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

141–150 of 389 posts

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

#141

Post by diegocg »

Tangaroa wrote: post #78
diegocg wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 free…

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.

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

#142

Post by tome »

splat wrote: post #103
hemancuso wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the massive mismatch of firepower, training and numbers between the government and the very best armed/trained groups within the civilian population I have trouble believing that anyone can still make this argument at any intellectual level.

Is that really true, though? The US has a large military, but it pales in comparison to the number of armed civilians. Just look at the number of hunters in this country. In Wisconsin alone there are 600,000 hunters. That would make them the ninth-largest army in the world. There are more hunters in just the four states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and West Virginia than there are in the entire U.S. military…

This is an excellent, level-headed, clear and persuasive comment that outlines a side of the argument that I previously failed to grasp. Thank you!

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

#143

Post by Turing_Machine »

tomkin wrote: post #109
embwbam wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's all well and good, except no gun you have is going to make a difference. If you're worried about a tyrannical government, you better start investing in drones, nukes, tanks, etc. Otherwise, you're just fooling yourself thinking you stand a chance. All you have to do is look around at other countries where they don't love their guns. In Canada, a gun is like a hammer, or any tool for that matter. If you start w…

"hat's all well and good, except no gun you have is going to make a difference. If you're worried about a tyrannical government, you better start investing in drones, nukes, tanks"

Nukes and tanks are useless in a guerrilla war.

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

#144

Post by InclinedPlane »

hemancuso wrote: post #74
notdrunkatall wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Given the massive mismatch of firepower, training and numbers between the government and the very best armed/trained groups within the civilian population I have trouble believing that anyone can still make this argument at any intellectual level.

How do revolutions happen even in countries without mass individual gun ownership then?

Remember that we're not talking about merely an insurgency here, we're talking about an insurgency with massive popular support, against a government that has turned tyrannical. In such a situation there is no technological or firepower advantage that guarantees victory to the state, even nuclear weapons. There are always points of weakness, which can be exploited best by folks backed by extensive popular support locally. An uprising of ubiquitously armed civilians would be able to quickly overpower police forces, and they'd also be able to take over some military bases, gaining access to more powerful weapons. There would also likely be defections from military forces.

Look at Syria as an example, the regime there is ruthless and willing even to use mass carpet bombing and shelling on civilian targets, and there is no right to private gun ownership there, and yet somehow the rebels have managed to arm themselves not just with small arms but also RPGs, mortars, and tanks. Facilitating the early stages of a rebellion vastly accelerates all of the later stages. Moreover, mass civilian ownership of firearms means that the ability of police and armed forces to attack the public without fear of injury becomes much diminished, which provides a deterrent effect against such attacks.

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

#145

Post by tome »

tomkin wrote: post #136
splat wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really true, though? The US has a large military, but it pales in comparison to the number of armed civilians. Just look at the number of hunters in this country. In Wisconsin alone there are 600,000 hunters. That would make them the ninth-largest army in the world. There are more hunters in just the four states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and West Virginia than there are in the entire U.S. military…

This is a really poor argument. First, what's "tyrannical" to you? There are various degrees of "tyrannical", just as there are various degrees of terrorism. Can you expect the entire country of gun owners to react all at once? Because I have some evidence that suggests otherwise. You're hoping for some "flipped switch" type of tyranny that never happens. Even Hitler's madness took place in phases and wasn't universa…

To be fair to splat, he didn't mention tyranny himself.

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

#146

Post by monochromatic »

tome wrote: post #124
monochromatic wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#147

Post by aero142 »

knowtheory wrote: post #52
snitko wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

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?

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

#148

Post by damoncali »

nitrogen wrote: post #126
flexie wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In essence, this is an orchestrated attempt to use the Newtown shootings and the subsequent heightened public sensitivity..." Oh please. Who orchestrated that? The media got together? The government? There is nothing odd in requiring safety from other people's activities, whether that's their their reckless driving or their gun fetish.

"Orchestrated" may be too strong a word; it's like there is emergent, independent behavior from a large minority of people who share the same views and all saw the same opportunity.

It's really not too strong. From a Brady Campaign press release: https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/12/15-1

"We have to take terrible moments like this and use it as a catalyst to demand the sensible change in our nation that is too long overdue."

That was a major talking point for similarly minded groups in the time immediately following the shooting.

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

#149

Post by Turing_Machine »

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?

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

How many people need to die before people everywhere realize that giving too much power to governments is not a good idea?

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

#150

Post by Zelphyr »

msluyter wrote: post #139
acabal wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously. Just like that "Bitter Pill" story in Time a day or two ago highlighted that insurance is a red herring for the deeper problem of profit-driven costs in US health care, the issue of gun control is a red herring for a deeper cultural problem. Like you said people are becoming more fearful and more selfish. Combine that with a culture that glorifies violence and the insane media circus that pops up whenever…

Except that violent crime in America has actually been decreasing steadily since the 90s: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/justice/us-violent-crime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States Weird that we have we're getting more fearful and selfish, and more and more violent, and yet violent crime is going down. (Weird how these finger in the wind takes of the zeitgeist work...)

You can thank the media for that. Its not that the violence is increasing. As you say, it is the opposite in fact. But the amount we HEAR about violence is skyrocketing.

So everyone, do yourselves a favor; STOP WATCHING THE NEWS! Stop reading it! It doesn't benefit you. Take it from a recovering news junkie. You won't miss it. You won't feel less informed. The important stuff will always make it to your eyes and ears. The rest is just going to make you more anxious than you reasonably need to be.

Post reply on HN