4 ms·

> There has probably been a slight increase in the rate of violent crime in the US in 2015, and I say probably because the FBI figures are still not out for tha

> There has probably been a slight increase in the rate of violent crime in the US in 2015, and I say probably because the FBI figures are still not out for that year. > But even then that wouldn’t even be as high as it was in 2012, just three years ago, and that itself is a huge decrease in the levels of '60s, '70, and '80s in the US, where violent crime has fallen by more than half. So there is probably an uptick for 2015 and 2016. But it’s just a wiggle in a curve that’s been going down, down, down. I'm not a member of the NRA and I don't own a gun. Personally, I'm ok with a ton of gun-control laws. All the gun-control laws you wanna pass, I'm ok with. Second amendment rights are not high on my personal priority list. But, still, I sometimes wonder why there is such a hard push for more gun-control laws every year given this decreasing level of domestic violence.

etendue 10y ago
> But, still, I sometimes wonder why there is such a hard push for more gun-control laws every year given this decreasing level of domestic violence. Another thing to ponder is why the focus on semiautomatic rifles, when 1, violent crime overwhelmingly uses handguns, and 2, the previous assault weapon ban was deemed ineffective by the DOJ. And what is the basis for proposing expanded background checks in response to, for example, the Orlando mass shooting when the shooter not only passed a background check, but had a security guard license (which itself has a more intensive background check).
- zghst 10y ago
  Same politicians accusing others using fear and ignorance seem to be using fear and ignorance vigorously
- bbradley406 10y ago
  While I dislike describing these things ("He's a gun nut! He'll kill us! People like him should be locked up!" are common reactions to simple facts) there are multiple reasons rifles are lumped in. - Any additional regulation sounds like progress to voters in favor of it. It can be nonsensical, unenforceable, make criminals out of previously law-abiding citizens (CA magazine size laws), be disregarded publicly by police departments, and they will still cheer for it. - They are mostly used for target practice, hunting, pest control, and some home defense. People who vote for gun control typically don't do these things. Questions of the form "Why do you need (X number of rounds | optics | calibers | forward grips)?" sound reasonable to them; if you have ever faced a bear / pack of coyotes / intruders it's pretty self explanatory. - They are the only real firearms that can present a significant threat to trained teams. Rifles can be aimed precisely, deliver a good sustained rate of fire, and punch through body armor, all from 500 yards. - With a good amount of practice and .308-.50 rounds, you can take down opposing vehicles and assets (power stations, fuel tanks, etc), and have enough distance between you and the target to exit the area safely. For those in favor of gun control (beyond what we have currently) on HN, let me ask: How well do you think you would fair in a large riot / national emergency / civil war armed with only a SAFE Act compliant handgun? These things do and will happen, maybe not in your lifetime, but certainly in the future. The laws we enact should not just be focused on making us feel safe. They should consider those that may have to justly defend themselves against a larger force.
astazangasta 10y ago
This is the Democrats' abortion: an issue they have total ideological lock from in their core constituencies that they will never have to deliver on but can always use to fundraise.
- mkaziz 10y ago
  Wow I never looked at abortion and gun control like that. What an interesting perspective!
- zghst 10y ago
  Republicans have been successful in implementing measures for their cause, whereas gun control just seems to be a back and forth issue that, I believe, is tipping in the Republican's favor
erikpukinskis 10y ago
> why there is such a hard push for more gun-control laws every year given this decreasing level of domestic violence. I'm embarrassed to cite a Batman film, but the off-touted speech the Joker gives sums it up quite well. People are generally not concerned about death and destruction. As long as it is predictable people won't fear it, even if it is statistically extremely likely to hurt them like cars or alcohol. What we fear is unpredictable violence. In order to sleep well, we don't need to be safe, we just need to know that we performed our safety ritual. Random violence casts our safety rituals into question, making it harder to sleep. So we need a secondary safety ritual: ruffled conversations with our peers about gun control and the like, and how awful our opposition is for bringing chaos into the world. Impractical aims like gun control are perfect because we can perpetually blame the failure on opposition, which makes our secondary safety ritual indestructible. “If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it’s all ‘part of the plan’. But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!”
zghst 10y ago
We differ, I revere the second amendment as much as I love civil rights, free speech, etc. Polarization these days leads to condescension and slander if you don't agree, it's a very easy/lazy political tactic to deploy in our everlasting outrage culture, which is why politicians get away with very, very emotional and inconclusive arguments
tn13 10y ago
I am a member of NRA and I originally come from India which has tighter gun control laws than colonial laws. (You need a license to own a low fps air gun, replica gun or a movie prop gun). The real issue with guns in USA I think is that the people totally ignore the secondary benefits of a well armed population. The best use of a gun is when it is not used at all. It is inconceivable in USA that a band of 10 people will simply raid a farmer's farm and steal all his produce while the farmer watches helplessly. (Nearest cop is 10 miles away). In India I have seen that happening. In India I have seen any random political movement with 2 goons as their head barge into a market and force a shutdown as merchants helplessly comply. All it needs in this case is someone getting shot dead as a deterrent. I think the general respect of individual freedoms and private property in USA has made it prosperous and that respect mostly comes from the fact that Americans will not hesitate to take matters in their own hand. While London might have Sharia courts running in their streets and various muslim populated beaches in India throw out tourist women if they are less modestly dressed but that wont happen in USA because there will always be one person in 100 with a shotgun in his hand. If Americans lose their guns they will continue to lose their other rights one by one.
- chongli 10y ago
  The real issue with guns in USA I think is that the people totally ignore the secondary benefits of a well armed population. The best use of a gun is when it is not used at all. It is inconceivable in USA that a band of 10 people will simply raid a farmer's farm and steal all his produce while the farmer watches helplessly. (Nearest cop is 10 miles away). In India I have seen that happening. I don't think this is a fair characterization. This sort of marauding does not happen in any Western country, despite most Western countries having tighter gun control than India. The USA being the exception does not inspire much confidence in the argument. You're right that India has a lot of problems. Arming the Indian populace is not a solution, though, unless you hope to see a civil war break out.
- lucb1e 10y ago
  > If Americans lose their guns they will continue to lose their other rights one by one. Well that escalated quickly. The rest of your post almost had me (a Dutchman) believe guns aren't actually that bad.

