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

171–180 of 389 posts

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

#171

Post by Anechoic »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #137
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.

"Given the massive mismatch of firepower, training and numbers between the government and the very best armed/trained groups " ~700,000 cops, 1.4 million active duty military and ~200 million gun owners (many of whom have had military training) is quite a mismatch, all right, but not in quite the way you think.

and ~200 million gun owners

Where are you getting this number from? 200 million gun owners means that nearly 2 in 3 US citizens owns a gun which doesn't sound close to correct.

http://rense.com/general62/gns.htm says 80 million gun owners.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp says 70-80 million adult gun owners.

I can't find any better numbers, but 80 million sounds more reasonable.

(still an order of magnitude more than police/military, but not 66% of American citizens).

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

#172

Post by wil421 »

Zelphyr wrote: post #150
msluyter wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I have always wondered if crimes are getting more violent or if the amount of coverage we give the violent ones has increased. The closest I will get to the news is the Daily Show, because at least they poke fun at the American media for how ridiculous they can be.

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

#173

Post by BryanB55 »

I'll start by saying we do not have a gun problem in this country. We have a people problem. Speaking of people problems, I started reading these comments in hope of finding a different attitude than what I have been hearing around the topic of gun control lately. To me, HackerNews has usually been a place with more educated and informed comments but I didn't really find that here. I'm still finding misinformed people who have never fired a gun before, researched crime statistics or seriously thought about this issue making comments about how people "do not need to protect themselves"

I'm a gun owner, in fact I own many guns, I also carry a gun every single day. I'm also an honest and law abiding citizen. I have several years of defensive training with firearms and improvised weapons. I attend shooting matches and training schools with other law abiding gun owners nearly every weekend.

I can tell you that the vast majority of people who have a gun are good people and not the I see some people here saying "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."

To me, this is a really misinformed comment. Does anyone here really believe that when your life is imminent danger that you are better off with a cell phone in your hand calling the police and waiting for them to arrive than you are with a gun in your hand using everything you possibly can to protect yourself and your family?

Does anyone here really believe that criminals follow laws? If a movie theater has a sign out side saying "This is a gun free zone, no guns allowed" do you really think that a psychopathic killer or angry criminal is going to turn around and go home because the sign said they can't bring a gun into that movie theater?

And does anyone really believe that criminals follow laws? Lets ban magazines that hold more than 7 rounds. Sounds like a great idea right? So that criminal that is planning to go kill some people today is going to wake up and decide that he is going to load his firearm to only the legal capacity. Or he is not going to go purchase a gun illegally, buy it off the street or steel it. Because that would be illegal and we all know that criminals follow laws...

So forget the constitution and the 2nd amendment for a moment, because I know people like to argue about what the Founding Fathers really meant by it. Do you really believe that we should not have the right to protect ourselves from active shooters, murderers, rapist and cold blooded killers with a highly affective tool just because a select few people have used that tool to do evil?

If guns didn't exist and everything else were the same and these evil people still had intent to do harm do you really believe that they would just give up because they had no other way to harm people? A gun is only a tool, just like a knife, a car, or a screw driver. All of which can do some serious harm to a person. Should we ban those things too?

I know some people are sheep and guns are not for everyone, they expect and hope that if they get put in a bad situation that the police will be there to save them. Just remember that it is NOT the job of the police to protect you. Their job is to uphold the law and to react to those breaking the law. It's fine if you personally want nothing to do with guns but that doesn't mean you have the right to tell others that they shouldn't be able to protect themselves.

So if you really want to make comments on how gun control should be and if people really need guns to protect themselves, please do some research first. I encourage you to look up how many guns that are purchased legally are actually used in a violent crime. Look at the crime rates of cities with strict gun laws and look at the data on the increase of gun purchases vs. the decrease in crime over the last few years. The FBI has some great statistics for this[1].

Here's a interesting video from a Sandy Hook father whose child was at Sandy Hook the day of the shooting and how he feels about guns: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXPlCjr0Vw

[1]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/c...

