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

Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

emergency.mit.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 389 posts

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#61

Post by lolcraft »

embwbam wrote: post #44
BSousa wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not american here so this is just a supposition. I think the main issue with it is related to the constitution. While the idea as far as I understand, was for citizens to bear arms and form a militia to protect against a foreign power, many of the people that defend the right to bear arms do so based on a limited knowledge of it (i.e.: 'The right to bear arms is in the constitution' but have no idea what comes next).…

I'm American. I grew up in a conservative household so I think I understand where they are coming from. My understanding is that many consider the 2nd amendment to allow them to bear arms to protect themselves from their own oppressive government. The idea is that no government can become completely totalitarian without first disarming the population. And if they try, the people can revolt. That may be an incorrect u…

But the problem with this is that a government can become completely totalitarian without disarming its subjects. Imagine the Soviet Union, but this time you're allowed to bear arms. Or even better, imagine the USA. Sure, you can bear arms, so in the letter you still can fight for your rights. But in practice, the second you try to pull that shit, a F117 Nighthawk is going to blow your terrorist ass to pieces.

Practice is everything. Damn, the (letter of the) constitution of the Soviet Union actually gave their citizens the right to form political parties and run from office. You were provided by the government a party newspaper, headquarters... of course, if you tried to, you were hanged for treason.

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#62

Post by citricsquid »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #53
sergiotapia wrote: post #43

How many people need to die before people in the US realize that having easily obtained firearms is not a good idea?

Guns also save lives. And nations without guns are not violence-free at all. Its a spurious connection, made by lazy thinkers.

Nowhere will ever be violence-free.

If guns are not the cause of violence and banning them isn't for the better, why is England a less violent place than America? The gun murder rate in England is 0.1 murders per 100,000 people, in America it's 3.2.

The problem America has is not exclusively caused by guns, it's a problem with culture too, but it seems strange to argue that connecting the high presence of guns to the high number of gun murders is "a spurious connection, made by lazy thinkers".

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#63

Post by knowtheory »

monochromatic wrote: post #42
knowtheory wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're seriously criticizing an emergency release? It was posted as an emergency and they get the point across, do we really need the nit-picking?

That... is a fair point. I'll save my criticism for the "journalism" to come, which will probably make even more egregious and inexcusable errors.

So this is a useful and instructive point in this conversation.

There is clearly a perceived cultural tension that gun owners feel regarding how they see gun ownership portrayed, and that its portrayal is being written by uninformed writers. And certainly there are a lot of reporters telling stories about guns without appreciating or understanding the world that they're reporting on.

What concerns me is a reactionary response is only going to worsen any possible cultural divide and make people choose sides or become defensive, when we should be educating people to appreciate why these sorts of errors matter.

I worry that your assumption that they will make errors and that they should be criticized is ultimately just going to curtail open discussions of gun ownership.

(And mad props for the mea culpa. I don't blame you for the reaction, I just think it's misplaced in this instance)

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#64

Post by zanny »

embwbam wrote: post #44
BSousa wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not american here so this is just a supposition. I think the main issue with it is related to the constitution. While the idea as far as I understand, was for citizens to bear arms and form a militia to protect against a foreign power, many of the people that defend the right to bear arms do so based on a limited knowledge of it (i.e.: 'The right to bear arms is in the constitution' but have no idea what comes next).…

I'm American. I grew up in a conservative household so I think I understand where they are coming from. My understanding is that many consider the 2nd amendment to allow them to bear arms to protect themselves from their own oppressive government. The idea is that no government can become completely totalitarian without first disarming the population. And if they try, the people can revolt. That may be an incorrect u…

This is my take away too, and I think it is valuable, especially in an era of every politician going out of their way to fuck everyone else over for their own gain like we have right now.

I'm very unnerved by the prospect of the military being allowed to wield so much technology for the purposes of murder that citizens can't have already. It kind of stacks the cards against the people.

We are not in a perfect utopia, there will be conflict, and strife, and almost certainly (be it short or long term) there will be the turning of governments and rule. There has always been, and if you don't think it can happen in the modern era... the soviet union collapsed just over 20 years ago.

