Hacker News Reader

It's strange to watch the debates around gun control unfold in USA time and again. Here in Australia we did the same thing after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, one of the deadliest spree shootings in world history. After that, the government basically outlawed semi-automatic weapons and did a compulsory buyback.

In the 12 years since we've only had one incident. In 2002, a member of a sport shooting club (one of the few categories of people allowed to own handguns) opened fire in a Monash classroom. He killed two people and wounded five others, but since he could only manage to acquire handguns he had to switch weapons and was tackled to the ground. No doubt things would have been a lot worse if he'd had access to something with a larger magazine. We tightened laws on handguns after that as well.

I find myself surprised that an otherwise relatively pragmatic people get so blind to the consequences of readily available firearms. I don't have any ideological opposition to guns - in fact, I quite like them - but if someone told me that yoga was involved in every killing spree in the last decade it would be pretty silly not to take a serious look at whether ready access to yoga is worth the cost.

What worries me about a compulsory buyback here in the United States is the massive number of firearms for which the government would have to provide compensation. If the owners of each of the 300 million guns in the United States were compensated USD $750 -- which is probably pretty reasonable given current prices -- it comes to USD $225 billion, excluding the cost of administrative overheard. That's a staggering sum of money, even for the US government, and not something I think we're able to pay.

However infeasible, it's probably the only way that new gun control laws would be effective. Historically, gun bans in the US have applied only to newly manufactured guns, while older guns have been grandfathered in through various means. In fact, assault rifles like the Bushmaster used in the Connecticut shooting have already been banned in that state, which leads me to speculate that it was purchased before the ban and grandfathered in. Without addressing the vast supply of existing guns, it's hard to see how laws regulating new guns will achieve the impact their supporters desire.

I think foreigners routinely miss the fact that the U.S. still has wolves, wildcats, bears, 2000 lb moose, etc. I know that Australia has some of the most venomous spiders in the world but you aren't likely to defend yourself from them with a gun. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any really sizable predators in Australia. Europe also lacks any remaining really large, dangerous wild animals, having hunted them to extinction long ago.

I did insist my ex husband get rid of his stupid hand gun or I would leave him over it, but I do not think gun control is as simple a question in the U.S. as it is in more "civilized" countries whose only remaining serious predator is humankind because the rest have essentially been hunted to extinction (which is not necessarily the most virtuous and wise thing to do since predators play an important role in the ecosystem).

"It borders on insanity when we look at the type of weaponry we allow our citizens to purchase..."

"The nra is a terrorist organization."

Wow. Just plain wow. It's probably pointless to respond to your post, considering the emotions you are displaying regarding this topic, you probably won't even listen to a single thing, no matter, at least others who see this reply might understand just how perturbed you really are.

It is a founding principal of america for individuals to maintain and own weapons. Let's just start right there. Since there are many countries with the kind of gun laws you apparently want, I'd suggest moving to them. Reason being, is owning your own weapon isn't a passing fad, it's a mentality that will not be broken by you or anybody else. The best course of action for you, might be to leave america for other countries that place safety above an individuals freedom.

" the answer to preventing what happened in Connecticut from happening again is extremely strong gun control regulation."

Well then I'm sure are glad you are here to tell us the answer. I really would like to hear this, because Connecticut has some of the strictest gun control regulation in the country. The guns the kid used in the shooting were stolen from his mother. Exactly what sort of legislation on the books, beside from a complete ban altogether, would have helped?

I'm personally insulted by your insinuations that the nra is a terrorist organization, and I'm insulted by your blanket statements regarding gun ownership.

"but at least it prevents tragedies of this sort from occurring."

Yes, lets impede on the freedom of a majority, because a minority are unable to handle something. That is possibly the worst logic a person could use. That somehow everybody should be punished because a statistical fraction of users are unstable.

You sir, are part of the problem.

>> I really would like to hear this, because Connecticut has some of the strictest gun control regulation in the country

How about this from op: >> >> To the point where even those few who are allowed access >> >> cannot keep weapons at home

> It is a founding principal of america for individuals to maintain and own weapons.

Are you referring to the second amendment? Because as far as I can tell, that is about state militia as opposed to a standing federal army - and after the Canadians burned down the white house that whole concept got scrapped in favour of a federal army.

Much as I sympathize with the idea of a People on the same footing as the government - you would have to be hopelessly naive to think that the right to own a semiautomatic hand gun will significantly help your fight against the current US Army -.should that be needed.

Have you read the Supreme Court's interpretation of what the 2nd amendment means and it's historical context, as laid out in the Heller and McDonald decisions?

It's reasonably accessible reading (if long) but complete debunks your statement.

I hadn't. But I notice that in the most recent (2008) decision four out of nine justices seem to agree with my interpretation; so "completely debunks" seem a bit strong.

You are of course right that in light of the ruling; personal defence is part of the current constitution - I was referring to the original intent - of which we may only speculate - and I'd say it's not entirely clear that the current law is not based on twisting the words of the constitution to be in line with the gun lobby. I was making more of a moral/theoretical argument; not a direct legislative one wrt the US of today.

Since there are many countries with the kind of gun laws you apparently want, I'd suggest moving to them.

There are also many countries that are representative democracies where we, the people, work together to change laws when we feel that they can be better. The "if you don't like it here, then move!" argument is both cliche and vapid. You do the rest of your compelling argument a dis-service by bringing it out.

I don't live in the States, I live in Europe. The blog post touched me deeply. However I grew up in a society where owning a gun is the exception. Almost nobody does. Reading the comments to the post, from people who have family experiencing same mental health problems, my heart goes out to them. But stating that guns isn't the problem, only the mental health system needs fixing, to me, sounds absurd. It reminds me of this comedy sketch by Eddie Izzard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsN0FCXw914

Agreed. Mental health problems are not limited to the United States. But widespread, poorly regulated, gun ownership is.