etendue 10y ago

> But, still, I sometimes wonder why there is such a hard push for more gun-control laws every year given this decreasing level of domestic violence. Another thing to ponder is why the focus on semiautomatic rifles, when 1, violent crime overwhelmingly uses handguns, and 2, the previous assault weapon ban was deemed ineffective by the DOJ. And what is the basis for proposing expanded background checks in response to, for example, the Orlando mass shooting when the shooter not only passed a background check, but had a security guard license (which itself has a more intensive background check).

zghst 10y ago
Same politicians accusing others using fear and ignorance seem to be using fear and ignorance vigorously
bbradley406 10y ago
While I dislike describing these things ("He's a gun nut! He'll kill us! People like him should be locked up!" are common reactions to simple facts) there are multiple reasons rifles are lumped in. - Any additional regulation sounds like progress to voters in favor of it. It can be nonsensical, unenforceable, make criminals out of previously law-abiding citizens (CA magazine size laws), be disregarded publicly by police departments, and they will still cheer for it. - They are mostly used for target practice, hunting, pest control, and some home defense. People who vote for gun control typically don't do these things. Questions of the form "Why do you need (X number of rounds | optics | calibers | forward grips)?" sound reasonable to them; if you have ever faced a bear / pack of coyotes / intruders it's pretty self explanatory. - They are the only real firearms that can present a significant threat to trained teams. Rifles can be aimed precisely, deliver a good sustained rate of fire, and punch through body armor, all from 500 yards. - With a good amount of practice and .308-.50 rounds, you can take down opposing vehicles and assets (power stations, fuel tanks, etc), and have enough distance between you and the target to exit the area safely. For those in favor of gun control (beyond what we have currently) on HN, let me ask: How well do you think you would fair in a large riot / national emergency / civil war armed with only a SAFE Act compliant handgun? These things do and will happen, maybe not in your lifetime, but certainly in the future. The laws we enact should not just be focused on making us feel safe. They should consider those that may have to justly defend themselves against a larger force.

