Comment by confusedNRA | Hacker News Reader

Comment by confusedNRA | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You couldn't even tell the difference between a semi automatic weapon and a fully automatic weapon.

Then you make a reply, glossing over the fact you haven't a clue what you are talking about, to then make another asinine post.

"automatic weapons are regulated => they're not used in mass-killings; semi-automatic weapons are not regulated => they are used in mass-killings."

Could you please extrapolate how semi-automatic weapons are apparently "not regulated". This I'd really love to hear, considering how difficult it is to obtain one. I understand this does indeed differ from state to state, but to make the blanket statement, "semi-automatics are not regulated" is so unbelievably wrong, it shout outs to the reader to not reply to your post because there is a level of understanding you clearly don't have.

"All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse." A statement like this could only come from someone who doesn't actually understand a damn thing about guns.

I think you have a lot of reading to do.

There's no real difference between automatic and semi-auto in terms of how dangerous they are. An experience marksman will use both the same way (as spraying full auto greatly reduces accuracy). An inexperienced marksman with a fully automatic weapon will empty their magazine into the ceiling. Burst fire might be a bit better (it's what the US Army uses), but semi-auto is more lethal than fully auto in the hands of most people.

Overall, murder rates won't change a lot. Husbands and wives will still be able to murder each other. Gangsters will fight with knives, or illegal guns. But mass murders will be harder to pull off. It might also make the police more effective, as they will rarely be outgunned.

Except that police have been outgunned many many times in history, generally by guns that were/are illegal or nearly impossible to get. Tommy gun vs revolver ring a bell?

I do agree that full auto wouldn't help an inexperienced marksman, he'd likely just waste more ammo. However, an experienced marksman could also easily do just as much damage with a bolt action gun. The key is that it's really easy to kill people with guns if the other people don't have guns. If you outlaw guns, only the criminals will have them.

Fwiw, the military uses select fire guns, i.e. guns that can be both semi auto or full auto. Generally aimed semi is more effective as you waste less (running out of ammo is really really bad) but there are times when full out is good for things like providing cover.

I think bambax's main point is summed up by - "The NRA says "guns don't kill people, people do" but the truth is that guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people."

Do you have any real points to counter that, rather than just pointing out irrelevant technicalities or calling him names? And no, it doesn't change bambax's real point at all whether its a automatic or a semi-automatic.

When a person makes a statement, "All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse." They've lost all credibility, and in my opinion aren't really deserving of a well thought out rebuttal due to their obvious lack of experience in this field.

Let's take this statement, "The NRA says "guns don't kill people, people do" but the truth is that guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people."

Right, guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people, hence it's a tool like any other. My guns that I have, have yet to jump themselves out of my house and shoot someone, they require an operator to use. So that statement you seem to have such a problem with, is 100% factually true, guns don't kill people by themselves, they make it easier for people to do so. I don't really see what sort of counter to that is even needed, when obviously it's the operator of the guns that are the problem, not the guns themselves.

OK. "Operator" runs amok with a nerf gun.

Slightly different outcome.

How again is the highly efficient killing tool not part of the problem?

Yes, guns also help people to defend themselves. For every mass shooting with a guns I can give you twenty articles about someone defending themselves and saving their lives and others with the use of a gun.

Not only incidents where they were successful in self-defence but the perception of the potential victim being armed is also highly relevant.

How much crime is deterred from happening in the first place, for example in states where its well-known that gun ownership is popular, is often difficult to track accurately. But there's a ton of statistics that show correlation in crime reduction.

Exactly. Compare gun crime in DC, which has tons of gun control, to lots of other places without gun control.

Indeed, new numbers come out all the time. This ones from 2011, from two states with some of the worst gun crime:

> Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C. But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated — they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/crime-rates-in...

That's a valid point, especially in low population density parts of the US. But from a self-defense point of view, do you really need a semi-automatic? Wouldn't a normal revolver suffice?

