A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S

Post by danielweber » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:19 PM UTC

sosuke wrote: post #31

stevesearer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that Hacker News is a sharing and discussion website and that it sucks not being able to read the submitted stories, but it seems people here are generally against paywalls and try to subvert them in any way possible. It also seems that many people here also subvert non-paywall sites that monetize their content using ads by installing various adblockers. As a publisher myself, I'd be interested in hearin…

Sponsored posts, sponsored events, sponsored custom takeovers don't fall into ad blockers since they aren't being served by Akamai etc. If you're doing products, affiliate links from your posts.

Post by sliverstorm » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:19 PM UTC

apetresc wrote: post #4

From the article: > By contrast, safety features on firearms—such as smartguns unlocked by an owner’s thumbprint or a radio-frequency encryption—are opposed by the National Rifle Association, whose allies in Congress also block funding for the sort of public-health research that might show, in even clearer detail, the cost of America’s love affair with guns. Can someone explain the NRA to me? At this point they come…

Post by geoelectric » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:20 PM UTC

apetresc wrote: post #30

mseebach wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accepting the premise that it's a good thing that the population at large can own guns, their argument is that they're thinking a few steps ahead: If smartguns become popular, the government can then outlaw non-smartguns without too many people caring (they can still own and fire guns). Then the smart-stuff is leveraged to "enhance" security - transferring ownership, for an example, could be made subject to a governm…

Is the "keep the government in line" thing really a reason that anybody actually believes anymore? Like, if things got so bad that the government was "turning on its own people" with weaponry, somebody really thinks some guys with guns from Wal-Mart are going to be what stops them?

Post by lkbm » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:20 PM UTC

ta75757 wrote: post #35

vor_ wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's remove suicide from the discussion and talk about violence. Why? This is the second time I've seen that suggestion in these comments, and I don't understand why suicides should not be counted as gun deaths.

Because the fact that there is a very small chance that a person may kill themselves with a gun does not mean the government should deny that person the right to own a gun. And people with a history of mental illness are already excluded from owning guns.

Post by yebyen » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:20 PM UTC

apetresc wrote: post #30

mseebach wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accepting the premise that it's a good thing that the population at large can own guns, their argument is that they're thinking a few steps ahead: If smartguns become popular, the government can then outlaw non-smartguns without too many people caring (they can still own and fire guns). Then the smart-stuff is leveraged to "enhance" security - transferring ownership, for an example, could be made subject to a governm…

Is the "keep the government in line" thing really a reason that anybody actually believes anymore? Like, if things got so bad that the government was "turning on its own people" with weaponry, somebody really thinks some guys with guns from Wal-Mart are going to be what stops them?