12 ms·

Gun-control protest sparks chaotic scenes in US Congress

29 points by marcosscriven 10y ago

buserror 10y ago
As a shooter in the UK, with a Shotgun Certificate, I don't really understand why people are so against having some gun control -- I mean the background check the police did on me before giving me a SGC was fine; quite frankly I felt safer afterward. Now of course, there's a case for saying that once they start putting restrictions in, they will start to creep -- and it's true, in europe now there's bans on pretty much everything, including fully deactivated weapons used by the reenactors! So here goes, two paragraphs and no solution from me!
- moron4hire 10y ago
  We have background checks.
  - PakG1 10y ago
    If that were true, what's the debate about? As far as I can see (Canadian, so not vested in the topic), whatever checks exist are not consistent and not comprehensive. Comprehensiveness appears to be key. I remember Obama saying only 1 week before Orlando that there was someone that the FBI knew to be an ISIS sympathizer, and yet the law wouldn't let them put his name on a list to prevent guns from being sold to him. What's the use of a background check that doesn't turn up the necessary information? If background checks exist, they do not appear to be consistent, nor do they appear to be given the teeth necessary to be effective.
    - travisby 10y ago
      It turns up information on 'prohibited persons,' which are convicted people. Felons, and anyone with a misdemeanor in domestic violence. Is it a crime to be an ISIS sympathizer? Has he been convicted of a crime? Did the FBI have enough information to charge him and throw him in jail? Should they be able to say anybody is a potential ISIS sympathizer and now nobody can fly on a plane or own a gun without any sort of remediation process? The background check network can only be used by professional dealers (to "make money" selling firearms you need to be a licensed dealer and any firearms you sell need to include a background check) -- this includes professional dealers at gun shows. What doesn't involve a background check in many states is buying from a friend, or another third party person -- think more of an impromptu swap meet.
      - moron4hire 10y ago
        20 states require background check for private transfer.
        travisby 10y ago
        I believe it's more around 8? Not my usual source for gun information but - http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/ http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-che... --- On a side note, rather than editting my post I'll say here -- I realized what I said at the end was a little disengenuous to make it seem more righteous. Buying a gun from a private person is more like buying a lawn mower from either your neighbor, girlfriend, or some random guy you meet on craigslist.
        moron4hire 10y ago
        It's not exactly the same as buying a lawn mower from a neighbor. Even states that don't perform a background check still require the sale to be made through a licensed dealer, with a transfer of ownership recorded. Given you can't know what the person will do with the gun (or who they might transfer it to, or get it stolen by), you'd be stupid to not perform an official transfer of ownership on a personal sale. Will requiring background checks on all gun sales actually reduce the number of guns sold to bad people? Most of these states that don't have background-check requirements for private sales do have laws that make it illegal to sell a gun to anyone who is not legally able to possess one. So these sales are already illegal. Is making them "extra special illegal" going to make a difference? I'm not actually opposed to universal background checks. I'm just not sure it will have a big impact on overall violent crime. I'm definitely not convinced it will have any impact on mass shootings. Mass shootings are just an incredibly different beast than most other violent crime. I'd say it has more in common with rape than with murder or assault, because they both come from deeply narcissistic world-views. What are we doing about the growing narcissism problem in the world?
- jkot 10y ago
  > in europe now there's bans on pretty much everything Czech republic is pretty liberal (conceal carry, attack rifles...) and we have lower crime rate than UK. > I don't really understand why people are so against having some gun control Problems: 1) not everyone lives in a big city, where police is on every corner. In remote rural areas it takes hours before cops even arrive. Some people simply need gun for living. 2) Regulations always get more strict over time. Eventually everything will be banned (knife, pepper spray...). In UK it is illegal to carry a screw driver on street. 3) People are motivated not to report crimes. There was a case when girl escaped a rape, but was charged for possession of illegal weapon, and for using a pepper spray on her attacker. With regulations, it would be best for her, not to even report that attack.
