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

E-Shotgun

e-shotgun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 152 posts

Re: E-Shotgun

#91

Post by [deleted] »

evgen wrote: post #83
selfhoster11 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also problematic for another reason: the intent of 2A was to enable citizens to force a regime change even when said regime is resistant to verbal criticism. Lethal means would be required to safeguard that.

> the intent of 2A was to enable citizens to force a regime change No it was not and this is a common myth that is repeated by the 2A crowd. The primary intent of the 2A was to allow the individual states to field militias (the only land army available to the new nation who was still in conflict with its former rulers) without going broke. It was more about a fear of a standing army balanced against a fear of British…

[deleted]

Re: E-Shotgun

#92

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

evgen wrote: post #83
selfhoster11 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also problematic for another reason: the intent of 2A was to enable citizens to force a regime change even when said regime is resistant to verbal criticism. Lethal means would be required to safeguard that.

> the intent of 2A was to enable citizens to force a regime change No it was not and this is a common myth that is repeated by the 2A crowd. The primary intent of the 2A was to allow the individual states to field militias (the only land army available to the new nation who was still in conflict with its former rulers) without going broke. It was more about a fear of a standing army balanced against a fear of British…

Is the militia not any able bodied citizen capable of fighting for defense of self or state?

The militia argument was completely broken in 2008 with DC vs Heller that specially said 2A is not a collective right, but absolutely an individual right.

So, wether you can read the intention of people who just used guns to rebel against their government and form a new one was really to make sure that only the government could rule on appropriate arms - or not - it is moot now.

Re: E-Shotgun

#93

Post by mantaraygun »

meheleventyone wrote: post #53
donw wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. 16J is a slightly overpowered paintball gun.

Here’s some fatalities from guns around that power or less: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC500806/ Muzzle energy isn’t the only factor in lethality.

I'm not sure about those particular air rifles, but there are .177 and .22 caliber air rifles capable of 50J or more. A half gram .117 pellet at 1600fps is 60J. They should definitely be treated as weapons.

Re: E-Shotgun

#94

Post by oceanplexian »

johncolanduoni wrote: post #45
glenstein wrote: post #40

I don't have a lot to say about the functionality or specifications here, but I feel like there's a new conceptual issue raised by non-lethal, or notionally non-lethal weapons. Constitutional arguments are about the right to self-defense. That's not necessarily the same as killing someone, and you don't necessarily have a right to killing in and of itself, but only as a means to an end for self-defense. I suppose it…

My understanding is the US constitution’s second amendment has also been interpreted somewhat literally when it refers to a “well regulated militia”. From that perspective being able to have lethal weapons is still important, though given the fact that we don’t allow private citizens to have the gear to go toe to toe with a modern military I’m not sure exactly where that ends and more mundane self-defense begins.

In the 18th century the phrase "Well Regulated" had a different meaning, for example a "well regulated clock". It's a misconception that it refers to regulation as we understand it in a modern sense.

Re: E-Shotgun

#95

Post by mantaraygun »

GravitasFailure wrote: post #70
glenstein wrote: post #40

I don't have a lot to say about the functionality or specifications here, but I feel like there's a new conceptual issue raised by non-lethal, or notionally non-lethal weapons. Constitutional arguments are about the right to self-defense. That's not necessarily the same as killing someone, and you don't necessarily have a right to killing in and of itself, but only as a means to an end for self-defense. I suppose it…

This is definitely an interesting line of thought worth exploring, but I do take issue your central point: There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon, and even good less lethal weapons struggle to effectively stop determined assailants. A human truly determined to inflict harm on someone is astoundingly difficult to stop. The starkest examples I've come across are two officer-involved shootings: First was in Orego…

> people getting head injuries when getting zapped is pretty common

This scares the shit out of me, more than getting shot by a cop. Cops use tasers a lot more freely than guns, very frequently using them when there is no plausible threat to themselves or anybody else. They're allowed to get away with it because tasers are "less lethal." All it takes is one bad fall to turn you into a brain scrambled imbecile who can't tie your own shoelaces anymore but much of the public doesn't seem to understand this and are unsympathetic to these sort of concerns. At least with guns, people understand the gravity of the matter.

Re: E-Shotgun

#96

Post by nicbou »

ajuc wrote: post #86
glenstein wrote: post #40

I don't have a lot to say about the functionality or specifications here, but I feel like there's a new conceptual issue raised by non-lethal, or notionally non-lethal weapons. Constitutional arguments are about the right to self-defense. That's not necessarily the same as killing someone, and you don't necessarily have a right to killing in and of itself, but only as a means to an end for self-defense. I suppose it…

That's already how this works in some countries. If someone attacks you with a baseball bat or fists and you shoot them dead you might be sentenced for overstepping a reasonable self-defense. The same crime at gun-point and at knife-point carries much harsher punishment. This encourages reasonable (de)escalation instead of just going for 120% from the start. And saves lives. End result is - even in countries with rel…

In Canada, the use of reasonable force is warranted. The keyword is "reasonable".

Re: E-Shotgun

#97

Post by TheFreim »

oceanplexian wrote: post #94
johncolanduoni wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is the US constitution’s second amendment has also been interpreted somewhat literally when it refers to a “well regulated militia”. From that perspective being able to have lethal weapons is still important, though given the fact that we don’t allow private citizens to have the gear to go toe to toe with a modern military I’m not sure exactly where that ends and more mundane self-defense begins.

In the 18th century the phrase "Well Regulated" had a different meaning, for example a "well regulated clock". It's a misconception that it refers to regulation as we understand it in a modern sense.

If mememory serves me, everybody 16 (18?) and up was "the militia" by default.

Re: E-Shotgun

#98

Post by dang »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #9

Yeah…sorry. If someone breaks into my house, they’re getting a bit more than 16J pointed their way.

Can you please not post unsubstantive comments or flamebait to HN? You started a pointless flamewar with this, and we're trying for the opposite sort of discussion here.

Fortunately your substantive comments have been good, so this should be easy to fix. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Re: E-Shotgun

#99

Post by dang »

trabant00 wrote: post #48
kristopolous wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly if someone breaks into my house they'll be getting a cup of tea and a blanket. Robbery must be an awful way to make a living. They're probably in a life of abuse and addiction. Yes, I'm a total psycho, I already know this.

No, you are a clueless idealist who never spent time with actual home robbers.

Please don't cross into personal attack in HN threads, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: E-Shotgun

#100

Post by dang »

inkblotuniverse wrote: post #55
kristopolous wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly if someone breaks into my house they'll be getting a cup of tea and a blanket. Robbery must be an awful way to make a living. They're probably in a life of abuse and addiction. Yes, I'm a total psycho, I already know this.

They'll just kill you and rape your wife, don't worry.

Please don't do this here.
Post reply on HN