Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

End the Gun Epidemic in America

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 21 posts

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

#11

Post by DougN7 »

toothbrush wrote: post #10
Hogg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I just can't imagine living in fear of some concealed-carry-permit holding goon deciding to shoot the place up." You don't need a concealed-carry permit to carry a concealed gun; you just need one to do it LEGALLY. I would venture to guess that a person who carries concealed with the intent of committing murder will not have bothered to get a permit. My reasoning for keeping a killing machine (it lies around either…

That's one side of it, and it's a pretty common rebuttal to hear. I have some thoughts on that. If tomorrow all gun possession (except perhaps by LEO, but even that is debatable IMHO) was made illegal, then within one year i'm sure there would be many less guns in circulation (without considering who owns them). In my books this is a net win, because a criminal entering the scene at that point in time will arguably h…

That exact same reasoning supports the war on drugs.

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

#12

Post by DougN7 »

Do the same people who think there is a gun epidemic and guns need to be controlled more also think there is a drug epidemic and drugs need to be controlled more? It seems the same reasoning holds. Interestingly to me, conservatives and liberals seem to be inversely inconsistent on the underlying reasoning.

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

#15

Post by hijiri »

DougN7 wrote: post #12

Do the same people who think there is a gun epidemic and guns need to be controlled more also think there is a drug epidemic and drugs need to be controlled more? It seems the same reasoning holds. Interestingly to me, conservatives and liberals seem to be inversely inconsistent on the underlying reasoning.

Reading your and similar comments made me think about it, and I came to the conclusion that the commonality between drugs and guns is superficial.

Starting with what they have in common, I would say the restriction of either creates a black market, so that either allows criminal organizations to make a profit selling them. I think there is a difference even there though, since you can argue that criminals still benefit from loosening of gun regulations, because they would have easier access to guns. The primary buyers of illegal firearms are gangs and similar organizations, so that market is mainly there to support criminals who would not be able to obtain them without it. I don't know if that would change with increased restrictions though - maybe some otherwise law-abiding people would be willing to buy illegal guns for self-defense. On the other hand, I can't see how legalizing drugs could benefit crime organizations, except that maybe they could use their existing infrastructure to pivot into a legal drug business. Maybe that is a significant boon, but it doesn't seem worse than any other "legitimate business" that funds criminal activity.

One of the main arguments in favor of drug legalization is quality control - street drugs often contain adulterants that are more debilitating than the drug itself. From what I know, this can't apply to guns since illegal guns are typically originally-legal guns from ordinary gun manufacturers, and don't have as many quality control issues.

And the way they generate harm is different too - drugs mainly harm the user, and guns mainly harm whoever the gun is used on (may sometimes be the same as the user). So drug legalization might be desirable so the harmful qualities of drugs could be reduced (as earlier), and not restricting guns could be desirable in that people will be able to defend themselves from other people with guns (criminals with guns, an oppressive government). This simplifies the issue a bit, and ignores other factors like drug research or hunting and other non-self-defense uses of guns, but I think it's clear that there is significant room to agree with restricting one but not the other.

My post may reek of bias toward drug legalization, but hopefully you agree that it's not as simple as "If you want to loosen drug/gun restrictions, you should also want to reduce gun/drug restrictions".

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

#16

Post by tzs »

toothbrush wrote: post #4

Absolutely. I'm consistently surprised that things like [1] are not seen as absurd and even illegal. I found another article, "Gun homicides in Poland are about as common as deaths from bicycle riders being hit by cars in the United States" (and many other variations) [2] very sad, too. How is it that a civilised nation allows such things to happen? The US seems like a very cool place, with so much potential, but inc…

> The US seems like a very cool place, with so much potential, but increasingly, i'm considering putting it on my personal blacklist as far as destinations to look for work go. I just can't imagine living in fear of some concealed-carry-permit holding goon deciding to shoot the place up.

The US homicide rate is around 3.8 per 100k. That is higher than much of Europe (UK 1.0, Finland 1.6, Norway 2.2, Germany 0.8) but not to the point that it is rational to fear coming to the US.

