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

321–330 of 389 posts

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

#321

Post by Anechoic »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #309
Turing_Machine wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I pointed out why your source is utterly unreliable. I'm not going to provide another source, because there are no reliable sources in this area. The figure of 270 million guns total is somewhat more reliable because there's at least some idea of how many have been manufactured.

Think about it for a minute. How likely is the average gun owner to answer truthfully when a stranger calls them up and asks if they own a gun? Hint: not very. We could try using the Fermi estimation technique ("how many piano tuners are there in Chicago?"). 270 million guns / claimed 80 million gun owners -> mean number of guns owned per owner is ~3.3. That seems high. Most gun owners I know own one gun. Some own tw…

We could try using the Fermi estimation technique ("how many piano tuners are there in Chicago?")

I have to agree with suresk people, out of all of the folks I know, the number of guns is either 0 or >1. I don't know anyone with just one gun. I suppose if you divided the number of people in a household by the number of guns you may get a number closer to 1, but that means assigning gun ownerships to babies.

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

#322

Post by suresk »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #316
suresk wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since we're using anecdotes - I know and go shooting with a lot of people, and I don't know a single person who only owns 1 gun, it is either 0 or 2 or more (I personally own 3). The reason is that different guns have different uses. If someone is concerned about personal protection, they'll have a handgun. A big rifle is useful for hunting or just messing around, but the ammo might be expensive (ammo for my M1 Garan…

Most gun owners live in urban areas (which makes them even less likely to answer telephone polls honestly, particularly if there are local restrictions) and don't "go shooting" or hunt. If you hang around with woodworkers, the number of hammers owned is going to be more than one. If you're talking about random people, it's going to be much lower.

I think it is important to distinguish between urban and suburban areas, in which case suburban areas actually have the most gun owners (since they contain roughly half the population, and suburban households are more likely to own a gun than urban households) and this is where I'm drawing my personal experiences from. Due to fewer restrictions and more places to shoot, suburban areas are easier places to own one or more guns.

At any rate - 3.3 still seems reasonable to me. Although I'm not incredibly confident about it, your anecdotes and assumptions aren't enough to convince me that it is substantially higher than the actual rate.

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

#323

Post by alanctgardner2 »

BryanB55 wrote: post #304
alanctgardner2 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always really interested in the straw man 'home invasion' fantasy that the pro-gun lobby brings out. Why would someone invade your home with a weapon? For financial gain? Just for jollies[1]? The thing about giving everyone a gun is that it makes every crime that much more likely to be fatal. In Canada, for example, if I break into your house for your TV and you catch me, we're sort of at an impasse. Maybe I have…

Fair enough, so you would assume that the burglar would run away. What if they don't? A few years back in one of the wealthiest areas of Florida, I had 3 people enter my home one night while I was asleep and take computers, tvs, etc.. At the time I never owned a gun and didn't wake up to notice there were people in my home. They were later caught by police and found to be over 6 feet tall with baseball bats, crowbars…

Frankly, your story is the perfect, one-in-a-million anecdote.

- Your house is broken into. Not really a routine occurrence.

- The people breaking in don't have guns. If any of them had a gun, and you had a gun, now it's a proper disaster.

So you're weighing all the risks of easy, legal gun-ownership ( lower barriers to shooting sprees, accidental discharges ) against being in this precise scenario, which happened to you one time. Further:

- I'm going to take it on your word that 'history of violent crime' means beating up random homeowners. I can only imagine in the business of housebreaking and fencing stolen goods you probably have some extra-judicial problem solving, which might involve beating up other people you've had criminal dealings with. This is quite different from murdering suburban homeowners in cold blood.

- Further, of course they had crowbars, they were housebreaking. The police didn't catch them at your house, so you can't really confirm the number or the kit they had at the time, just how many people the cops nabbed later.

The really telling thing is your comment about hand-to-hand combat. Why the hell are you looking for a fight, anyways? Is punching a random burglar going to help your odds of getting out safely? This is the really perverse american attitude, that it's not sufficient that you avoid bodily harm, but you need to dominate and punish the intruder yourself, because they've wronged you. If you're open to appeasement or trying to get away quietly, you save yourself significant risk of injury.