  - elthran 10y ago
    > 2) Regulations always get more strict over time. Eventually everything will be banned (knife, pepper spray...). In UK it is illegal to carry a screw driver on street. Not completely true. It's not illegal to be carrying a screwdriver/fixed blade knife/other dangerous implement in public if you have a valid reason for it. We are not going to arrest an electrician walking down the street, but we will question the guy in a hooded tracksuit loitering outside the bookmakers with a screwdriver
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      ...waiting for their girlfriend, and they just bought the screwdriver to fix her hair dryer. When 'rights' are relative that way, its just a blank check to hassle people based on profiling?
marcosscriven 10y ago
As noted in the article, Periscope was used to broadcast this.
jacquesm 10y ago
How big a massacre would it take before a gun control law would be carried by a majority in the US? Or is it not a matter of sheer numbers, but who gets killed? (For instance: what if some moron decided to go after a convention of one of the two large parties?)
- josteink 10y ago
  To many people in the US, gun ownership is an as equally essential right as freedom of speech. Assuming you can just introduce "gun control laws" and solve "the gun problem" is a very European centric way of thinking. It will not translate well into actual US policy.
  - skoczymroczny 10y ago
    Just as freedom of speech, there's no freedom of speech in Europe as it is in the US. You can get arrested in Europe for writing unpopular opinions on Twitter or Facebook ("hate speech").
    - k-mcgrady 10y ago
      >> "unpopular opinions" I don't think anyone has been arrested for writing in 'unpopular opinion'. They've been arrested for writing highly racist content or directing abuse at others.
      - mamon 10y ago
        In Sweden it is a crime to criticise goverment's immigraiton policy. Saying "we should not let so many immigrants in" counts as "hate speech".
        mac01021 10y ago
        > it is a crime to criticise goverment's immigraiton policy. Citation? Is there actually a law that says this? Or is it hyperbole? Even if all you've got are anecdotal court rulings, I would be interested in reading about it.
onion2k 10y ago
I'm really conflicted about this. On the one hand, I think that gun control is an important issue and limiting gun ownership has a very direct impact on saving lives. I agree with the law that was being debated. (Aside: I'm British. I live in the UK. It doesn't directly affect me.) But... The point of a democratic government is to debate an issue, vote on it, and then to enact the result of the vote. Representatives should weigh the information available, the points raised in debates, and their own consciences, and come to a conclusion of their own. Direct action like a sit-down protest undermines and subverts the process of democracy by saying "Do what we want or we'll make life intolerably difficult for you." That is not how government should work. Government shouldn't be held to ransom. In this case it's easy to agree with the protest, but what happens if, say, the Republicans lose a debate on reducing income tax for millionaires to zero and organise a sit-in to try to get their own way?
- laumars 10y ago
  I don't see how that's any worse than any other form of lobbying that happens. Quite frankly I'm increasingly of the opinion that the whole political process is broken and only favours those with the deepest pockets and loudest voices rather than the needs of the majority.
- kasey_junk 10y ago
  The point of this protest is that the GOP won't allow a vote via procedural rules & haven't allowed a vote on lots of proposed gun control laws. The GOP used the same tactic on expanded oil & gas drilling http://heavy.com/news/2016/06/when-was-last-sit-in-longest-congress-house-democrats-republicans-record/ http://heavy.com/news/2016/06/when-was-last-sit-in-longest-c... I'm very conflicted on the bill the Dems want voted on but gun control needs open debate & voting.
  - LyndsySimon 10y ago
    It's not a "GOP only" thing, even on this topic. Harry Reid prevented all kinds of gun control bills from being discussed for years.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rms_returns 10y ago
An anecdote tangential to the main topic: Its well known that not all states in the USA have the same gun control laws. For instance, in New York, a gun is banned in the hands of civilians. Now suppose, you are traveling from city A to B with a flight change in New York, and suppose you are carrying arms (duly registered) and you checked out your luggage at New York to catch the next flight, then you are effectively breaking the NYC law for those few moments! In fact, I've heard that a lot of NYC cops are just hovering around that luggage checkout counter to catch and harass as many innocent passengers as possible!
