Hacker News Reader

Comment by HaZeust | Hacker News Reader

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"

View on HN

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.

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.

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...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com