The gun control that works: no guns • Hacker News Board

Re: The gun control that works: no guns

#21

Post by jacquesm » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 9:39 AM UTC

rjknight wrote: post #10

EugeneOZ wrote: post #3

Is "Hacker News" a good place for the links to "economist.com"? Let's discuss the situation of Venezuela here also.

Discussing whether or not technology (guns, in this case) can be considered morally neutral? Whether freedom to own and operate any technology of your choice is a fundamental right? What kind of hacker isn't interested in those questions?

> What kind of hacker isn't interested in those questions?

At a guess, those that flagged this so it's no longer on the homepage. Or possibly the last thing they want is a rational discussion about this, after all, imagine having to actually defend your position in a rational rather than an emotional way. You might even have to change your mind...

Re: The gun control that works: no guns

#22

Post by subsystem » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 9:43 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #6

If you combine average people with lots of guns and then say 'people are the problem, not guns', you're missing out on an important fact. People are not a constant. They're not #defines, they may be sane today, insane tomorrow and sane the day after that. They are impulsive, prone to error and there are a thousand circumstances in life where otherwise perfectly normal people do things that we later label insane. Temp…

If you havn't already read it, "From Dictatorship to Democracy" supports some of your points.

http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD.pdf

Re: The gun control that works: no guns

#23

Post by Tyrannosaurs » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 9:45 AM UTC

ISL wrote: post #2

A revolution that worked: American Revolution. By some measures, it began in Lexington (the linked Economist column is "Lexington"), when the British government moved to seize citizens' arms. We must better understand how it is that those who would choose to harm many people reach such a decision. Guns are a tool. So was anthrax, in the post-9/11 mail scare, and it could have been much worse. Mutual respect, understa…

Another revolution that worked: the velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia - non-violent, no guns. And another: the Egyptian revolution last year. Or the 2003 revolution in Georgia. Or 2005 in Kyrgyzstan, and I could go on.

All successful, all non-violent, all more recent than the American Revolution.

Seriously, if you think you need guns to defend yourself, you're basically saying you live in a state which has failed worse than communist era Czechoslovakia or Egypt under an effective dictatorship.

Re: The gun control that works: no guns

#24

Post by jacquesm » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 9:45 AM UTC

angersock wrote: post #16

skyhook_mockups wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My perspective is different since I come from a country with a different culture. Here in Australia there is essentially zero gun ownership by private citizens. We also had a gun buyback (1996) and changes in legislation after the Port Arthur massacre[1]. Basically, I would feel really nervous just being in the same room as a gun. So from my perspective statements such as 'Guns are a tool' just don't wash. They are t…

Please educate yourself about American gun availability before you give the wing nuts a reason to discredit your point. We do not sell automatic weapons without a whoooole lot of paperwork and money, we could not remove the weapons overnight, and your Walmart example is tasteless.

Automatic vs semi-automatics is brought up frequently. The simple fact is that for killing a bunch of people in an enclosed space a semi-automatic is the 'right' kind of weapon, full-auto would actually be a lot less efficient. You'd run through your ammo quicker and you'd put many rounds into the walls and the ceiling.

Re: The gun control that works: no guns

#25

Post by xyzzyz » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 9:46 AM UTC

skyhook_mockups wrote: post #11

ISL wrote: post #2

A revolution that worked: American Revolution. By some measures, it began in Lexington (the linked Economist column is "Lexington"), when the British government moved to seize citizens' arms. We must better understand how it is that those who would choose to harm many people reach such a decision. Guns are a tool. So was anthrax, in the post-9/11 mail scare, and it could have been much worse. Mutual respect, understa…

My perspective is different since I come from a country with a different culture. Here in Australia there is essentially zero gun ownership by private citizens. We also had a gun buyback (1996) and changes in legislation after the Port Arthur massacre[1]. Basically, I would feel really nervous just being in the same room as a gun. So from my perspective statements such as 'Guns are a tool' just don't wash. They are t…

> The same goes for high powered fully automatic military style rifles. Zero use for hunting an animal, perfectly tailored for hunting humans. That's disturbing to me, and I wouldn't want to live in a society that vehemently fights for the right to bear these arms. > hey look ma I bought a M16 from Walmart today hur hur

It's a sad thing that your opinion will soon be discredited on the basis that you do not know the fact that automatic weapons are much more strictly controlled in the US, and that they are very rarely used by criminals.

I also live in a country with a strict gun control (to get a gun, apart from a plausible reason to own one, doing an expensive course on gun usage and safety, tons of paperwork, psychological tests and similar stuff, you also need to have one of the 16 county sheriffs to approve, and they usually don't). The result is 20 homicides using guns last year, in the country of 40 million. Recently I was having a lunch in a bar, during which two policemen entered the bar, also for a lunch. I have seen their guns at their belts, and it made me feel just as uneasy as when taking night bus home, with drunk people shouting insults at each other, even though I knew that they would only use guns to protect me.

Re: The gun control that works: no guns

#26

Post by apl » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 9:48 AM UTC

angersock wrote: post #16

skyhook_mockups wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My perspective is different since I come from a country with a different culture. Here in Australia there is essentially zero gun ownership by private citizens. We also had a gun buyback (1996) and changes in legislation after the Port Arthur massacre[1]. Basically, I would feel really nervous just being in the same room as a gun. So from my perspective statements such as 'Guns are a tool' just don't wash. They are t…

Please educate yourself about American gun availability before you give the wing nuts a reason to discredit your point. We do not sell automatic weapons without a whoooole lot of paperwork and money, we could not remove the weapons overnight, and your Walmart example is tasteless.