I would never own a gun, but I value my right to possess one in the eyes of the constitution in the event my government goes too far into the totalitarian deep end of the pond. It is a right few other nations can claim to have - if their governments turn on them, they really have no defense because they are never armed.

But I'm also not trying to say having guns would keep the US military from rolling over whoever they wanted in the country if the fed just decided to conquer their own nation. They still do have all the military hardware citizens aren't allowed to have, which wasn't kept in line with the purpose of the second amendment. Though I also don't think private ownership of nuclear arms would be the best thing ever, but that is the kind of thing nobody should have. I'd rather see nobody use weapons of war they wouldn't trust their citizens with.

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#65

Post by nnutter »

knowtheory wrote: post #33
kiba wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean this just doesn't add up. There's some reason you have police, military, para-military and federal agencies so that citizens don't have to handle this aspect of security. The poor latency of police response means that rampage killers(or anybody bent on harming anybody, really) can get away with killing several unarmed civilians before they can be stopped. In theory, concealed carry individuals can put a stop t…

You know what else works? Locked doors. More guns is not the only, nor necessarily the most effective, solution.

That obviously depends on the door. Do you really think your home offers physical security?

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#66

Post by nnutter »

notdrunkatall wrote: post #59
fakeer wrote: post #6

Good that the man was not found there(in a sense that no one was harmed). I still would like to understand few things. Of course I shall not be able to understand how it feels to have a gun when you want it(and afterwards take a decision on how to use it. To defend yourself or flash in malls or kill children for fun or out of depression) as I live in a country where having fire-arms is either a luxury for powerful an…

>But I still don't understand that how can guns be allowed in such a manner when they don't let you handle a gas cylinder at a public place or a take a metallic fork on an air-plane. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson You can't fight tyranny in government with metallic forks and ga…

The common response to that is that guns can't fight tanks, UAVs, etc.

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#67

Post by smoyer »

fakeer wrote: post #6

Good that the man was not found there(in a sense that no one was harmed). I still would like to understand few things. Of course I shall not be able to understand how it feels to have a gun when you want it(and afterwards take a decision on how to use it. To defend yourself or flash in malls or kill children for fun or out of depression) as I live in a country where having fire-arms is either a luxury for powerful an…

I can take a gas cylinder pretty much anywhere I want to, but it's not wise to have one in an enclosed space (if it's leaking, it's going to become explosive when the oxygen gas mixture hits a certain ratio).

As for the metal fork on an airplane restriction, please don't ask anyone to try to explain the TSA's rationale (for that and most of their other policies).

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#68

Post by 89vision »

notdrunkatall wrote: post #59
fakeer wrote: post #6

Good that the man was not found there(in a sense that no one was harmed). I still would like to understand few things. Of course I shall not be able to understand how it feels to have a gun when you want it(and afterwards take a decision on how to use it. To defend yourself or flash in malls or kill children for fun or out of depression) as I live in a country where having fire-arms is either a luxury for powerful an…

>But I still don't understand that how can guns be allowed in such a manner when they don't let you handle a gas cylinder at a public place or a take a metallic fork on an air-plane. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson You can't fight tyranny in government with metallic forks and ga…

> You can't fight tyranny in government with metallic forks and gas cylinders.

or with AR-15's

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#69

Post by MrUnknown »

monochromatic wrote: post #26
MrUnknown wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sure banning them would have prevented this situation from ever happening.

Yeah, I guess my sarcasm wasn't apparent.

It's OK, neither was mine it seems judging by its reply.

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#70

Post by drucken »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #53
sergiotapia wrote: post #43

How many people need to die before people in the US realize that having easily obtained firearms is not a good idea?

Guns also save lives. And nations without guns are not violence-free at all. Its a spurious connection, made by lazy thinkers.

No other developed nation has a firearms death rate (let alone crime rate) in the top 10 of all countries where reliable data is available! [1]

Even Switzerland, who have half the guns per capita of the US (the highest in the world), have less than a third of deaths. [2]

At minimum, this suggests, at some point, the marginal availability of guns in a society does far more harm than any possible benefit overall.

This does not even cover the social and economic impact of gun-related mass murders or the disproportionate effects in highly unequal societies...

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_co...

Post reply on HN