Hacker News Reader

Comment by cbau | Hacker News Reader

It's pretty simple-- As an American, I have a right to the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't want to give up any rights I don't have to. That includes the freedom to buy and carry a gun.

View on HN

I'm not american but i think my own right for life, liberty and happiness would be violated being surrounded by weapon fanatics.. I really don't understand all that "uh, i need to defend myself" bullshit when i look at all the safe western countries with much stricter weapon laws. I think this is all not a matter of rights or self-defense or all that crap people tell me, it's just that most people can't cope with change ("no, don't take away my toy, buhuhuhu!") plus a billion dollar weapon industry.

It's not the weapon that violates any of that it is the person using the weapon. Some weapons have purposes other than as a weapon but your argument would still imply that your right to life, liberty, and happiness would be violated so we should make forks, knives, bats, pans, cars, everything illegal. Slippery slope? Sure. There's a spectrum and everyone chooses where the line sits for them. I don't want easy access to nuclear weapons but I'm still OK with easy access to guns.

It is much, much harder to kill people with forks, knives, bats, and pans than it is with a gun. (I'm less certain about cars, but they have substantial non-murdering use).

Yet another reason to allow the use of firearms: the sheer labor of killing an assailant (or worse, the ignominy of having been killed) with a kitchen pan! But a merciful byebye by bullet beats bludgeoning by bat.

blah blah blablah, i can stop reading your comment right at " it is the person using the weapon", that's the stupid stuff people keep repeating over and over and over again, like it would make sooo much sense, it's hilarious. Do you honestly believe that less people will die if you distribute more weapons among people!? Honestly?! Like think-really-hard-about-it-and-be-honest-to-yourself honestly? If yes, you are successfully lying to yourself, congratulations.

I think that americans just feel that this weapon owning is some sort of common property, a value of the americam people that needs to be protected because everyone grew up with this value and noone can imagine to not have those rights. In that sense it is the same as the no-speed-limit driving in germany. We grew up with that and it is virtually unthinkable that the state will introduce a speed limit on motorways, partly because of the car industry but more importantly because every german grows up with it. It's crystal clear to me that there are more car accidents when cars drive faster (overall, driving faster equals less time to react to dangerous situations). Yet i can't imagine to drive max. 130 km/h although every surrounding country does that. In the same way i can say "It's not fast driving that kills, it's bad drivers!!!!", but we both know it's a stupid excuse.

>When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Not American, but even I feel annoyed by your tone.

But I DO have to give up the right to travel without being strip-searched. A nation of paradoxes.

(on a federally regulated airplane)

Which is, almost all of them?

On a commercial airliner.. To my knowledge private planes don't have crazy restrictions or invasive searches.

Indeed, you don't have to fly at all.

And you don't have to go outside, so no need for a carry permit.

Its all about rights - does liberty include travel on public conveyance? Most of us would think Yes.

> On a commercial airliner.. To my knowledge private planes don't have crazy restrictions or invasive searches.

Which is fairly silly, considering it shouldn't be hard for Saudi billionaires to charter a 767.

The Pro-Gun group however pushes for the right to carry weapons on private property as well (stores, bars, schools, etc)

Those are still public places (if by "school" you mean "university"), even if they are privately owned. Also, with a sufficiently rigorous check required to get a concealed carry permit, what is there to worry about?

Just because the 4th amendment isn't being upheld to a standard that it ought to be is no reason to endorse the trampling of other civil liberties.

I like to think that this is a state of temporary insanity for our nation. One day, I pray, we will all be able to look back and laugh about the days when we had to take our shoes off at the airport like we do at those duck and cover PSAs.

I think this is the part a lot of people fail to understand. The mere existence of police that is supposed to protect people doesn't mean everyone in the society agrees to transfer all of those functions to it. Assuming that is pure ignorance. It still gets pretty hilarious when you ask to see your signature under this mythical social contract everyone supposedly signed.

And the failure of others to recognize that they live in a society and that their actions have an effect on others is just as obnoxious.

You may be happy to take your chances and own and carry a firearm, but why should I, or any other bystander, have to take your chances?

Same logic can be applied to your argument. Why should I take your chances and rely on the police instead of myself to be able to protect me? Convince me (rather than order me) I would be better off without it - and I could voluntarily change my mind.

