5 ms·

America's gun problem, explained

9 points by hackuser 11y ago

joshmn 11y ago
And here's the solution: Turn in your guns. Disclaimer: I'm a gun owner, and an avid hunter. At one point in my life I shot for competition. I still think that we need to turn in all guns. I personally know too many people with guns who _don't_ need them, instead they have them because they think it's cool, or because it's a "constitutional right." Sorry, but I think the constitution was written when we didn't have a problem. Most of these peoples are also religious in one way or another (you can infer which way they lean, and you'll probably be correct) — but don't you dare tell them that it's also a constitutional right to choose to follow no religion. Because that's sacrilegious. I was also raised catholic.
- DefaultUserHN 11y ago
  The US government is based on the idea that power is always corruptable, so the way to counter that is to divide and istribute the power. The 2nd Amendment isn't there so you can protect yourself against criminals. You already got the government (the police force) for that. It is also not there so you can go hunting (though you can use it for that). The 2nd Amendment is there to divide and distribute half the power to the people and half to the government. Did you know that the Ten Amendments, are the second part of the Constitution? The first part of the Constitution gives power to the government, while the second part of the Constitution gives power to the people. Your ancestors fought and died so that 50% of the power will be given to the people. So that the document will be divided into two parts: the Constitution itself (for the government), and the Bills of Rights aka the 10 Amendments (for the people). So why do you want to abolish your part of the constitution and give all the power back to the government? It's would be as illogical as Congress deciding to abolish all its power and give them all to the Executive Branch. The point of the Constitution is to divide and distribute power between the branches, between the federal and the states, and between the government and the people.
  - cafard 11y ago
    Let's get this out of the way: for practical purposes, the Second Amendment is heavily modified by legal precedent. Having said that, the Constitution, including the amendments, primarily constrained the federal government. Remember that "freedom of religion" clause? There were at least a couple of states with an established church at the time. The ability for municipalities to restrict the bearing of arms was not much questioned until the last 50 years or so.
    - hga 11y ago
      Both were zapped by the 14th Amendment, which was passed in part to counter laws restricting freedmen from owning guns granted, the Supremes almost immediately judicially nullified it. The recent McDonald decision zapping the Chicago and some of it's suburbs bans on gun ownership made that explicit SCOTUS writ ... where in an interesting wrinkle, the gun owner's advocate offered the Supremes a chance to reverse the prior nullification, which in part made their decision another beloved "compromise".
  - th0waway 11y ago
    The Ten Amendments are not there to give power to the people, there are there to emphasize powers that the government DOES NOT HAVE. The thought was (and a very good one), that if something was not explicitly forbidden the government would find a way to wrangle definitions so it was included (ACA as a 'tax', anyone?). ANY powers not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution are supposed to be reserved for the people.
    - DefaultUserHN 11y ago
      >ANY powers not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution are supposed to be reserved for the people. Of course, but that only applies if the government is still good. Should a situation arise where the government decides to become evil, then the government will not give a f*ck about the people's reserved rights. At that point, it will become hard to fight the government, if the people have no guns and especially hard if the people no standing well-regulated militia groups of men to enforce and defend the reserved rights of the people. This is why the founding fathers want to guarantee the peoples the right to the standing of well-regulated militias groups. Because if the peoples does not have well-regulated militia groups to defend them, then the government can just decide to become corrupt, and there will be nothing that the people can do. By then, it'll be too late to start recruiting, training, and buying guns and ammo. However, if the people have well-regulated militia groups standing by, then the government will have to fight a bloody war against the people's well-regulated militia groups first before the government can become a full fledged dictatorship.
- hga 11y ago
  Bad people are shooting good people in gun free zones. And here's the solution: Good people, turn in your guns. Yeah, sure, we'll get right on that: "[2015] Black Friday saw most federal gun background checks ever in a single day": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/02/black-friday-saw-most-federal-gun-background-checks-ever-processed-in-a-single-day/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/0...
dpc_pw 11y ago
Gun related deaths per 100k in US: 10.5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r... Suicides using gun per 100k population: 6.7 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm So already more than half of the original number is not what you would expect. As a person that moved from Europe, I don't see any gun problem in USA. I see severe economical problems, social problems, racial tensions, ideological tensions. Mass shootings do happen, but they are like airplane crashes - exciting for media and common folks, but rather rare. For comparison in US cancer death rate per 100k is : 166.4 http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/deathrates/deathrates.html http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/deathrates/deathrates.... When was the last time when "cancer problem in US" reached Hacker News?
- Delmania 11y ago
  "Mass shootings do happen, but they are like airplane crashes - exciting for media and common folks, but rather rare." In 2015 alone, there have been 355 mass shootings as of the time of this posting. Since 2013 there has been on average one mass shooting a day. How is that rare?
  - dpc_pw 11y ago
    As counted by anti-gun subreddit, that includes anything even remotely reassembling "mass-shooting" (like robberies, gangs etc.). Not to mention it's not even a credible source by definition... By other sources and definitions it's much, much lower. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-have-become-more-common-in-the-u-s/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-have-beco...

