believe it

Can you give an example? Of course you can find 2 people in the US who believe it, and they held 2 comedy shows where it was said, and it's technically true, but I don't think I've ever seen anything like this said.

I don't log all comedy shows I see, so I can't provide a citation off-hand, but I've heard it plenty of times. However, to see consequences, I might start by reading executive orders:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prot...

And follow the trail back to how they got there.

https://www.breitbart.com/education/2022/07/07/aclu-national...

You can look around. You'll see many other articles like this one. As with most things, this is distilled into more inflammatory posting once it hits social media or comedy.

> I don't log all comedy shows I see

I don't see the point of this snark. If you don't have any examples of what you're saying, why reply at all?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com