Hacker News Reader

Comment by FergusArgyll | Hacker News Reader

It's a cultural thing & very hard to explain to people outside it. Imagine banning cheese and wine in France or something. For a very large part of America that's what its like

View on HN

It genuinely comes down to an American belief that "the individual is the primary unit" and must be equipped with tools to secure his safety, security, and well-being through his own actions. ALL of the idealogues around gun ownership loop around this single virtue. To take several examples:

- "When seconds matter, police take minutes"

- "Guns are the last line of defense against tyranny"

- "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"

- "Your home, your property, and your family must be your right to protect"

If guns are the last defense against tyranny then they bloody well better get to work. Unless that was all BS and they’re on tyranny’s side.

Thought I’d provide a follow on. They could make noise, protest, support court cases, criticize politicians, …. All short of actually using the arms. Crickets.

https://theshovel.com.au/2020/06/04/nra-accidentally-forgets...

Yeah. As an American these arguments are really absurd though. When was the last time a lone hero with a gun stopped gun violence? I think those arguments are really just the gun companies trying to market this idea of the "lone individual" as a hero protecting their personal space. It helps them sell more guns. But when the rubber meets the road, a "good guy" packing is more likely to shoot a bystander than an assailant.

The marketing seemingly appeals to men on the same grounds as video games -- there's some great protagonist who saves everyone with their powerful and timely shooting.

Here's one example since you asked for one:

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

My man was only 22 year old, no CCW license, even broke the rules of the mall and carried anyway. And he smoked a mall shooter before he could barely even get started, with a pistol from like 60 feet away.

That simply isn't true and the statistics on "good guys with guns" do not show that they are more likely to shoot a bystander. I dont; want everyone on the street packing, either, but at least use real info to make arguments.

In a country that has more guns than people, you ought to have more faith in humanity when gun violence isn't nearly as high as you would think.

Are you asking me to accept a country where parents have to consider sending their kid to school in a bullet proof backpack because the school shootings are a matter of course? How high should I be willing to accept? Should I be okay with shootings in traffic, or at bars, or at concerts?

What do you think should be done about that? Should I just accept that my son might not live to adulthood because some maladjusted kid gets a rifle from their parents and decides to start shooting their classmates? This is the only country in the world where that regularly happens.

I'm not asking you to do anything. As for how you worded the rest of this entire comment, talk about loaded questions.

To some degree, it comes from the same reason high speed rail doesn't work here in the US while it's a pleasure in Europe. The vast majority of places in this country are truly out in the sticks, and defending yourself from wildlife or humans with bad intent are real worries. In our cities, we have gun control laws similar to Europe.

BTW, those gun control laws don't always work in Europe either. Sweden has the third highest rate of gun homicides per 100,000 residents (after Albania and Montenegro). ( https://www.statista.com/statistics/1465188/europe-homicide-... )

It's true Sweden has a gun homicide rate more than seven times lower than the US.

It's also true that seat belts don't prevent road deaths.

Open and concealed carry, both unlicensed, extremely common in Phoenix which is the 5th largest city in the USA. 3d print yourself a frame, mail order the unregulated parts, stick it down your waistband, and you are legally good to go.

Interesting interpreting those as individualist. First can be read as a concern for family. Second is community and society. Third is also protection of community, you would be making a choice to intervene (an individual would leave). Fourth also is not the individual but again, family.

It's the right to have a capacity for individual action, which is expected to be exercised for the good of society - this has been an original premise for as long as Western Originalism has been a thing. Locke advocated for individual capacity for action, and believed people enter into social contracts to protect those rights for themselves and others. Rousseauist beliefs include the idea that liberties exist within the context of serving the common good.

> It genuinely comes down to an American belief that "the individual is the primary unit" and must be equipped with tools to secure his safety, security, and well-being through his own actions.

That's understandable if you look at the US' history - it wasn't called the "wild west" without reason!

Up until a century, give or take a few decades ago, there was nothing coming even close to the "universal rule of law" of today. In contrast, Europe and its systems of public order are hundreds of years older.

“You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death ... I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”

-Charlie Kirk, 2023

https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-says-gun-deaths-worth-...

https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-w...

I'm sure when he said that, he never thought he'd be the one paying for that right. Would be interesting to see if this does or does not affect that stance

He spent his last words ignorantly arguing against transgendered Americans and gun control.

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/charlie-kirk-shot-utah-...

Audience member: “Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?”

Kirk: “Too many.”

The same audience member went on say the number is five, and proceeded to ask if Kirk knows how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years.

Kirk: “Counting or not counting gang violence?”

Seconds later, the sound of a pop is heard and the crowd screams as Kirk gets shot and recoils in his seat.

Remember: The vast majority of mass attacks in the US have no connection to transgender people. From January 2013 to the present, of the more than 5,700 mass shootings in America (defined as four or more victims shot and killed), five shooters were confirmed as transgender, said Mark Bryant, founding executive director of the Gun Violence Archive.

>I'm sure when he said that, he never thought he'd be the one paying for that right. Would be interesting to see if this does or does not affect that stance

Exactly.

   When you have shot and killed a man you have in some measure
   clarified your attitude toward him.  You have given a definite
   answer to a definite problem.  For better or worse you have
   acted decisively.  In a way, the next move is up to him.
   
    -- R. A. Lafferty

Exactly, you can't just change the law or constitution. You can but it wouldn't do anything.

Fact is the cat is out of the bag. FGC-9 can be 3d printed and the barrel and bolt carrier made out of unregulated parts available anywhere with shipping access to China, or with a bit more effort anyplace with a lathe.

Gun powder is more an issue, but even then black powder is easy enough to make and with electronics can be ignited electrically without any sort of special cap or primer.

It can be culturally changed, but even then, if the criminal culture doesn't changed -- now you have a bunch of criminals with guns smiling that the rest of people are disarmed.

It's really not that large. A lot of people need guns; folks who live in super remote areas where wildlife needs managing, folks who enjoy actual hunting, but these types of gunowners are generally fine filling out their paperwork and getting licensed. They see guns as tools.

Then there are the ammosexuals and they're the ones that honestly scare the shit out of me and need their guns confiscated. Like I'm all for the purchase and enjoyment of stupid shit, God knows I own my share of things other people would call ridiculous; but guns are unique in that inflicting harm to others is literally why they exist. It's the only reason you'd have one, and the way these guys (and it is far and away mostly guys) talk with GLEE about the notion of being able to legally kill someone for breaking into their houses... if I wasn't already a hermit, this shit would make me one.

Its not a cultural thing, its marketing, this did not exist, it was completely created out of thin air. Americans were not buying assault rifles and posing with guns out of the army, people have been made to believe this is normal, natural and "cultural" and its absolutely not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com