9 points by hackuser 11y ago

And here's the solution: Turn in your guns. Disclaimer: I'm a gun owner, and an avid hunter. At one point in my life I shot for competition. I still think that we need to turn in all guns. I personally know too many people with guns who _don't_ need them, instead they have them because they think it's cool, or because it's a "constitutional right." Sorry, but I think the constitution was written when we didn't have a problem. Most of these peoples are also religious in one way or another (you can infer which way they lean, and you'll probably be correct) — but don't you dare tell them that it's also a constitutional right to choose to follow no religion. Because that's sacrilegious. I was also raised catholic.

DefaultUserHN 11y ago
The US government is based on the idea that power is always corruptable, so the way to counter that is to divide and istribute the power. The 2nd Amendment isn't there so you can protect yourself against criminals. You already got the government (the police force) for that. It is also not there so you can go hunting (though you can use it for that). The 2nd Amendment is there to divide and distribute half the power to the people and half to the government. Did you know that the Ten Amendments, are the second part of the Constitution? The first part of the Constitution gives power to the government, while the second part of the Constitution gives power to the people. Your ancestors fought and died so that 50% of the power will be given to the people. So that the document will be divided into two parts: the Constitution itself (for the government), and the Bills of Rights aka the 10 Amendments (for the people). So why do you want to abolish your part of the constitution and give all the power back to the government? It's would be as illogical as Congress deciding to abolish all its power and give them all to the Executive Branch. The point of the Constitution is to divide and distribute power between the branches, between the federal and the states, and between the government and the people.
- cafard 11y ago
  Let's get this out of the way: for practical purposes, the Second Amendment is heavily modified by legal precedent. Having said that, the Constitution, including the amendments, primarily constrained the federal government. Remember that "freedom of religion" clause? There were at least a couple of states with an established church at the time. The ability for municipalities to restrict the bearing of arms was not much questioned until the last 50 years or so.
  - hga 11y ago
    Both were zapped by the 14th Amendment, which was passed in part to counter laws restricting freedmen from owning guns granted, the Supremes almost immediately judicially nullified it. The recent McDonald decision zapping the Chicago and some of it's suburbs bans on gun ownership made that explicit SCOTUS writ ... where in an interesting wrinkle, the gun owner's advocate offered the Supremes a chance to reverse the prior nullification, which in part made their decision another beloved "compromise".
- th0waway 11y ago
  The Ten Amendments are not there to give power to the people, there are there to emphasize powers that the government DOES NOT HAVE. The thought was (and a very good one), that if something was not explicitly forbidden the government would find a way to wrangle definitions so it was included (ACA as a 'tax', anyone?). ANY powers not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution are supposed to be reserved for the people.
  - DefaultUserHN 11y ago
    >ANY powers not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution are supposed to be reserved for the people. Of course, but that only applies if the government is still good. Should a situation arise where the government decides to become evil, then the government will not give a f*ck about the people's reserved rights. At that point, it will become hard to fight the government, if the people have no guns and especially hard if the people no standing well-regulated militia groups of men to enforce and defend the reserved rights of the people. This is why the founding fathers want to guarantee the peoples the right to the standing of well-regulated militias groups. Because if the peoples does not have well-regulated militia groups to defend them, then the government can just decide to become corrupt, and there will be nothing that the people can do. By then, it'll be too late to start recruiting, training, and buying guns and ammo. However, if the people have well-regulated militia groups standing by, then the government will have to fight a bloody war against the people's well-regulated militia groups first before the government can become a full fledged dictatorship.
hga 11y ago
Bad people are shooting good people in gun free zones. And here's the solution: Good people, turn in your guns. Yeah, sure, we'll get right on that: "[2015] Black Friday saw most federal gun background checks ever in a single day": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/02/black-friday-saw-most-federal-gun-background-checks-ever-processed-in-a-single-day/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/0...

dpc_pw 11y ago

Gun related deaths per 100k in US: 10.5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r... Suicides using gun per 100k population: 6.7 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm So already more than half of the original number is not what you would expect. As a person that moved from Europe, I don't see any gun problem in USA. I see severe economical problems, social problems, racial tensions, ideological tensions. Mass shootings do happen, but they are like airplane crashes - exciting for media and common folks, but rather rare. For comparison in US cancer death rate per 100k is : 166.4 http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/deathrates/deathrates.html http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/deathrates/deathrates.... When was the last time when "cancer problem in US" reached Hacker News?

Delmania 11y ago
"Mass shootings do happen, but they are like airplane crashes - exciting for media and common folks, but rather rare." In 2015 alone, there have been 355 mass shootings as of the time of this posting. Since 2013 there has been on average one mass shooting a day. How is that rare?
- dpc_pw 11y ago
  As counted by anti-gun subreddit, that includes anything even remotely reassembling "mass-shooting" (like robberies, gangs etc.). Not to mention it's not even a credible source by definition... By other sources and definitions it's much, much lower. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-have-become-more-common-in-the-u-s/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-have-beco...