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

#174

Post by mninja »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #113
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…

The police are not always capable of helping you when you need them. The oft-quoted saying is "when seconds count the police are minutes away", and it is very, very true. Guns used in lawful self-defense, which often involves nothing more than drawing the gun causing the attacker to flee the scene, stop an incredible amount of crimes every day. More so, the reason that gun rights are so fundamental in the US is that…

Having an arsenal of guns isn't going to stop a tyrant from bombing you to the stone age, or crushing you with tanks. See Syria.

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

#175

Post by tome »

nnutter wrote: post #77
buster wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not american but i think my own right for life, liberty and happiness would be violated being surrounded by weapon fanatics.. I really don't understand all that "uh, i need to defend myself" bullshit when i look at all the safe western countries with much stricter weapon laws. I think this is all not a matter of rights or self-defense or all that crap people tell me, it's just that most people can't cope with cha…

It's not the weapon that violates any of that it is the person using the weapon. Some weapons have purposes other than as a weapon but your argument would still imply that your right to life, liberty, and happiness would be violated so we should make forks, knives, bats, pans, cars, everything illegal. Slippery slope? Sure. There's a spectrum and everyone chooses where the line sits for them. I don't want easy access…

It is much, much harder to kill people with forks, knives, bats, and pans than it is with a gun. (I'm less certain about cars, but they have substantial non-murdering use).

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

#176

Post by Confusion »

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.

How many lives do guns save? Do you actually know they save more then they cost?

Requiring nations without guns to be 'violence free', dismissing the intermediate 'significantly less violent', is an argument by a lazy or dishonest thinker that can only see black and white.

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

#177

Post by tome »

BryanB55 wrote: post #173

I'll start by saying we do not have a gun problem in this country. We have a people problem. Speaking of people problems, I started reading these comments in hope of finding a different attitude than what I have been hearing around the topic of gun control lately. To me, HackerNews has usually been a place with more educated and informed comments but I didn't really find that here. I'm still finding misinformed peopl…

Does anyone here really believe that when your life is imminent danger that you are better off with a cell phone in your hand calling the police and waiting for them to arrive to save your life than you are with a gun in your hand using everything you possibly can to protect yourself and your family?

In the UK, yes we really believe this.

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

#178

Post by nitrogen »

knowtheory wrote: post #117
snitko wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then government, given its track record of being responsible, being effective and not abusing power should be the last organization for you to turn to for enforcing responsible gun ownership.

Now you are making a different argument. I don't care if you think the government is or isn't an effective or responsible organization. I want to know why I as another member of your society should trust my safety to you and your firearm. Because if you fuck up, I don't have the right to redress, because I could very well be dead. If you don't like the government doing the checking, propose an alternative. Because un…

I think a lot of fear people have of guns is because they are unfamiliar with what they can and cannot do, how to use one properly, how to tell if someone else is using their gun properly, etc. Concealed carry permits already require classes and background checks. Maybe gun safety should be taught to everybody.

As further evidence that the fear of guns may be overblown, consider just how widespread gun ownership is, and then consider how rare gun violence is outside of gang-ridden urban centers.

I would disagree with any sort of strict liability for one's gun being lost or stolen, but if the gun owner was clearly negligent, then they should bear responsibility.

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

#179

Post by dantheman »

gnud wrote: post #123
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…

I can see how that reasoning is an argument for gun ownership. How does it apply to carrying guns in public, especially concealed guns?

Many people don't want to carry a concealed gun, but as this story shows -- the mere sight of a gun causes people to panic so in order to placate the overreacting uninformed one must conceal their gun.

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

#180

Post by zaphar »

bediger4000 wrote: post #31
cbau wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty simple-- As an American, I have a right to the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't want to give up any rights I don't have to. That includes the freedom to buy and carry a gun.

As another American, I don't think that's quite it, as we (Americans) have essentially given up some of your other rights: we don't really have a right to be secure against arbitrary search and seizure any more, and we don't have much of a right to due process any more. We're shaving our freedom of speech thinner too. So: why is the 4th Amendment right to keep and bear arms defended so zealously, and interpreted so l…

Perhaps because the 2nd amendment is their last defense against the erosion of those other rights completely. See: American Revolutionary War
Post reply on HN