Complicated is OK | Hacker News Reader

Complicated is OK

kyledaigle.position.cc

7 pointskdaigle15 comments

Hear hear. HN was much better than average throughout this whole affair. There were heated arguments, but it was (mostly) civil and people at least took the time to elaborate on their positions.

I wish the same could be said for my Facebook feed (and why I wish I could keyword-filter my Facebook feed), which were full of snarky one-liners, catchphrases, and image memes from both sides of the aisle (well, mostly the pro gun control side, given my demographics) - none of which is productive.

These simplistic sound bites (image bites?) add no understanding to the discourse, oversimplify a massively complicated issue, and are nothing more than self-congratulatory feel-good rhetoric that serve to further polarize and separate the two sides.

It's not unique to this shooting though - the dumbing-down and meme-ification of my Facebook feed has been increasing for some time, across all age groups I'm friends with. People don't express themselves anymore and opt to share an oversimplistic, insipid image macro instead - even distinctively non-Redditor middle aged people on my friends list do this.

In short: Tighter gun control might help on net, or it might be harmful on net. But whichever is right, we shouldn't pretend that the option that's better on net has no downsides, that it is a strict improvement, which is what people tend to do.

Coming from a country where you essentially can't own guns (sport is an exception, and very tightly controlled), it strikes me as odd that anyone would want to own one, for personal defence, or reasons of freedom. And on first thought it seems obvious that tighter gun control will prevent gun crime.

However I think the issue is far more complicated than this. As I understand it, a large number of countries allow guns to a larger extent than my own, Canada being a good example, but they don't suffer from the increased gun crime. Deaths relating to guns here and in Canada are roughly the same, as they are in most countries. But the US is consistently several orders of magnitude worse in gun related deaths than anywhere else.

Perhaps this is not a question of gun control, after all, if people really want a gun there is probably little that will stop them. Perhaps this is an issue of cultural attitudes to guns?

It is vitally important to recognise the complexity and uncertainty in deciding on these kinds of big issues. There will rarely be clear winners, and evidence is almost always partial and flawed.

BUT as a non-American citizen I can't understand why you would allow citizens to own semi-automatic weapons. The only purpose of these weapons is to kill other people (or hold the threat of such). Why not allow weapons for hunting (rifles, etc.) but criminalise anything allows you to simply hold down the trigger and count.

Suicidal lone-nuts need shouldn't be able to obtain guns. There are probably ways to do this without an outright ban, or excessive bureaucracy. I propose the following possible solutions:

1) Outlaw buying a gun by yourself, and require 10 co-signers, who assume personal liability for any misuse of the gun. Everyone must be free of a criminal record, and take an oath to follow the law.

2) Require liability insurance to own a gun like car insurance. The insurance company would ensure you aren't a threat, or they probably wouldn't provide you with liability insurance.

Prohibition is never a solution to anything. What we need is a cultural shift of some sort that involves identifying people in situations that lead to increased risk of later in life criminal activity and providing them the tools they need to escape that fate. This is more complicated than just thinking critically about gun control.

The goal isn't to create a perfect, utopian, society. It's to target certain statistics for reduction. It's hard to get elected on a platform that has a 10 year wait for results.

Prohibition is very definitely a solution to some problems. Take drugs as an example: You can make an argument that marijuana, or even harder drugs like cocaine or meth should be personal choices. But those arguments have limits.

For instance, nobody would run a "Legalize Vancomycin" campaign. Being one of our last resort antibiotics that remains effective against many cases of MRSA, preventing its overuse is critical. If not for our prescription drug system, it'd take less than a week for someone to start selling ANTIBACTERIAL SOAP! KILLS 99% OF MRSA! and the drug would become useless in short order.

While I won't say that's analogous to gun laws, it's a good example of there being cases where prohibition is an effective solution, and there are absolutely situations where things should only be available to people with a strong need to use them.

Saying that prohibition is never a solution reeks of the same aversion to complex opinions that the linked article was written about.

I don't agree. I think prohibition can coincide with a cultural perception that creates the illusion that the prohibition is effective, but in my opinion it's the culture itself not the prohibition.

Nothing can truly be prohibited. Especially things culture demands. What you're talking about is regulation anyway. There is a deference between prohibition and regulation. Take prescription drugs for example.

People absolutely would campaign to legalize Vancomycin if there was a cultural perception in favor of it's benefits.

>Prohibition: Noun The action of forbidding something, esp. by law. A law or regulation forbidding something.

I don't see how it isn't prohibition. What differentiates it from any other prescription drug, especially those with recreational uses? Would you apply the word to marijuana, but not to OxyContin?

Regarding your last point: If there were a massive outbreak of something best treated by Vancomycin, I'm sure we would see arguments that it should be available over the counter to anyone who wants some. And that would be a terrible idea because of people who would buy a bunch and take it constantly, figuring it would keep them safe. And maybe it would, but at the cost of Vancomycin becoming a less effective treatment, and overall a lot more people dying.

That's one aspect of the argument that does fit pretty well with the debate on firearms.

'Prohibition is never a solution to anything.'

This is clearly a massive claim which seems to be implausible by some common sense tests. But either way, it is definitely a belief rather than something provable.

Tax is a form of prohibition (on keeping all of your earnings). Any kind of law prohibits freedom in some way (at least in a kind of direct manner). Modern civil society seems predicated on the practice of prohibiting certain actions (and the requirement of others) for the common good.

The situation we are in is quite simple actually. It is nothing more than a Nash equilibrium. Suboptimal, but stable...and nobody gains anything by changing their strategy. Everybody wants to disarm everybody but themselves.

The solution? Now that is complicated. Has anybody ever seen a Nash Equilibrium broken by anything other than a third party? What happens when neither side trusts the third party?

From the article:

> Complete and utter freedom doesn't work in America

Uhh, you wouldn't know. You've never had it.

We used to have something closer to it. Side effects included child labor, people burning to death in factories because the doors were locked, and Standard Oil, among other things.

Even the most hard-line Libertarians will admit that "complete freedom" is overrated.

> Even the most hard-line Libertarians will admit that "complete freedom" is overrated.

Be careful with statements like these: Every time you use them, you're betting that you have, in fact, actually seen the hard line.

In this case, I am pretty sure there are others here who have experience with Libertarians (self-proclaimed, perhaps, but loud enough) who do, in fact, believe that complete freedom would lead to market solutions to everything. Utopian Libertarianism, like Utopian Socialism, is quite dogmatic on some issues.

Admittedly, the libertarians I've spoken to personally have some concept along the lines of "Your freedom ends where mine begins," and don't think a society where someone might feel entitled to murdering you over a parking space would be a good idea. But I could probably have worded it better.

In any case, I don't see "complete freedom" for everyone as a concept that can even exist in the abstract. If you have complete freedom, I can't (as a silly example) lock you in my basement and make you sew Snuggies for 20 hours a day. But one definition of freedom (#3 on dictionary.com) that I think applies here is:

>the power to determine action without restraint.

If slave ownership isn't permitted, then I don't have that power. Either you get "complete freedom" or I do.

Replacing "overrated" with "not possible/feasible" should make it a bit more accurate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com