astazangasta 10y ago

This is the Democrats' abortion: an issue they have total ideological lock from in their core constituencies that they will never have to deliver on but can always use to fundraise.

mkaziz 10y ago
Wow I never looked at abortion and gun control like that. What an interesting perspective!
zghst 10y ago
Republicans have been successful in implementing measures for their cause, whereas gun control just seems to be a back and forth issue that, I believe, is tipping in the Republican's favor

erikpukinskis 10y ago

> why there is such a hard push for more gun-control laws every year given this decreasing level of domestic violence. I'm embarrassed to cite a Batman film, but the off-touted speech the Joker gives sums it up quite well. People are generally not concerned about death and destruction. As long as it is predictable people won't fear it, even if it is statistically extremely likely to hurt them like cars or alcohol. What we fear is unpredictable violence. In order to sleep well, we don't need to be safe, we just need to know that we performed our safety ritual. Random violence casts our safety rituals into question, making it harder to sleep. So we need a secondary safety ritual: ruffled conversations with our peers about gun control and the like, and how awful our opposition is for bringing chaos into the world. Impractical aims like gun control are perfect because we can perpetually blame the failure on opposition, which makes our secondary safety ritual indestructible. “If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it’s all ‘part of the plan’. But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!”

zghst 10y ago

We differ, I revere the second amendment as much as I love civil rights, free speech, etc. Polarization these days leads to condescension and slander if you don't agree, it's a very easy/lazy political tactic to deploy in our everlasting outrage culture, which is why politicians get away with very, very emotional and inconclusive arguments

tn13 10y ago

I am a member of NRA and I originally come from India which has tighter gun control laws than colonial laws. (You need a license to own a low fps air gun, replica gun or a movie prop gun). The real issue with guns in USA I think is that the people totally ignore the secondary benefits of a well armed population. The best use of a gun is when it is not used at all. It is inconceivable in USA that a band of 10 people will simply raid a farmer's farm and steal all his produce while the farmer watches helplessly. (Nearest cop is 10 miles away). In India I have seen that happening. In India I have seen any random political movement with 2 goons as their head barge into a market and force a shutdown as merchants helplessly comply. All it needs in this case is someone getting shot dead as a deterrent. I think the general respect of individual freedoms and private property in USA has made it prosperous and that respect mostly comes from the fact that Americans will not hesitate to take matters in their own hand. While London might have Sharia courts running in their streets and various muslim populated beaches in India throw out tourist women if they are less modestly dressed but that wont happen in USA because there will always be one person in 100 with a shotgun in his hand. If Americans lose their guns they will continue to lose their other rights one by one.

chongli 10y ago
The real issue with guns in USA I think is that the people totally ignore the secondary benefits of a well armed population. The best use of a gun is when it is not used at all. It is inconceivable in USA that a band of 10 people will simply raid a farmer's farm and steal all his produce while the farmer watches helplessly. (Nearest cop is 10 miles away). In India I have seen that happening. I don't think this is a fair characterization. This sort of marauding does not happen in any Western country, despite most Western countries having tighter gun control than India. The USA being the exception does not inspire much confidence in the argument. You're right that India has a lot of problems. Arming the Indian populace is not a solution, though, unless you hope to see a civil war break out.
lucb1e 10y ago
> If Americans lose their guns they will continue to lose their other rights one by one. Well that escalated quickly. The rest of your post almost had me (a Dutchman) believe guns aren't actually that bad.