- wastedhours 10y ago
  As cynical as it might be, then for those few moments those passengers aren't innocent according to local law.
  - rms_returns 10y ago
    But isn't that "breaking of local law" just a technicality? Its not like they are actually shooting anyone, they are just passing through an airport.
    - wastedhours 10y ago
      There are plenty of arbitrary laws, but technicality or not, they're breaking the law. The same would be true in your scenario if their flight between 2 US states went via the UK.
      - naveen99 10y ago
        It would be funny if some states required you to carry a gun at all times. Some religions for example require you to carry a blade at all times. Of course we already have contradictory laws and people are breaking rules no matter what they do.
popey456963 10y ago
I'm looking at this with a foreign eye, so I apologise for any ignorance on my behalf, I just find it amazing that so many Americans feel that gun control wouldn't help with decreasing shootings (Kasey_Junk linked this poll [0]). Can someone shed some light on the views of these people? Living in the UK, with rather nice gun control restrictions, means we can't just buy guns at the local supermarket but of all of the ~ 8 people I know who has wanted a gun, every single one got a license and went through little to no hassle to get it, simply filling out a few forms. Yet seemingly because of this, our firearm related death rate is 0.23 per 100,000, compared with the US' 10.54 (~45x as many deaths [1]). [0] http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/187511/american-public-opinion-guns.aspx http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/187511/america... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
- kasey_junk 10y ago
  I think you need to be clear on the nuance of that opinion. Lots of Americans don't think that gun control will decrease "mass shootings" which is an imprecise term but is generally thought of as "multiple people being shot indiscriminately". Its not even clear how mass shootings inform the firearm death rate as some places that track it include shootings with no deaths and others don't. Generally speaking mass shootings are rare everywhere, they are just less rare in the US. So it is relatively easy to believe for instance that banning pistols (which the UK did) would have a huge impact on the firearm death rate of the US but no obvious impact on the number of mass shootings.
- etendue 10y ago
  Two points. One, these polls give one an idea of how people might feel about an idea in principle, but don't tell you how people feel about the implementation of the idea as a law. Many of the gun control bills that are proposed have flaws that disproportionately affect law-abiding gun owners, and given the general skepticism of the efficacy of gun control laws here, the bills fail to advance. The second point is that it isn't informative to average across the US to make statistical inferences: it's too heterogenous. Most violent crime in the US (keeping in mind different countries define violent crime uniquely and report it with varying rates) is cultural and is highly focal in limited parts of cities. Even with firearms, many parts of the US are statistically similar to similar areas in Europe when considering violent crime.
marcosscriven 10y ago
Reminds me of this game http://www.thoughtsandprayersthegame.com/ http://www.thoughtsandprayersthegame.com/
aaron695 10y ago
I'd wish people would stop going off topic about the stupid gun control debate and be adults talked about the article on hand. "Republicans adjourned the House early on Thursday to try to quash the sit-in, switching off the TV cameras." "The transmissions via Periscope and Facebook Live were taken up by the C-Span network, which provides continual coverage of Congress." It's a interesting world we live in. The fact cameras in many of the world parliaments are turned off in situations (not about national security) seems like a hell of a censorship of democracy we put up with. Technology seems in part stopping this censorship (There are other examples of rouge cameras in parliaments leaking things that the plebs are deemed not fit to see)
pigpaws 10y ago
so asking a question is now a 'down-votable' offense on HN? WTF people? either don't answer or point them in the direction of some research. Don't down-vote, you arrogant fucks. Seriously people, get over yourselves.
- dang 10y ago
  We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. If you don't want it to be banned and are willing to use the site as intended, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11960016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11960016 and marked it off-topic.
  - pigpaws 10y ago
    nice to see that you apply said guidelines evenly. but hey - go ahead and let everyone down-vote because they simply disagree - which is AGAINST the guidelines...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

