Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–36 of 36 posts

Re: The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)

#31

Post by jfoster »

klrr wrote: post #27
ef4 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, the cheap solution is "assume there's a way to make guns hard to get in America. See, isn't that better?" Yes, maybe it would be better, but you assumed away the hard part. There are already 300 million guns in America, and a deeply entrenched culture in favor of keeping them. That is the initial condition we have to work with. Saying "just be more like country X" isn't a solution at all.

Totally true, one solution though could be to pay people to turn in guns, this won't work in practice probably though.

Other countries have done that. Of course it won't be perfect but it's a good first step.

Keep in mind that you wouldn't need to collect every single gun. You just need to shut off the supply and make the black market ones difficult to find.

Re: The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)

#32

Post by rdl »

jlgreco wrote: post #13
k-mcgrady wrote: post #4

> "According to a 2011 Gallup poll, 47 percent of American adults keep at least one gun at home or on their property, and many of these gun owners are absolutists opposed to any government regulation of firearms. According to the same poll, only 26 percent of Americans support a ban on handguns." This amazes me. I wonder how many of those 47% have had training? Or how many regularly practice firing the gun? This is o…

I am willing to bet a very sizeable percentage of that 47% fall into a "Has a shotgun in the attic which they were given 20 years ago and forgot about. Does not own any ammunition." category, or similar. Still going to be a very large number that are more "active" gun owners, but I think 47% is likely something of an overstatement.

I could train someone with no prior knowledge of firearms, who was fairly intelligent, responsible, etc. to use a shotgun effectively for home defense in about 15 minutes on a range, and maybe an hour or so on use of force/escalation of force at a table. That's both the most morally defensible firearm ownership and the most likely positive use for a firearm, at the lowest overall cost (risk, financial cost, training time, etc.).

Concealed carry of a handgun, use outside the home, precision rifle, etc. would be a lot harder, but I'd be quite happy if most people just learned minimal home defense with a shotgun and nothing more.

Re: The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)

#33

Post by rdl »

invalidOrTaken wrote: post #30
ISL wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the point. It's not an out-there idea. The Constitution was written by people who had taken arms against a government. It's reasonable to infer that they thought doing so was important and might be necessary in the future.

Thanks to all who've replied. I'm glad to hear confirmation. But I don't get the sense that this point is present even implicitly in the gun control debate. If the power to rebel is what's being protected, why limit assault weapons? Is an armed populace seriously supposed to take on the army with handguns? I worry thatI might be coming across as a sock puppet with an axe to grind, so maybe I should take this question…

An intent-of-founders-based reading of the 2A would seem to support ownership of military weapons more than handguns or hunting weapons. There are several groups (GOA, vs. NRA) who support this. Yes, I think the "Sovereign Citizen" people on TV tend to be loons, but that doesn't mean everything they believe is necessarily unreasonable.

(Personally, I think our experience in Iraq shows that any real insurgency or attempt to overthrow a government would take the form of "fuck guns, bring IEDs". Most of the time, an insurgent would actually want to be unarmed entirely so as to blend in with the population. It might sometimes be worth having offensive weapons for specific tasks, but generally unless it was truly open warfare on every citizen, you would want to blend in. Small arms, especially personal weapons vs. crew-served, are basically defensive weapons, or are used to fix the enemy in place for larger weapons to destroy.)

Re: The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)

#34

Post by jlgreco »

rdl wrote: post #32
jlgreco wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am willing to bet a very sizeable percentage of that 47% fall into a "Has a shotgun in the attic which they were given 20 years ago and forgot about. Does not own any ammunition." category, or similar. Still going to be a very large number that are more "active" gun owners, but I think 47% is likely something of an overstatement.

I could train someone with no prior knowledge of firearms, who was fairly intelligent, responsible, etc. to use a shotgun effectively for home defense in about 15 minutes on a range, and maybe an hour or so on use of force/escalation of force at a table. That's both the most morally defensible firearm ownership and the most likely positive use for a firearm, at the lowest overall cost (risk, financial cost, training…

Certainly shotguns are good for that. Most people I know that own guns were given shotguns (usually as wedding gifts or whatnot) for that reason. The only two firearms that I know of in my extended family are gifted shotguns in a locked gun-rack with a trigger lock and no ammunition. And my extended family is pretty much a bunch of hawks... Most firearm ownership in the States is similar to this I think. Both sensible and safe.

When we hear figures like 47% ownership, we may tend to think that all of that 47% is of the irresponsible sort that news stories eventually are made about. The reality is very boring and mundane though.

Re: The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)

#35

Post by ef4 »

klrr wrote: post #27
ef4 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, the cheap solution is "assume there's a way to make guns hard to get in America. See, isn't that better?" Yes, maybe it would be better, but you assumed away the hard part. There are already 300 million guns in America, and a deeply entrenched culture in favor of keeping them. That is the initial condition we have to work with. Saying "just be more like country X" isn't a solution at all.

Totally true, one solution though could be to pay people to turn in guns, this won't work in practice probably though.

Local police departments do gun buybacks all the time in the US. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&#3...

Sometimes with amusing results: http://www.ammoland.com/2011/03/29/pro-gun-activists-outbid-...

Re: The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)

#36

Post by invalidOrTaken »

rdl wrote: post #33
invalidOrTaken wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to all who've replied. I'm glad to hear confirmation. But I don't get the sense that this point is present even implicitly in the gun control debate. If the power to rebel is what's being protected, why limit assault weapons? Is an armed populace seriously supposed to take on the army with handguns? I worry thatI might be coming across as a sock puppet with an axe to grind, so maybe I should take this question…

An intent-of-founders-based reading of the 2A would seem to support ownership of military weapons more than handguns or hunting weapons. There are several groups (GOA, vs. NRA) who support this. Yes, I think the "Sovereign Citizen" people on TV tend to be loons, but that doesn't mean everything they believe is necessarily unreasonable. (Personally, I think our experience in Iraq shows that any real insurgency or atte…

Thanks for taking the time.
Post reply on HN