No, not really. My problem is having a massive untrained population of gun owners. If I could have a reasonable certainty that if you owned a gun, you were trained to use it safely, were required to store your firearms safely, and were responsible/liable if your firearm was lost or stolen, I would be perfectly happy for you to own a gun.

But this discussion invariably comes down to "gun-rights" folks asserting that any abridgment or checks of their right to own a gun is equivalent to tyranny that would justify overthrowing the government. It's ridiculous.

I'm not against gun ownership, i'm against unsafe gun ownership.

Then government, given its track record of being responsible, being effective and not abusing power should be the last organization for you to turn to for enforcing responsible gun ownership.

Now you are making a different argument.

I don't care if you think the government is or isn't an effective or responsible organization.

I want to know why I as another member of your society should trust my safety to you and your firearm. Because if you fuck up, I don't have the right to redress, because I could very well be dead.

If you don't like the government doing the checking, propose an alternative. Because universal, untrained and unaccountable gun ownership isn't a great improvement on illegal gun ownership as far as I am concerned.

I think a lot of fear people have of guns is because they are unfamiliar with what they can and cannot do, how to use one properly, how to tell if someone else is using their gun properly, etc. Concealed carry permits already require classes and background checks. Maybe gun safety should be taught to everybody.

As further evidence that the fear of guns may be overblown, consider just how widespread gun ownership is, and then consider how rare gun violence is outside of gang-ridden urban centers.

I would disagree with any sort of strict liability for one's gun being lost or stolen, but if the gun owner was clearly negligent, then they should bear responsibility.

Ah, so here's the point where it gets all "us vs them", eh?

I have fired guns, enjoy shooting, and several (but not all) of my family members own guns.

It's not that I don't believe safe gun ownership is impossible, it's that I don't trust other people, and I would like their failures with potentially lethal tools to have consequences.

If you own firearms, you should know where they are, and you should secure them against theft. If they're stolen, you should have to report them. And if you're losing a lot of guns, that should raise red flags, and someone should have a talk with you about responsible gun ownership.

I almost wonder if you should be liable for having a gun stolen, unless you can prove it was adequately secured.

I agree with your final paragraph, but disagree that the vast majority of gun owners are worthy of distrust.

Too late to edit, so I also wanted to add that my intention with my previous comment is not to create an "us-vs-them" dichotomy, but to try to make the debate more inclusive by teaching everyone how to be safe around guns and how to recognize someone who is not being safe.

I don't understand this argument. There are not numerous cases in the US where people were trying defend themselves with good intentions, but due to their lack of government approved firearms training, they injured someone else. Do you feel threatened by your neighbor's lack of gun training? They are just going to start shooting randomly at the darkness and hit you?

Really?

Because I can think of two off hand that made the news since Newtown.

http://cjonline.com/news/2013-01-08/man-accidentally-shoots-...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/boy-3-killed-playin...

Exactly. Your original statement was about laws and training programs that the government should require that will prevent these things from happening. In your two stories, you have a person with a concealed carry permit, and a state trooper. How much more training can you have than as a state trooper. I don't know what policy or training that we can mandate as policy that will prevent this.

Gun deaths are from suicide, gang/drug related shooting, and homicide primarily. Accidental gun deaths are mostly hunting related, and still are much smaller than the above three. I don't see what your government training for "safe gun ownership" really accomplishes except feel good hopefulness and annoying people into not wanting to own guns.

As another American, I don't think that's quite it, as we (Americans) have essentially given up some of your other rights: we don't really have a right to be secure against arbitrary search and seizure any more, and we don't have much of a right to due process any more. We're shaving our freedom of speech thinner too.

So: why is the 4th Amendment right to keep and bear arms defended so zealously, and interpreted so liberally, when the wording around other rights, which are quite clear and simple, is interpreted in a non-obvious, often seemingly irrational manner so as to prevent people from exercizing those rights?

2nd Amendment, actually.

I agree on everything else.

Perhaps because the 2nd amendment is their last defense against the erosion of those other rights completely. See: American Revolutionary War

Right, but "last defense" shouldn't constitute our only defense. Shouldn't all freedom-loving Americans speak out and vote against shaving protections against arbitrary search and seizure paper thin? Shouldn't all freedom-loving Americans vote against politicians who support things like universal wiretapping, dragnet searches and presumption of guilt in airports and at borders?