29 points by marcosscriven 10y ago

As a shooter in the UK, with a Shotgun Certificate, I don't really understand why people are so against having some gun control -- I mean the background check the police did on me before giving me a SGC was fine; quite frankly I felt safer afterward. Now of course, there's a case for saying that once they start putting restrictions in, they will start to creep -- and it's true, in europe now there's bans on pretty much everything, including fully deactivated weapons used by the reenactors! So here goes, two paragraphs and no solution from me!

moron4hire 10y ago
We have background checks.
- PakG1 10y ago
  If that were true, what's the debate about? As far as I can see (Canadian, so not vested in the topic), whatever checks exist are not consistent and not comprehensive. Comprehensiveness appears to be key. I remember Obama saying only 1 week before Orlando that there was someone that the FBI knew to be an ISIS sympathizer, and yet the law wouldn't let them put his name on a list to prevent guns from being sold to him. What's the use of a background check that doesn't turn up the necessary information? If background checks exist, they do not appear to be consistent, nor do they appear to be given the teeth necessary to be effective.
  - travisby 10y ago
    It turns up information on 'prohibited persons,' which are convicted people. Felons, and anyone with a misdemeanor in domestic violence. Is it a crime to be an ISIS sympathizer? Has he been convicted of a crime? Did the FBI have enough information to charge him and throw him in jail? Should they be able to say anybody is a potential ISIS sympathizer and now nobody can fly on a plane or own a gun without any sort of remediation process? The background check network can only be used by professional dealers (to "make money" selling firearms you need to be a licensed dealer and any firearms you sell need to include a background check) -- this includes professional dealers at gun shows. What doesn't involve a background check in many states is buying from a friend, or another third party person -- think more of an impromptu swap meet.
    - moron4hire 10y ago
      20 states require background check for private transfer.
      - travisby 10y ago
        I believe it's more around 8? Not my usual source for gun information but - http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/ http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-che... --- On a side note, rather than editting my post I'll say here -- I realized what I said at the end was a little disengenuous to make it seem more righteous. Buying a gun from a private person is more like buying a lawn mower from either your neighbor, girlfriend, or some random guy you meet on craigslist.
        moron4hire 10y ago
        It's not exactly the same as buying a lawn mower from a neighbor. Even states that don't perform a background check still require the sale to be made through a licensed dealer, with a transfer of ownership recorded. Given you can't know what the person will do with the gun (or who they might transfer it to, or get it stolen by), you'd be stupid to not perform an official transfer of ownership on a personal sale. Will requiring background checks on all gun sales actually reduce the number of guns sold to bad people? Most of these states that don't have background-check requirements for private sales do have laws that make it illegal to sell a gun to anyone who is not legally able to possess one. So these sales are already illegal. Is making them "extra special illegal" going to make a difference? I'm not actually opposed to universal background checks. I'm just not sure it will have a big impact on overall violent crime. I'm definitely not convinced it will have any impact on mass shootings. Mass shootings are just an incredibly different beast than most other violent crime. I'd say it has more in common with rape than with murder or assault, because they both come from deeply narcissistic world-views. What are we doing about the growing narcissism problem in the world?
jkot 10y ago
> in europe now there's bans on pretty much everything Czech republic is pretty liberal (conceal carry, attack rifles...) and we have lower crime rate than UK. > I don't really understand why people are so against having some gun control Problems: 1) not everyone lives in a big city, where police is on every corner. In remote rural areas it takes hours before cops even arrive. Some people simply need gun for living. 2) Regulations always get more strict over time. Eventually everything will be banned (knife, pepper spray...). In UK it is illegal to carry a screw driver on street. 3) People are motivated not to report crimes. There was a case when girl escaped a rape, but was charged for possession of illegal weapon, and for using a pepper spray on her attacker. With regulations, it would be best for her, not to even report that attack.
- elthran 10y ago
  > 2) Regulations always get more strict over time. Eventually everything will be banned (knife, pepper spray...). In UK it is illegal to carry a screw driver on street. Not completely true. It's not illegal to be carrying a screwdriver/fixed blade knife/other dangerous implement in public if you have a valid reason for it. We are not going to arrest an electrician walking down the street, but we will question the guy in a hooded tracksuit loitering outside the bookmakers with a screwdriver
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    ...waiting for their girlfriend, and they just bought the screwdriver to fix her hair dryer. When 'rights' are relative that way, its just a blank check to hassle people based on profiling?