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

#324

Post by drone »

tome wrote: post #239
drone wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do US Americans really think it would have been terrible if the British Empire had remained in control and their country turned out like Canada, Australia or New Zealand? Absolutely. We didn't then want to bow before your King then, and we do not wish to bow before your Queen today. We did not wish to put down as poor and malnourished servants as you did with Ireland, nor did we wish to be slaughtered en masse, or di…

I appreciate your response, and I also appreciate the wonderful spirit of freedom embodied in American culture. However, I can't help but find it ironic that the United States' celebration of freedom harks back so strongly to a war with a country that has been its closest ally for the best part of a century.

Not a problem, and I do apologize if my tone was a bit strong there, I've often found that Europeans (not all, but some) look down their noses at Americans as if we were in need of their salvation. When, our history often guides us to be both helpful to and suspicious of Europe and its goals.

Most Americans have no particular issue with the UK or Great Britain, we simply recall our history as having been formed to offer an alternative to Monarchy. We do often feel that in the 20th century, we have given more than we have received. (Right or wrong.)

While some far-left-leaning Americans may long for a country more like those of Europe and the UK, the majority, in my experience, prefer things as they are. Notably, our culture may seem aggressive, dangerous, and out of control to you - but to us, we see a stark difference between what we see as "Liberty," and what Europeans tend to call "Freedom." That is to say, it often seems to me that in the US, the concept is "Free to," whereas in Europe it appears to be "Free of." I do recognize that such a view may not be wholly truthful, but it is how many of us approach the issue here.

Notably, while some in our society would prefer to regulate the behavior of others through the threat of state violence (as is done in Europe to prevent unwelcome speech, or religious display), this tyranny of the masses is often held in check in the U.S. by the guiding principles which may seem absurd to you, but have proven to be effective throughout the course of our personal history. There are many of us who find those principles very much instructive, especially because of the discomfort they cause.

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

#325

Post by darkchasma »

notdrunkatall wrote: post #320
tome wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mine was not an argument, more a suggestion that your argument needs clarification. Please note that while I admire your aversion to "appeals to emotion" bringing "what happens if the system collapses? ... Riots, destabilization, foreign invasion" to the discussion may violate this ideal.

That is not an appeal to emotion, that is an appeal to history. The entire history of the human race has been that of oppression of the many by the few; only in the last few hundred years have we begun to cast off those chains, and though it is tempting to believe that we will never see them again, people still desire power, sociopaths still exist, and considering the history of our species, I think it unlikely that…

We're talking about getting rid of civillian arms, not the arms held by the military or even police officers. Every example you have given is a war between nations. If you want to play historian, give me an example where there was a better civil outcome when guns were used to overthrow tyranny, or tyrannical ideas. I'll start with the peaceful examples: Egypt, India, US Civil Rights, Women's Suffrage etc... Ideas change the world, not guns.

And while you're at it, maybe you could tell me how your little handgun is going to protect you from the next Cuban Missile Crisis? You must be a hellofa shot!

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

#326

Post by tome »

drone wrote: post #324
tome wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate your response, and I also appreciate the wonderful spirit of freedom embodied in American culture. However, I can't help but find it ironic that the United States' celebration of freedom harks back so strongly to a war with a country that has been its closest ally for the best part of a century.

Not a problem, and I do apologize if my tone was a bit strong there, I've often found that Europeans (not all, but some) look down their noses at Americans as if we were in need of their salvation. When, our history often guides us to be both helpful to and suspicious of Europe and its goals. Most Americans have no particular issue with the UK or Great Britain, we simply recall our history as having been formed to of…

A very well presented explanation. thank you.

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

#327

Post by notdrunkatall »

darkchasma wrote: post #325
notdrunkatall wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not an appeal to emotion, that is an appeal to history. The entire history of the human race has been that of oppression of the many by the few; only in the last few hundred years have we begun to cast off those chains, and though it is tempting to believe that we will never see them again, people still desire power, sociopaths still exist, and considering the history of our species, I think it unlikely that…

We're talking about getting rid of civillian arms, not the arms held by the military or even police officers. Every example you have given is a war between nations. If you want to play historian, give me an example where there was a better civil outcome when guns were used to overthrow tyranny, or tyrannical ideas. I'll start with the peaceful examples: Egypt, India, US Civil Rights, Women's Suffrage etc... Ideas cha…

>give me an example

America.