Furthermore, for places where the population density is high, and the number of police per square mile is reasonable, and the law and order situation is generally good (most US cities would probably fit the above?), then is there any real need for normal civilians to have easy access to guns, at least anything that can be used for mass firing?

Do you know much about guns? (not trying to be an ass, honest question). The difference between a revolver and a semi-auto is very minimal. This guy could have easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with a revolver.

There is definitely a need for civilians to have guns. First off, this sounds cliche, but when you need a gun seconds count and police are minutes away. You aren't going to stop a home invasion, rape, mugging, etc with police. 0 chance. They might catch them, but they can't stop it from happening. If someone comes into my church and starts shooting people, me being there and armed can save lives. Calling 911 means you probably have at least 5-10 minutes before a response (in the case of this tragedy, I think I read it was 6 minutes before there was even a 911 call made. Wouldn't have been better if the principal or a security officer had a gun in a safe in the office?)

Finally, self defense is really only the practical day to day reason for keeping guns in the hands of civilians. Liberty and freedom are the bigger reasons. Saying it doesn't matter because the govt has bombs and jets is disingenuous. If the govt decides to drop atom bombs all over the country this discussion is irrelevant. It's much more likely a conflict would be with guns. I'll leave you with this quote from Hitler:

”The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or police.” ~Adolph Hitler

> This guy could have easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with a revolver

This is not true. The gun he used (a .223 Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle) allows for rapid fire and has magazines. The time it takes to reload a revolver would not have allowed the same number of casualties.

Every victim was hit by more than one bullet (up to eleven bullets for one of the victims). A revolver usually lets you shoot just 6 times before you need to reload.

Interesting animation http://www.bushmaster.com/anatomy_bushmaster.asp

You clearly have no intimate knowledge of guns and how they work, so why do you keep posting as if you do? That's a great animation, but I know how a .223 AR-15 works because I own one and have shot it many times. As it happens, I also know how a revolver works whereas you apparently haven't seen that animation.

The revolver would not have put 11 rounds in each kid, but it doesn't need to. 1-2 works just fine. The magazine for the AR-15 generally holds 10, 20, or 30 rounds and in this case it was almost certainly 30. If he did 11 per kid, lets round to 10, that's 3 kids per reload. 2 bullets is more than enough, so the 6 shot revolver can also do 3 per reload.

There is something called a speedloader for revolvers, which is just slightly slower than a magazine to reload. This guy [1] while not really going too fast, reloaded three times and shot 24 well aimed bullets in 45 seconds (starting at the 1:15 mark). I'd say that qualifies as many many round in under a minute with only a few pounds of pressure.

The second video [2], while obviously a world class shooter, shot 12 rounds, all on target, with a reload in the middle in less than 3 seconds.

This person could have very easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with the revolver. You just didn't know it until now. Unless having 10 bullets in a kid somehow makes it worse, this could have definitely happened with a revolver or 2 instead of an AR and a few semi-auto handguns.

[1] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC9Lahi-TqQ [2] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-tFQ1H4Awg

1- While I'm certainly no expert in guns and «gun culture» (something I would take little pride in), I don't know nothing about guns. I can take apart a 1911 .45, in the dark, and put it back together (the top part with the barrel); my father in law use to own guns and took me shooting several times with his Magnum 357; my point is that I have used guns before (didn't enjoy it much though)

2- Much more importantly, the whole «expertise» debate and argument is very illegitimate. This is the same argument finance people use to claim they should not be regulated: «you don't understand! it's complicated!» It may be complicated but we're still the ones called to clean up your mess. That entitles us to have an opinion. My opinion is that guns actually kill people.

After a particularly gruesome mass shooting in the 90s, Australia passed vey tough gun control laws, with a buyback program. No further mass shooting happened since, and criminality didn't increase. Food for thought.

Let's replay this for a minute: You: get rid of automatic weapons Me: he didn't use an automatic weapon You: doesn't matter get rid of semi-automatic weapons then Me: He could do it with a revolver or bolt action gun just as easily You: No he couldn't Me: Yes he could, with proof You: Something about experts, it's complicated, let's get rid of all guns...