marcosscriven 10y ago

As noted in the article, Periscope was used to broadcast this.

jacquesm 10y ago

How big a massacre would it take before a gun control law would be carried by a majority in the US? Or is it not a matter of sheer numbers, but who gets killed? (For instance: what if some moron decided to go after a convention of one of the two large parties?)

josteink 10y ago
To many people in the US, gun ownership is an as equally essential right as freedom of speech. Assuming you can just introduce "gun control laws" and solve "the gun problem" is a very European centric way of thinking. It will not translate well into actual US policy.
- skoczymroczny 10y ago
  Just as freedom of speech, there's no freedom of speech in Europe as it is in the US. You can get arrested in Europe for writing unpopular opinions on Twitter or Facebook ("hate speech").
  - k-mcgrady 10y ago
    >> "unpopular opinions" I don't think anyone has been arrested for writing in 'unpopular opinion'. They've been arrested for writing highly racist content or directing abuse at others.
    - mamon 10y ago
      In Sweden it is a crime to criticise goverment's immigraiton policy. Saying "we should not let so many immigrants in" counts as "hate speech".
      - mac01021 10y ago
        > it is a crime to criticise goverment's immigraiton policy. Citation? Is there actually a law that says this? Or is it hyperbole? Even if all you've got are anecdotal court rulings, I would be interested in reading about it.

onion2k 10y ago

I'm really conflicted about this. On the one hand, I think that gun control is an important issue and limiting gun ownership has a very direct impact on saving lives. I agree with the law that was being debated. (Aside: I'm British. I live in the UK. It doesn't directly affect me.) But... The point of a democratic government is to debate an issue, vote on it, and then to enact the result of the vote. Representatives should weigh the information available, the points raised in debates, and their own consciences, and come to a conclusion of their own. Direct action like a sit-down protest undermines and subverts the process of democracy by saying "Do what we want or we'll make life intolerably difficult for you." That is not how government should work. Government shouldn't be held to ransom. In this case it's easy to agree with the protest, but what happens if, say, the Republicans lose a debate on reducing income tax for millionaires to zero and organise a sit-in to try to get their own way?

laumars 10y ago
I don't see how that's any worse than any other form of lobbying that happens. Quite frankly I'm increasingly of the opinion that the whole political process is broken and only favours those with the deepest pockets and loudest voices rather than the needs of the majority.
kasey_junk 10y ago
The point of this protest is that the GOP won't allow a vote via procedural rules & haven't allowed a vote on lots of proposed gun control laws. The GOP used the same tactic on expanded oil & gas drilling http://heavy.com/news/2016/06/when-was-last-sit-in-longest-congress-house-democrats-republicans-record/ http://heavy.com/news/2016/06/when-was-last-sit-in-longest-c... I'm very conflicted on the bill the Dems want voted on but gun control needs open debate & voting.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  It's not a "GOP only" thing, even on this topic. Harry Reid prevented all kinds of gun control bills from being discussed for years.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

rms_returns 10y ago

An anecdote tangential to the main topic: Its well known that not all states in the USA have the same gun control laws. For instance, in New York, a gun is banned in the hands of civilians. Now suppose, you are traveling from city A to B with a flight change in New York, and suppose you are carrying arms (duly registered) and you checked out your luggage at New York to catch the next flight, then you are effectively breaking the NYC law for those few moments! In fact, I've heard that a lot of NYC cops are just hovering around that luggage checkout counter to catch and harass as many innocent passengers as possible!