  > We do not sell automatic weapons without a whoooole lot
  > of paperwork and money

Availability of money has zero bearing on mental health and fitness to carry a weapon, so that criterion goes right out the window. What kind of paperwork is required? Does it entail thorough background checks etc.?

Erecting barriers isn't sufficient; we need the appropriate type of barrier.

Re: The gun control that works: no guns

#27

Post by skyhook_mockups » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 9:48 AM UTC

dexen wrote: post #13

phpnode wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guns are tools that kill. They have no other purpose. How anyone can defend the concept of gun ownership in a civilised society is genuinely beyond me.

> Guns are tools that kill. They have no other purpose. The other† purpose is to keep countries and people in check. The mere ability to immediately use firearms is enough to stop a lot of possible troublemakers. A country keeps armed forces: military and border guard to keep external actors in check, police to keep unruly citizens in check. A private person keeps arms to keep in check potential burglars, assailants…

I have no problem with the military and police having access to weapons. They are (or should be) highly trained, Psych tested and they work within a regulated, highly structured, hierarchical organisation. All of this serves to keep the wanton violence (almost completely) in check.

The issue arises when every schmoe off the street can go in and purchase a fully automatic, purpose built people killing machine.

I also don't buy the people vs. the government scenario you allude to. Could you really picture a reality where a group of citizens could overthrow the US government just because they had some AK47s?

In the event of run-away government, a far more rational and realistic scenario would be for mass protests that essentially halt the economy over night. There are countless examples of almost completely bloodless revolutions happening in exactly this manner (Polish Solidarnosc and more recently Egypt during the Arab Spring immediately come to mind). The alternative is a bloody coup which usually ends in civil war or military dictatorship.

Re: The gun control that works: no guns

#28

Post by noonespecial » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 9:49 AM UTC

angersock wrote: post #20

noonespecial wrote: post #15

America was made from violent revolution against tyranny, so as part of its 'DNA' (constitution) it includes a simple inoculation against that sort of tyranny in the future in the form of the right of private citizens to be armed. It was technology that threw the founding fathers the unforeseen curve ball. What seemed like a simple question of allowing or disallowing private weapons was really an un-enumerated, techn…

Your history is wrong, and the killing power of your average citizen hasn't gone up significantly since the end of the 1920s. Look up the Bath school bombing in 1927-near double the casualties of the current tragedy. Your interpretation is interesting, though. Edit--Okay, say, the roaring 20s with the Thompson.

The 2nd amendment: 1791. The first practical automatic repeat firing weapons didn't show up until almost 100 years later and they still required a crew to operate. There was a touch of progress in that first 100 years.

I'm going to go ahead and make the weak point that bombings, poisonings, and sabotage are a slightly different animal than purpose build firearms and would likely be treated differently in the law. There is a huge element of luck to those attacks.

The crux of it is, that rampages last 5 to 10 minutes. This is probably going to be true whether the first responders are armed citizens or police. We're going to have to decide how many people we're going to allow a private citizen the capability of killing in that time. We're going to have to very explicitly choose or technology will choose "a whole damn lot" for us by default.

I'm thinking your point just indicates that we should have started addressing this long about the time Swing was King.

Re: The gun control that works: no guns

#29

Post by happywolf » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 9:51 AM UTC

apl wrote: post #19

happywolf wrote: post #12

In my opinion, no guns definitely will mean gun-related criminal cases will be lesser, but this doesn't make it safer to stay. Take Malaysia for example, a country that I am quite familiar with. In Malaysia, guns are banned, however, machet-wielding robbers and windshield-crashing bad guys abound. Violence is so common that newer houses are built gated-and-guarded (G&G) where locals literally live in cages in certain…

You're comparing wildly different situations. I'm honestly not worried at all about the US equivalent of machete-wielding robbers. Plus, even if I was, I'd prefer a thousand criminals with machetes to a thousand criminals with rifles (all other things being equal). There's no reason why US law enforcement would become less efficient if people's guns were taken away tomorrow. Trouble with firearms boils down to their…

I do agree these two are different situations. However I would think banning firearms in the states would be next to impossible, given how widespread firearms are, and the strength of the weapon makers in lobbying the congress. Instead, I would say having teachers trained in shooting and equipping firearms in schools for emergency access could be easier to realize (compared to outlawing firearms). I kept wondering if the teachers were armed, would the death toll be any lesser?

Re: The gun control that works: no guns

#30

Post by jacquesm » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 9:53 AM UTC

happywolf wrote: post #29

apl wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're comparing wildly different situations. I'm honestly not worried at all about the US equivalent of machete-wielding robbers. Plus, even if I was, I'd prefer a thousand criminals with machetes to a thousand criminals with rifles (all other things being equal). There's no reason why US law enforcement would become less efficient if people's guns were taken away tomorrow. Trouble with firearms boils down to their…

I do agree these two are different situations. However I would think banning firearms in the states would be next to impossible, given how widespread firearms are, and the strength of the weapon makers in lobbying the congress. Instead, I would say having teachers trained in shooting and equipping firearms in schools for emergency access could be easier to realize (compared to outlawing firearms). I kept wondering if…

> I kept wondering if the teachers were armed, would the death toll be any lesser?

No, the total will be higher.

From all those cases where right now there is no weapon a weapon, so no incident at least one suddenly becomes available. The number of incidents would go up, but in case of an incident the death toll would go down.