Hacker News Reader

Comment by learc83 | Hacker News Reader

>The second is that few argue for "rifle control", but instead want "gun control".

Except that's not what was actually happening. Most of what was hotly debated over the last few months has been over an "Assault Weapons Ban", that is a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles, very rarely involved in crime.

It was only after that was defeated that people started talking about universal background checks.

>Those guns that kill 30,000+ Americans per year

60% of those are from suicide. If you look at suicide rate by country--there is no correlation with gun ownership. How is gun control going to help our suicide rate? The best information we have shows it's not going to help because there are too many easily available alternates.

View on HN

>>How is gun control going to help our suicide rate

What if I think people have a right to kill themselves?

"They tell us that suicide is the greatest piece of cowardice; that only a madman could be guilty of it; and other insipidities of the same kind; or else they make the nonsensical remark that suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person."

- Arthur Schopenhauer

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/pessimis...

It doesn't mean you have to make it easy to do impulsively.

You can also legalize euthanasia in case of severe, chronic depression, like in some European countries.

Man up and jump off a bridge. Or issue guns with only one bullet. It's not like you're going to miss.

Limiting suicide is a noble goal, but that's not the issue being fought politically and in the press (as per TFA).

Yes there is http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/suicides-vs-handgun-...

Introduce background checks and you will reduce the number of suicides, more likely than not.

The conclusions motherjones got from that study were absolutely ridiculous.

The big graph they display is meaningless.

Here is a quote from the article.

"...gun suicides, where the majority of victims don't have a documented serious mental illness."

In many states background checks don't require a waiting period. So a background check wouldn't have stopped them from buying a gun.

Their entire premise is based on suicide being quick and impulsive. Yet their only data is on background checks for private sales.

Are you telling me that someone who wants quick access to a gun is going to wait until Saturday rolls around, drive to a gunshow and buy a gun?

Motherjones also fails to recognize that MANY states already have mandatory "cooling off periods" where if you buy a gun on say Monday you can't pick it up until later in the week.

http://www.ehow.com/list_6745387_illinois-gun-license-requir...

"As with many states, Illinois has a mandatory 72-hour wait period between the time a person purchases a handgun and the time he can take the gun home from a licensed dealer."

In most cases, these waiting periods are for handguns and not rifles or shotguns. The law is not to prevent suicides but to prevent 'crimes of passion'. There would be very little difficulty in someone killing themselves with a rifle or shotgun, although it isn't as easy as putting a handgun to one's temple.

BTW, I'm not arguing with you just clarifying.

It seems like you could get the same result just by imposing a waiting period on first time firearm purchases regardless of background checks.

>Except that's not what was actually happening. Most of what was hotly debated over the last few months has been over an "Assault Weapons Ban", that is a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles, very rarely involved in crime.

That's because they knew that the nuts in NRA and other pro-gun lobbies would never in a 1000 years accept a total "gun control" law. So they scaled down their proposal.

Plus you also have this BS amendment about the "right to bear arms" that you treat as some kind of holy scripture.

I wonder what would have happened if some part of the constitution called for the "right to own slaves".

>I wonder what would have happened if some part of the constitution called for the "right to own slaves".

I suspect it would have been amended when the states agreed to ratify such a proposal..

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

Nice. Not an American, so not familiar with this case.

Which reinforces my point: no damn reason to keep the constitution, the founding fathers and 200 year old amendments as "holy scripture". You can fuck "the right to bear arms" and change the laws.

>You can fuck "the right to bear arms" and change the laws.

You could, via constitutional amendment. There are 2 methods to do this, a constitutional convention (hasn't happened yet). Or the amendment can pass both houses with a 2/3 vote, and then be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

This is the legal procedure for changing the constitution. However, the anti-gun control crowd doesn't have anywhere near the support for this.

Ignoring the constitution and confiscating all guns via dictatorial fiat would result in civil war/mass uprisings that would kill far more people than currently killed via firearm.

Most people who are anti-gun, such as yourself due to your "BS amendment" comment, are usually very ignorant or fearful of guns.

As a very middle of the road type of guy, I joined NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation for the first time a few months ago because of too many people like you who are too easily influenced by the media in the past 6 months.

>Most people who are anti-gun, such as yourself due to your "BS amendment" comment, are usually very ignorant or fearful of guns.

I actually went through a compulsory one year long army training (and got to be a sergeant) but nice try anyway.

>As a very middle of the road type of guy, I joined NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation for the first time a few months ago because of too many people like you who are too easily influenced by the media in the past 6 months.

I'm from another country, I don't even read your media that much.

I just feel that selling guns to anybody in a society with so many wackos (with the highest gun crime rates in the western world, the highest incarceration rate in the world, and the highest number of nutjob serial killers) is wrong.

And I'm also against the "protecting my private property means I have the right to kill any trespasser" cowboy logic.

I prefer to be robbed and let the police handle it, than kill people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com