wastedhours 10y ago
As cynical as it might be, then for those few moments those passengers aren't innocent according to local law.
- rms_returns 10y ago
  But isn't that "breaking of local law" just a technicality? Its not like they are actually shooting anyone, they are just passing through an airport.
  - wastedhours 10y ago
    There are plenty of arbitrary laws, but technicality or not, they're breaking the law. The same would be true in your scenario if their flight between 2 US states went via the UK.
    - naveen99 10y ago
      It would be funny if some states required you to carry a gun at all times. Some religions for example require you to carry a blade at all times. Of course we already have contradictory laws and people are breaking rules no matter what they do.

popey456963 10y ago

I'm looking at this with a foreign eye, so I apologise for any ignorance on my behalf, I just find it amazing that so many Americans feel that gun control wouldn't help with decreasing shootings (Kasey_Junk linked this poll [0]). Can someone shed some light on the views of these people? Living in the UK, with rather nice gun control restrictions, means we can't just buy guns at the local supermarket but of all of the ~ 8 people I know who has wanted a gun, every single one got a license and went through little to no hassle to get it, simply filling out a few forms. Yet seemingly because of this, our firearm related death rate is 0.23 per 100,000, compared with the US' 10.54 (~45x as many deaths [1]). [0] http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/187511/american-public-opinion-guns.aspx http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/187511/america... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...

kasey_junk 10y ago
I think you need to be clear on the nuance of that opinion. Lots of Americans don't think that gun control will decrease "mass shootings" which is an imprecise term but is generally thought of as "multiple people being shot indiscriminately". Its not even clear how mass shootings inform the firearm death rate as some places that track it include shootings with no deaths and others don't. Generally speaking mass shootings are rare everywhere, they are just less rare in the US. So it is relatively easy to believe for instance that banning pistols (which the UK did) would have a huge impact on the firearm death rate of the US but no obvious impact on the number of mass shootings.
etendue 10y ago
Two points. One, these polls give one an idea of how people might feel about an idea in principle, but don't tell you how people feel about the implementation of the idea as a law. Many of the gun control bills that are proposed have flaws that disproportionately affect law-abiding gun owners, and given the general skepticism of the efficacy of gun control laws here, the bills fail to advance. The second point is that it isn't informative to average across the US to make statistical inferences: it's too heterogenous. Most violent crime in the US (keeping in mind different countries define violent crime uniquely and report it with varying rates) is cultural and is highly focal in limited parts of cities. Even with firearms, many parts of the US are statistically similar to similar areas in Europe when considering violent crime.

marcosscriven 10y ago

Reminds me of this game http://www.thoughtsandprayersthegame.com/ http://www.thoughtsandprayersthegame.com/

aaron695 10y ago

I'd wish people would stop going off topic about the stupid gun control debate and be adults talked about the article on hand. "Republicans adjourned the House early on Thursday to try to quash the sit-in, switching off the TV cameras." "The transmissions via Periscope and Facebook Live were taken up by the C-Span network, which provides continual coverage of Congress." It's a interesting world we live in. The fact cameras in many of the world parliaments are turned off in situations (not about national security) seems like a hell of a censorship of democracy we put up with. Technology seems in part stopping this censorship (There are other examples of rouge cameras in parliaments leaking things that the plebs are deemed not fit to see)

pigpaws 10y ago

so asking a question is now a 'down-votable' offense on HN? WTF people? either don't answer or point them in the direction of some research. Don't down-vote, you arrogant fucks. Seriously people, get over yourselves.

dang 10y ago
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. If you don't want it to be banned and are willing to use the site as intended, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11960016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11960016 and marked it off-topic.
- pigpaws 10y ago
  nice to see that you apply said guidelines evenly. but hey - go ahead and let everyone down-vote because they simply disagree - which is AGAINST the guidelines...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]