Would you fear taking a vacation to Bermuda or the Bahamas? They have much higher homicide rates than the US (7.7 and 29.8, respectively).

Also note that homicide rates are taken over the whole country. They vary considerably from place to place within the country. For most tech jobs that a typical non-US HN reader might come to the US for, you'd almost certainly be working in a location that has a much lower than average homicide rate, and would be making enough money to live in a place with a much lower than average homicide rate.

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

#17

Post by tptacek »

tzs wrote: post #16
toothbrush wrote: post #4

Absolutely. I'm consistently surprised that things like [1] are not seen as absurd and even illegal. I found another article, "Gun homicides in Poland are about as common as deaths from bicycle riders being hit by cars in the United States" (and many other variations) [2] very sad, too. How is it that a civilised nation allows such things to happen? The US seems like a very cool place, with so much potential, but inc…

> The US seems like a very cool place, with so much potential, but increasingly, i'm considering putting it on my personal blacklist as far as destinations to look for work go. I just can't imagine living in fear of some concealed-carry-permit holding goon deciding to shoot the place up. The US homicide rate is around 3.8 per 100k. That is higher than much of Europe (UK 1.0, Finland 1.6, Norway 2.2, Germany 0.8) but…

In invoking "concealed-carry-permit holding goons", the commenter is making a point that isn't easily rebutted by geography. They're referring to the rate of mass shootings, not of homicides in general.

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

#19

Post by DrScump »

toothbrush wrote: post #10
Hogg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I just can't imagine living in fear of some concealed-carry-permit holding goon deciding to shoot the place up." You don't need a concealed-carry permit to carry a concealed gun; you just need one to do it LEGALLY. I would venture to guess that a person who carries concealed with the intent of committing murder will not have bothered to get a permit. My reasoning for keeping a killing machine (it lies around either…

That's one side of it, and it's a pretty common rebuttal to hear. I have some thoughts on that. If tomorrow all gun possession (except perhaps by LEO, but even that is debatable IMHO) was made illegal, then within one year i'm sure there would be many less guns in circulation (without considering who owns them). In my books this is a net win, because a criminal entering the scene at that point in time will arguably h…

"Indeed the stable state of this system is, as you point out, that only non-law-abiding citizens will be in possession of guns, but that is collateral i'm willing to accept"

You have just described present-day Mexico. How much safer do you feel when there, versus when in the U.S.?

Re: End the Gun Epidemic in America

#20

Post by DrScump »

A key problem with this debate is that the NYT knowingly and deliberately prints falsehoods on numerous facets of politics in which it has taken an editorial position.

A key example is their reference to this story, as if it supports the editorial case: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/tough-talk-and-a-c...

With the accompanying quote: "on Thursday every Senate Republican except Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against legislation to prevent people on the F.B.I.’s consolidated terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns or explosives."

Well, the problem with this claim is that the amendment didn't fail because of anything to do with terrorism -- it's because that amendment would have overridden the language regarding the repeal of elements of Obamacare.

Here's the proposed language it is looking to overlay: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2015/12/01/sen... (the Obamacare component repeal)

Now, here's the Feinstein amendment (scroll down to "SA 2910" portion, read it only): https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-ame...

Now, if you look at the amendment in a vacuum, it looks sorta like what it claims (but it looks odd, to the experienced eye, because there is no mention of a specific criteria for "terrorist" or refer to the FBI watchlist by its proper statute name). So it wouldn't have any effect on its own, being unenforceable vague.

But that's not the point.

Now, note carefully how the legislation starts: "In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following:"

See THAT: In LIEU OF the matter ("the matter" being ALL of SA 2874, the Obamacare repeal).

The parent bill is H.R.3762 - Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015, which had NOTHING to do with terrorism, or guns. That's the first clue right there.

Congressional Democrats have used this tactic (overwriting legislation they oppose with unrelated content that sounds obviously beneficial in order to trick the media into carrying water for their politicking) clear back to the Tom Foley days, if not Tip O'Neill or beyond.

The ignorant media consumers have been duped, successfully, because few bother to look at the bills...

...which, in this case, took me all of about 8-10 clicks in total.

Post reply on HN