Hacker News Reader

Comment by _delirium | Hacker News Reader

> Cars are simply not safe.

In addition to accident-type safety issues, I also find driving a bit worrying from the perspective of what you might call "legal safety". The chances of ending up in a negative interaction with the police seem much higher when you drive than when you travel via other modalities, because a traffic stop has a pretty low bar of evidence, and is often used as a lead-in to various other searches/etc. I probably am realistically not at that much risk (being a white middle-class person usually traveling in middle-class areas), but I still feel less exposed to the police when not driving.

View on HN

White, black or otherwise, you are quite susceptible to the tyranny of the police state [1]. The young man in that link was murdered in cold blood because he pissed off a cop. It was premeditated. The cop is still working actively on the force with zero repercussions.

Cops have a license to kill with impunity. The race hysteria is used, ironically, to maintain the status quo via the clever bit of propaganda that "white" people are not at risk. Statistically, "whites" are less at risk, but only because they happen to be the richest demographic. As the article I've linked shows, the cops go after the weak and helpless, regardless of race or creed [2].

1. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/what-i-did-af...

2. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873238488045786080...

I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous on its face.

If you are pulled over for a traffic violation, 99% of the time you get a ticket or a warning and are on your way. You can't cherry pick two extreme incidents and pretend that this is the norm.

The only time I ever interact with someone who has a gun is if I get pulled over while driving. Sure the risk is low, but the threat exists on every interaction, and is a big incentive for me to find ways to avoid driving.

If you live in a state that has concealed-carry laws, then you are likely wrong about your comment that "the only time" you interact with people with guns.

Even in those states it's not that common for people to actually carry guns, at least in cities. I lived for years in Houston, and it was very uncommon, even among people who had the license, in part because it greatly restricts where you can legally go. You can't enter any establishments that sell alcohol, post offices, educational institutions, most hospitals, sporting events, etc. Private property owners can also exclude weapons by posting a notice at the entrance. So you have to be very careful about how to plan your day if you're carrying.

>Even in those states it's not that common for people to actually carry guns, at least in cities.

Going to need some sort of evidence for this. Anecdotal doesn't even work here because the firearms are concealed.

The firearms are concealed, sure, but you can still talk to people. :) I do know a reasonable number of people who have concealed-carry permits, and none of them carry a gun regularly, if they're telling the truth, because it's too much of a hassle and they don't normally feel a need to. They got the permit so they can, but it doesn't obligate them to actually do so. My guess (but it's a guess) extrapolating from that is that only a small fraction of permit holders actually carry at any given time. But it would be nice to have a more solid estimate, I agree. The number of permit holders itself is about 2% of the population, but I haven't found an estimate of the utilization rate.

I know some people who have concealed-carry permits and claim to carry whenever they're not at work.

DC and Maryland (where I work and live respectively) have the most restrictive concealed carry laws in the country, ones that are probably unconstitutional. Illinois, where I lived before that, was the last state to enact a concealed carry law, forced by a court order after I moved out.

Minnesota was second to last, I like to think that being slow to adopt the law also means that the aggregate rate of people carrying concealed weapons is lower, or will at least take longer to reach the levels of southern states.

To the point of cops however: All cops get a 50 state exempt conceal and carry permit for life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety...

This unfortunate piece of legislation set back federally-mandated interstate permit reciprocity untold amounts of time.

Why is it that drivers licenses, marriage licenses (both licenses to exercise privileges) covered under the full faith and credit clause, but CCW permits are not?

Marriage is a privilege? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#Decision

You can't kill people with a marriage license. Driving, although very dangerous, serves a purpose other than killing people. Although I'm not sure I agree with interstate reciprocity for driving licenses-- a Texan or southern California driver plopped onto a North Dakota road in the middle of winter sounds more dangerous to the public than him having a concealed gun.

Not sure where the "killing people" exemption is in the full-faith and credit clause. Must've missed that one.

"who has a gun" - that you know of.

Also, you imply anyone with a firearm is a "threat." The USA might not be the best place for you to reside, as hoplophobia is largely futile.

When someone says, "The threat is low," I think using "phobia" to refer to their recognition that the threat does exist is ridiculous.

(Unless, of course, you are saying that the majority of the population in countries where the police do not carry guns are all phobic, as many of them would have the same reaction.)

The Justice Department report on the Ferguson PD is ample evidence that, there are plenty of routine traffic stops are racially biased and seriously unjust, even if the person just gets a ticket and is waved on.

Whenever someone raises these issues, there sure is someone like you putting them down by using the argument "but most of the cops are good guys, see? no problem, move along."

You use an (uncited) 99% there. Fine, let's leave it at that. So in one in hundred cases you will have an unpleasant experience, ranging from being treated disrespectfully, to jail, to being tazed, to being shot. I don't know how you negotiate SLAs, but me, I wouldn't agree to these terms.

I don't know why you're being down-voted for this. I wanted to stretch it further, to "there are still good [pick your choice] in there, see? no problem, move along" as a ridiculous apology that may pop up even if 99% would be in fact bad/corrupt!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com