>It may be complicated but we're still the ones called to clean up your mess. That entitles us to have an opinion. My opinion is that guns actually kill people.

Sure, guns kill people. So do knives, and bombs, and trucks, and and and and... These things also have lots of legitimate uses.

top 10 school killings before last week - http://listverse.com/2008/01/01/top-10-worst-school-massacre...

Note that only 3 of these were in the US.

We have, a flamethrower, a lance, a mace, bolt action rifle, revolvers, knives, machettes, bombs, and cars in addition to the semi-auto guns that you think we should get rid of. This is a problem has been around for a long time, and it is something that has been done with lots and lots of different things. People kill people. This has been true since the beginning of time. If you actually have a solution to this problem let me know. Saying we should take away the guns and everyone will be fine is absurd.

Getting rid of the guns might make you feel better, but it doesn't solve anything. It does however take away my liberty, my freedom, and my rights.

> Let's replay this for a minute

I'm sorry but this replay is incorrect. I said from the start "all guns are bad". I don't think you should get rid of only "automatic" or only "semi-automatic" or only "rifles" or what have you. I think you (you being the US) should ban every single gun, no matter its mode of operation, where it's made, etc. Ban, buy-back, destroy.

I used "automatic" for emphasis in my first comment (a bad idea, I see this now ;-) and the pro-gun cohort jumped on this word to try to disqualify me and any further comment I could make: "he couldn't shoot himself out of a paper bag, don't listen to this guy".

If this is what you truly think, fine, but don't make me say I advocate (or advocated at any point in this discussion) the ban of specific guns. I advocate the ban of ALL guns, and even more importantly, I think you will not see the end of this until you change, or more to the point eradicate the whole "gun culture" and "shooting is fun" and "guns are cool" memes.

The only purpose of guns is to kill people (not "shoot pumpkins" -- but thanks for the invite). They are useful to people whose job it is to kill people (namely, the army; the police, I'm not so sure). Every other citizen should not have guns (ANY gun).

This is the policy implemented successfully in the UK and Australia, two English-speaking countries and the closest allies of the US (surely you can relate to the country of Churchill?)

See

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_afte...

and

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/12/gun-control

But unfortunately I also think this sane policy will not happen, as does The Economist.

That's a shame but in the end it's your problem, not mine. Just make sure your gun cabinet is locked, and that one of your distant nephews who's been on Prozac for years without you noticing, doesn't get hold of the key.

2 things.

1. Australia isn't a reasonable comparison.

"At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia."

600k was 20% of all of their guns. 600k would be .2% of the legally owned guns in America.

2. England has a violent crime rate that is over 4 times higher than the US. Just because shootings drops, doesn't mean crime or murder drops. That has been my major point throughout all of this. Yes, banning guns lowers gun crime. No kidding. It doesn't however make you safer. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-...

Also, regarding the «expertise» comment. I'm not saying you can't have an opinion, I'm just suggesting you can't fix the problem without more knowledge about the subject matter. You can say you want Wall Street regulated, but unless you have a huge amount of knowledge about the industry you have no idea what that entails or how to even go about it. Tell me, where would start and how exactly would that fix the problem?

It's the same with guns. You can say in few enough characters to fit in a tweet "get rid of automatic and semi-automatic guns", but it takes a deeper knowledge of the subject matter to know that that doesn't actually fix anything.

There are a lot more moving parts here. Just a few:

1.The WORST school massacre in US history did not use a gun. He used 3 bombs.

2. Mental health and it's treatments in the US. Many of the recent school shootings have been by people who were being medicated for mental health issues. Are these treatments helping? Are they actually hurting? Should we be doing more? Should some of them have been locked up?

3. School security. At this point, schools are target simply because of the other shootings. Different schools have different levels of security ranging from 0 to huge amounts. A few armed security officials sprinkled throughout schools could probably limit the damage somebody could do better than getting rid of semi-auto rifles.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com