4 ms·

Not sure why this is on hacker news, but regardless, this article doesn't say much that isn't new. It even mentions specifically that... "all guns start out a

by revicon 10y ago

Not sure why this is on hacker news, but regardless, this article doesn't say much that isn't new. It even mentions specifically that... "all guns start out as legally purchased weapons but “huge number of them” fall into the hands of unlawful owners" And that's the issue. The USA has a massive amount of guns available for legal purchase, which countries with less gun violence do not have. Some of these guns make their way into criminal hands and are used in crimes. Why do other first world countries not have this issue? Because they do not have massive amounts of guns available for purchase. Banning legal guns decreases the number of guns that will fall into criminal hands to be used in crimes. This is what other countries are doing, and it works. I don't understand the issue with this, I get that shooting is a fun sport, but people are dying. LOTS of people. Get a new hobby.

splintercell 10y ago
America has a lot of guns, guns are ingrained in it's culture, and despite of having that many guns, it isn't a third world hell hole. Talking about gun bans in other countries is like trying to convince Australia to ban Kangaroos based on how it worked in America. The situation hasn't changed since the times of founding fathers. In Federalist Paper #46, James Madison was bragging about how because of American gun ownership, totalitarian governments can never take over America, like they can do in Europe. [Reformatted] >> Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. << >> Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.<< >> But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. << >> Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. << http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm
- serge2k 10y ago
  Do you really think people in Australia are afraid of totalitarianism? Do you really guns are going to help, when the real threat is government overreach and the inaction of the populace? Keep electing "pro 2nd amendment" politicians who also happen to vote for the patriot act and support NSA spying.
  - splintercell 10y ago
    > Do you really guns are going to help, when the real threat is government overreach and the inaction of the populace? Keep electing "pro 2nd amendment" politicians who also happen to vote for the patriot act and support NSA spying. < So your logic is, "because politicians have passed Patriot Act and govt spies through NSA, give up your gun rights"?? I see similar argument being made by other people, "there is no way you will be able to fight a totalitarian government with your guns", (even if it were true) the point is that we should give up our guns because we are already doomed? Isn't that even more reason to fight for gun rights? Quoting again from Federalist Papers #46, where James Madison responds to the argument similar to being made by you (you really should read it, because I am skipping a lot of meat): >>Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed 1/100th part of the whole number of souls; or one 1/25th part of the number able to bear arms.<< >> This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than 25 or 30 thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. << >> It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. <<
    - 10y ago
rufus_2 10y ago
Isn't this just low-level spinning? "Criminals are committing the crimes, so lets punish non-criminals for their behavior!" Thanks, but no thanks. I'll keep my 100% legal hobby and continue to exercise my right to protect myself and my family.
DefaultUserHN 10y ago
Sure, if we could ban all guns, like South Korea, it would work. No more guns. No more crimes committed by guns. The only problem with this solution is: It will never happen in America. The 2nd Amendment protects against this. And the 2nd Amendment WILL be exercise should the government try to ban the 2nd Amendment. Unlike the other Amendments that rely on the 2nd Amendment to protect them, the 2nd Amendment protects itself.
- serge2k 10y ago
  > And the 2nd Amendment WILL be exercise should the government try to ban the 2nd Amendment. That can only be done via constitutional amendment. such an amendment could only realistically pass if the people actually want it. In which case trying to use guns to stop the process would be criminal, and for good reason. Unless you are one of those people who thinks the government is gonna bring out the army to start collecting the guns by force. In which case you definitely fall into the category of people who I don't really want to have access to firearms.
  - DefaultUserHN 10y ago
    Well, you're taking things I said to the extreme. When talking about these stuff, remember, we have to use common sense. Obviously, if everyone agrees, the 2nd Amendment will be repeal legally. But the problem is, not everybody will agree, due to the nature of how America was founded, and due to the importance of arms to the American people, the culture, the history, etc., no Congress will be crazy enough to go against the people and repeal the 2nd Amendment. And should the government try to bypass the Constitution, then obviously, people will revolt. Of course, nobody wants that. But that's what will happen. Can the people win a in war against the government? No. But a government that kills its own citizens in order to disarm them will no longer be viewed as legitimate by the citizens.

by revicon 10y ago

splintercell 10y ago

America has a lot of guns, guns are ingrained in it's culture, and despite of having that many guns, it isn't a third world hell hole. Talking about gun bans in other countries is like trying to convince Australia to ban Kangaroos based on how it worked in America. The situation hasn't changed since the times of founding fathers. In Federalist Paper #46, James Madison was bragging about how because of American gun ownership, totalitarian governments can never take over America, like they can do in Europe. [Reformatted] >> Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. << >> Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.<< >> But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. << >> Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. << http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

serge2k 10y ago
Do you really think people in Australia are afraid of totalitarianism? Do you really guns are going to help, when the real threat is government overreach and the inaction of the populace? Keep electing "pro 2nd amendment" politicians who also happen to vote for the patriot act and support NSA spying.
- splintercell 10y ago
  > Do you really guns are going to help, when the real threat is government overreach and the inaction of the populace? Keep electing "pro 2nd amendment" politicians who also happen to vote for the patriot act and support NSA spying. < So your logic is, "because politicians have passed Patriot Act and govt spies through NSA, give up your gun rights"?? I see similar argument being made by other people, "there is no way you will be able to fight a totalitarian government with your guns", (even if it were true) the point is that we should give up our guns because we are already doomed? Isn't that even more reason to fight for gun rights? Quoting again from Federalist Papers #46, where James Madison responds to the argument similar to being made by you (you really should read it, because I am skipping a lot of meat): >>Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed 1/100th part of the whole number of souls; or one 1/25th part of the number able to bear arms.<< >> This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than 25 or 30 thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. << >> It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. <<
  - 10y ago

rufus_2 10y ago

Isn't this just low-level spinning? "Criminals are committing the crimes, so lets punish non-criminals for their behavior!" Thanks, but no thanks. I'll keep my 100% legal hobby and continue to exercise my right to protect myself and my family.

DefaultUserHN 10y ago

Sure, if we could ban all guns, like South Korea, it would work. No more guns. No more crimes committed by guns. The only problem with this solution is: It will never happen in America. The 2nd Amendment protects against this. And the 2nd Amendment WILL be exercise should the government try to ban the 2nd Amendment. Unlike the other Amendments that rely on the 2nd Amendment to protect them, the 2nd Amendment protects itself.

serge2k 10y ago
> And the 2nd Amendment WILL be exercise should the government try to ban the 2nd Amendment. That can only be done via constitutional amendment. such an amendment could only realistically pass if the people actually want it. In which case trying to use guns to stop the process would be criminal, and for good reason. Unless you are one of those people who thinks the government is gonna bring out the army to start collecting the guns by force. In which case you definitely fall into the category of people who I don't really want to have access to firearms.
- DefaultUserHN 10y ago
  Well, you're taking things I said to the extreme. When talking about these stuff, remember, we have to use common sense. Obviously, if everyone agrees, the 2nd Amendment will be repeal legally. But the problem is, not everybody will agree, due to the nature of how America was founded, and due to the importance of arms to the American people, the culture, the history, etc., no Congress will be crazy enough to go against the people and repeal the 2nd Amendment. And should the government try to bypass the Constitution, then obviously, people will revolt. Of course, nobody wants that. But that's what will happen. Can the people win a in war against the government? No. But a government that kills its own citizens in order to disarm them will no longer be viewed as legitimate by the citizens.