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

Re: The gun control that works: no guns

#31

Post by skyhook_mockups » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 9:59 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.

As I mentioned, I'm from Australia, so if I misrepresented anything about the US then I'm happy to be corrected.

In my original post I described an exaggerated caricature of gun ownership. The point still stands though: that any private citizen (regardless of the amount of paper work they filled out) can choose to sleep with an assault rifle (or shotgun or semi-auto pistol etc.etc.) under their pillow at night is rather .... disturbing.

Re: The gun control that works: no guns

#32

Post by ryankey721 » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 10:27 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #30

happywolf wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know about this, why would the number of incidents go up if teachers have weapons? Especially if they are trained to handle situations.

Another post on HN talks about a school district in Texas allowing teachers to carry firearms, but it takes a lot of training in both using the gun and hostile situations. This is a recent thing, so it's still undecided if it will help, but I feel like it helps to have the teachers trained.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,404721,00.html

Re: The gun control that works: no guns

#33

Post by skyhook_mockups » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 10:33 AM UTC

xyzzyz wrote: post #25

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…

> 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…

Thanks for the correction. I'm clearly showing my ignorance when it comes to some of these issues.

I based my M16 bought at Walmart caricature on the little I've learned from news media and documentaries like Bowling for Columbine.

You can substitute M16 for shotgun, and Walmart for Corner Gun Store and add in a mandatory 24 hour waiting period, which maybe doesn't make for quite as nice a sound bite, but is just as ridiculous.

Re: The gun control that works: no guns

#34

Post by skyhook_mockups » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 10:44 AM UTC

ryankey721 wrote: post #32

jacquesm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't know about this, why would the number of incidents go up if teachers have weapons? Especially if they are trained to handle situations. Another post on HN talks about a school district in Texas allowing teachers to carry firearms, but it takes a lot of training in both using the gun and hostile situations. This is a recent thing, so it's still undecided if it will help, but I feel like it helps to have the te…

The fact that through an unfortunate twist of history you even need to consider arming your teachers is simply incredible. There are a lot of great things about the US, but sadly the gun ownership fiasco is not one of them.

Re: The gun control that works: no guns

#35

Post by EugeneOZ » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 10:49 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?

Who doesn't live in USA.

Re: The gun control that works: no guns

#36

Post by mikeratcliffe » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 10:52 AM UTC

Criminals take what they need to commit a crime. If the victim is will be armed then the criminal will bring a gun. If the victim is unarmed there is no reason for the criminal to bring a gun.

Fairly simple really.

Re: The gun control that works: no guns

#37

Post by tagada » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 10:53 AM UTC

It's a pity men use a tragedy to promote their political freedom killer ideologies.

Re: The gun control that works: no guns

#38

Post by abrown28 » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 11:01 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…

The mere presence of my shotgun in my 5' tall female friends hands prevented her from being raped. A knife wouldn't have worked... need a bit of skill and strength. Kung Fu wouldn't have saved her... she's 5' tall and not strong. A gun is a force equalizer.

People like you bemoan the fact that anyone can pick up a gun and use it to deadly effect without any training. I can say without reservation that that makes me very happy.

Re: The gun control that works: no guns

#39

Post by tagada » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 11:05 AM UTC

EugeneOZ wrote: post #35

rjknight wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? Who doesn't live in USA.

I don't live in the USA and I'm interested in that question ... Americans shouldn't leave their socialists restrict their freedom. They do not understand that restricting the right to firearm is a way for the state to take more control. The problem is, maybe you never had any problem, but when you have, most of the time, the state isn't there to protect your ass. And ... Why not to forbid cars as well? Knives, glasses, alcohol, tobacco, chimneys and so on ...? You totally dumb guys. People are not self-responsible? Learn them to be, rather than resricting privacy to « protect them from themselves » ... But ... It won't happen. I'm living in a socialist country and I know how you, leftists, are thinking ... You only admit you mistakes when it's way to late. It's a shame.

Re: The gun control that works: no guns

#40

Post by jacquesm » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 11:10 AM UTC

abrown28 wrote: post #38

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…

The mere presence of my shotgun in my 5' tall female friends hands prevented her from being raped. A knife wouldn't have worked... need a bit of skill and strength. Kung Fu wouldn't have saved her... she's 5' tall and not strong. A gun is a force equalizer. People like you bemoan the fact that anyone can pick up a gun and use it to deadly effect without any training. I can say without reservation that that makes me v…

For this to make sense you have to look at statistics, not individuals. Statistically speaking your argument holds no water, but I'm happy for your friend. In her case it worked out well. But that's the exception, unfortunately.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121216092406AA...

"People like me" like to judge things on a wider basis than the exceptions confirming the rule.