...

You people are dense to the point of complete idiocy.

My point is that the current period of prosperous peace (relatively speaking) will certainly not last forever. Wars are a fact of life, and when they happen, regimes fall and power vacuums arise. Sometimes, those vacuums are filled not by the most capable (and rarely by the most benevolent) but by the most ambitious. Given the history of the human race, it would be foolish to believe that there will never be another Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, et al, and on a long enough timeline, it would be incredibly foolish to believe that there will never be one in your neck of the woods, wherever that may be. What are you going to do when you've been labeled an enemy of the state and your friends and family are being shuttled off to a labor camp? Write a strongly worded fucking letter?

Guns are our insurance policy that we will not be easily oppressed, whether by a foreign invader or our own government, and that you people have such a difficult time accepting this obvious truth is utterly baffling.

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

#328

Post by notdrunkatall »

alanctgardner2 wrote: post #323
BryanB55 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, so you would assume that the burglar would run away. What if they don't? A few years back in one of the wealthiest areas of Florida, I had 3 people enter my home one night while I was asleep and take computers, tvs, etc.. At the time I never owned a gun and didn't wake up to notice there were people in my home. They were later caught by police and found to be over 6 feet tall with baseball bats, crowbars…

Frankly, your story is the perfect, one-in-a-million anecdote. - Your house is broken into. Not really a routine occurrence. - The people breaking in don't have guns. If any of them had a gun, and you had a gun, now it's a proper disaster. So you're weighing all the risks of easy, legal gun-ownership ( lower barriers to shooting sprees, accidental discharges ) against being in this precise scenario, which happened to…

>Frankly, your story is the perfect, one-in-a-million anecdote.

No, no it's not. Homeowners defend themselves against home intruders all the time with guns. Google is your friend.

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

#329

Post by tomkin »

notdrunkatall wrote: post #317
tomkin wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your right to bear arms is silly. Incredibly silly and archaic. You live in 2013, not in colonial times. While the amendment made perfect sense then, it makes no sense now. The pro-gun movement seems to be completely ignorant to the staggering evidence that guns in citizen's hands are unnecessary at the least and dangerous at the worst. Society: an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevol…

Do you think that people are fundamentally different than they were three centuries ago? Do people not still seek power? If the answer to the latter question is yes, then the right to bear arms is as relevant today as it has ever been. You would throw away a peoples' right to defend themselves against an oppressive regime based on what, precisely? Your presumed ability to foretell the future? Your hunch that humanity…

Wow. I love the rhetoric, but it's glaringly flawed. You're suggestion: people are driven by their basic instincts, so...they should all have access to guns. Couldn't make a better case against guns myself.

Or is it that government is "special" and only the sort that would misplace their power? You do know the government is made up of citizens, right? Or do you think that once you get a government job you suddenly become vile? Would love your insight.

Again, your argument sits within the confines of American reality, while the rest of the world gets by. What paranoid, delusional scenario do you see playing out exactly? Your government/other regime turns against you...and what? The rest of the world just sits back and watches your government attack its people? Come on, man. Really?

You're the only modern country that thinks this way. Let that sink in for a bit.

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

#330

Post by tomkin »

giardini wrote: post #296
tomkin wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your right to bear arms is silly. Incredibly silly and archaic. You live in 2013, not in colonial times. While the amendment made perfect sense then, it makes no sense now. The pro-gun movement seems to be completely ignorant to the staggering evidence that guns in citizen's hands are unnecessary at the least and dangerous at the worst. Society: an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevol…

"... the staggering evidence that guns in citizen's hands are unnecessary at the least and dangerous at the worst." Not true. US citizens are more effective than police in handling firearms: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-t... http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml scroll down to "Armed Citizens Make Fewer Mistakes Than Police"

This doesn't prove guns solve problems. It just makes it clear that police can be incompetent. This is the most bizarre argument. You're argument is that police do a poor job, so average people should do the job? Here's an idea: spend some more money on creating a more competent police force. So silly! Let's see, my employee isn't doing his job well, so I'll just call in another developer to bring competency. Talk about spinning the tires.

Please, America. Spend some time wondering how other modern countries get by. You'll have no choice but to conclude it is possible to get by without guns.

Post reply on HN