In short, I don't believe that having a gun is any kind of last defense against loss of rights. I'll believe that when I see Waye LaPierre denouncing airport nude-a-trons, or when the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners actively join suit against the US DoJ for warrantless wiretapping.

Because power, as Mao said, comes from the barrel of a gun. Without the 2nd, the other amendments may as well be suggestions.

That "libertarianesque" definicion of freedom commonly used in America is not shared or understood by many countries (not that it matters to americans, of course)

The definition of freedom in about a third of those countries is that you have the freedom to surrender your independence to God and the state, and if you step out of line they will kill you in public as an example to everyone else. The definition of freedom in another large chunk of the world is that the single-party state is the sole legitimate representative of the people and has the sole power to decide what freedom is, and people who obey the party line have plenty of freedom but if you step out of line they will seize your property "for the people" and throw you in jail on false charges.

I will take the American definition of freedom, thanks.

And why should those be the only options?

Of course our options needn't keep state and citizenry separate - in fact, "quite a few" states do place themselves in the middle of the continuum: democratic systems, in theory, join the state and citizenry at the hip and provide the luxury of dealing in a pragmatic manner with the problem of making something so abstract as "freedom" manifest - as-you-go, considerate of subtly different definitions of freedom. Real life doesn't necessarily live up to this ideal; but some of the heights of American legislation do show what is possible.

The definition of freedom in catholic countries is that men are free to choose between good and evil, but precisely because they are able to make a choice, they often choose evil, so true freedom can only be achieved repressing evil. It's hard to sell them the idea that letting everyone have guns (or letting investors do whatever they want) can create a virtuous society.

Your freedom to buy and carry a gun infringes on my right to feel safe in public

Attorney here, and the "right to feel safe in public" is one I am not aware of.

And for many attorneys in safe, democratic, non-tyrannical Western countries, the "right to bear arms" is not one they are aware of.

I won't say that banning guns leads to tyranny in absolutely every instance, but it sure makes it easier.

I don't think anyone here will disagree with you on that point, but many will say they don't believe the trade-off is worth it.

I dunno what to say to that, other than "wow." That is just a shocking amount of honesty.

Are you serious?

You really think that the UK, France, Canada, Australia, Sweden etc. etc. are at such a risk of tyranny from their governments that they should expose their children to more random shootings to reduce the risk?

Yes, I am serious. And "exposing their children to more random shootings" is not an acceptable rationale for disarming a populace.

Look at the odds of dying in a random shooting. Compare them to just about anything. Car accidents and swimming pools kill FAR more children.

Got an example where guns which were allowed were then banned by a government which then turned tyrannical?

Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, China under Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Uganda under Idi Amin for starters.

I'm no expert, but compared to the Weimar Republic it looks like Nazi Germany relaxed gun control considerably, unless you were Jewish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

unless you were Jewish

That's kind of a big "unless." Good article here: http://libertarianstandard.com/2013/01/14/was-hitler-really-...

You feeling unsafe has nothing to do with rights. Lots of people feel unsafe around clowns. Let's just ban clowns.

> Let's just ban clowns.

yes, this

I don't feel safe when I see or smell Marijuana. Is that a reason to not legalize it?

If we were discussing the legalizing of MJ, I have a feeling your attitude would abruptly change.

I support reasonable drug legalization in the same way I support reasonable gun ownership. I'm from Utah, where gun owners are far from reasonable. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55649700-78/yorgason-carry... . There was a very vocal percentage of the population that thought this stunt was a good idea and cheered this guy on.

That's one person. Everyone cheering the guy on was probably saying that they're glad he did it, not that they would do it. I'm from Utah, where the vast majority of gun owners are more than reasonable.

This is not the best argument for gun control, because it's very easy to insert any other words in that sentence. Some examples:

"Your freedom to work out like mad and become significantly stronger than I am infringes on my right to feel safe in public."

"Your freedom to wear tattoos infringes on my right to feel safe in public."

"Your freedom to have that skin color infringes on my right to feel safe in public."

"Your freedom to choose to whom you are attracted infringes on my right to feel safe in public."

You need to define an actual danger that goes beyond feeling unsafe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com