Why can't USA remove weapons from homes? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why can't USA remove weapons from homes?

#41

Post by proc0 » Wed, May 25, 2022, 10:09 PM UTC

thatwasunusual wrote: post #40

proc0 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of the design of the object, it is the person who uses it. Obviously many guns are not for killing people, and those that are exist for protection. The real question is how would you collect the guns from criminals... they can't even collect their guns now, since I guess they wouldn't just hand them in without a fight. How would a new law solve this problem? Criminals will still hold on to what they have,…

> Obviously many guns are not for killing people, [...] This is utter bullshit. ALL guns are made for _killing_. It's irrelevant who - or what - is being killed. You can of course say the same about knives, but they aren't all the effective. > The real question is how would you collect the guns from criminals... That would indeed be a problem, but the priority should be to stop selling weapons to people who obviously…

> but the priority should be to stop selling weapons to people who obviously doesn't need them

If the government uses them, why not law abiding citizens? It's not like guns will disappear forever, they will still be in possession by government and anyone who wants to break the law. Regardless, you can never control anything 100%, people will STILL have guns, one way or another, just like anything else that's illegal but still exists.

> but criminals are also people; they only fire their weapon if they feel they have to.

Yes, when they feel like they have to take your stuff.

I think my basic point is that police is not efficient at solving crimes or preventing them, and that is a higher priority than preventing people from owning a gun because they could potentially get radicalized. Let's see crime under control first.

Re: Why can't USA remove weapons from homes?

#42

Post by thatwasunusual » Thu, May 26, 2022, 2:45 AM UTC

proc0 wrote: post #41

thatwasunusual wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously many guns are not for killing people, [...] This is utter bullshit. ALL guns are made for _killing_. It's irrelevant who - or what - is being killed. You can of course say the same about knives, but they aren't all the effective. > The real question is how would you collect the guns from criminals... That would indeed be a problem, but the priority should be to stop selling weapons to people who obviously…

> but the priority should be to stop selling weapons to people who obviously doesn't need them If the government uses them, why not law abiding citizens? It's not like guns will disappear forever, they will still be in possession by government and anyone who wants to break the law. Regardless, you can never control anything 100%, people will STILL have guns, one way or another, just like anything else that's illegal…

> If the government uses them, why not law abiding citizens?

Crikey, you must be some kind of special stupid.

Are all countries "law abiding" when it comes to use of weapons, you think?

Re: Why can't USA remove weapons from homes?

#43

Post by ddingus » Thu, May 26, 2022, 5:02 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #37

ddingus wrote: post #4

"What the people wish for" You imply the wish is for there to be no guns. The hard fact is that simply is not true. Americans have a wide range of opinion on the matter ranging from no guns, through various scenarios where there are guns and various ownership scenarios and regulations, and through to gun ownership being basically unfettered. Sidebar: The US currently is not a fully Democratic nation! It is a Republic…

>My own take on guns, given the lack of consensus and the solid nature of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, is robust gun education made mandatory for everyone as part of their basic education on their way to adulthood. This violates the Second Amendment, as it would be a means for the government to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. As written, that right permits no qualifiers, limitations or res…

Actually SCOTUS disagrees with you. Rights are not absolute. Speech is not absolute, nor is the right to bear arms.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/second-amendment/the...

>In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Individual rights are subject to regulation, and in general, the idea here is the minimum regulation necessary to maximize the utility of the right for everyone. What happened here is by affirming gun ownership as a basic right as speech is a basic right, the responsibility part can now be sorted out over time as it has been done for speech.

Go read the decisions. It's in there. With rights come responsibilities. And that is, in my view, exactly the right thing to do.

We have a few limits on speech, for example. There is criminal speech.

There are a few limits on gun ownership. And those will generally pass the courts given their scope and purpose is as described above. There is criminal gun ownership.

Now, to be clear here, I am not advocating any restrictions whatsoever. No means tests, no licenses, nothing of the sort.

Just education. In particular, the same education I got, and that many get as part of their gun ownership experience. Not talking about licenses or anything. Just education. Ownership would not be predicated on said education.

Surely you are not advocating we fail to educate people who are carrying deadly weapons around? I've passed my own on, and have saved lives. Frankly, having had it, my own life was saved at least once. And the stats play out favorably. Just educating people, and doing nothing else, improves on the injury and death stats we face today.

The goal of said education?

The people will self-regulate to a far more effective degree than we currently see today, and that is all.

You appear to be advocating a free for all, and that's not at all what SCOTUS did. Nor should they.

Re: Why can't USA remove weapons from homes?

#44

Post by Nextgrid » Thu, May 26, 2022, 9:15 AM UTC

proc0 wrote: post #38

Nextgrid wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crazy people are everywhere and yet their destructive impact is greatly reduced if they don't have easy access to ranged deadly weapons.

Sure, but I don't think that's feasible, and it would just leave those who break the law with the guns they currently have and probably will not be taken away because police would have done that already. The discussion is typically how can we get law abiding citizens to not have guns. This is accusing everyone of being a potential killer, when you might need to protect yourself in places that police might not be quic…

> those who break the law with the guns they currently have

Those who break the law regularly have the means & connections to buy a gun illegally.

I very much doubt distressed teenagers will have the money & connections to buy a gun illegally especially on short notice.

Definitely won't stop all crime (just like it doesn't even in countries where guns are illegal) nor resourceful, determined attackers, but would definitely cut down on crazy teenagers doing mass shootings.

Re: Why can't USA remove weapons from homes?

#45

Post by Tabular-Iceberg » Thu, May 26, 2022, 10:55 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #36

Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #3

I don't know, from the outside it looks pretty wild to me. With all the shooting and rioting I see why a considerable proportion of the population sees the second amendment as still being highly relevant. It's the same thing with things like Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges. The most reasonable explanation why these are not constitutional amendments yet is that a considerable amount of Americans, at least over a…

The Second Amendment has the added catch that half the country is armed to the teeth and has promised to bathe the country in blood if anyone even tries to touch it... and that half would need to agree to allow a constitutional convention to begin with, which they never, ever will. So it doesn't even matter how many Americans support it or don't, we literally just have to accept it either way at the point of a gun.

If it's the half of the country then it's a moot point, since you need a two thirds majority to pass a constitutional amendment anyway.