5 ms·

>1. KitchenAid (or Wusthof, if you are well off) 2. Ford (or Ferrari, if you are well off) There's a difference between "it's possible to kill a person with th

>1. KitchenAid (or Wusthof, if you are well off) 2. Ford (or Ferrari, if you are well off) There's a difference between "it's possible to kill a person with this" and "this is designed to be good at killing people". It's much easier to kill a person with a gun than a KitchenAid mixer. Also, most US states make one pass a test to prove that one is capable of operating an automobile to some minimum standard of "not killing people". > In gang infested areas, one could go through an event during evening grocery shopping run that would make that person buy a gun. Things people who have actually lived in "gang infested areas" know: The union of "gang infested area" and "grocery shopping opportunities are available" is approximately zero (c.f. food deserts).

AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
>"this is designed to be good at killing people" You are trivializing it. If you talk to a specialist they can tell you all about stopping powers of various calibers and round capacity of a gun. And, yes, it is designed to be good at killing people and I am glad for it. I don't want to threaten an aggressor with a dull letter opener, hardly qualify as a deadly force. When it is used, it better serve the purpose, lives depend on it. I firmly believe there are more good people than bad in this world. I would rather have my fellow human being, my neighbor, armed and able to help, than wait for cops to arrive. I think prolific gun ownership can be an answer to honking and road rage. :-) >Things people who have actually lived in "gang infested areas" know: The union of "gang infested area" and "grocery shopping opportunities are available" is approximately zero (c.f. food deserts). You may chose to not arm yourself, perfectly fine by me. When you say others shouldn't be armed either, that is when you are bigger enemy than the criminals. Do you even believe that people have right to defend themselves, or should they let the crime unfold and then let the law take its due course?
- Thrymr 10y ago
  > I think prolific gun ownership can be an answer to honking and road rage. :-) You think that escalating a frustrating but not dangerous situation with deadly force is an "answer"?
  - AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
    It escalates because people think that it is safe to escalate. If one makes a threatening move that has full possibility of being responded with serious force, people will not be so fast to escalate. May be we will come up with an app for the "connected", electric vehicles where some permissible form of digital flipping can be conveyed to the drivers around you.
    - tasty_freeze 10y ago
      There is a flip side to this. If someone is a complete asshole to me, I should feel comfortable to express my displeasure with their behavior. That isn't escalating, that is communicating. But if I have to fear that the other person has a gun, it silences my legitimate right to communicate.
  - s73ver 10y ago
    That's why I can't take any gun rights advocate seriously.
    - AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
      I am serious enough to give that situation a thought. Check my other answer if you care... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14256900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14256900
- jaredklewis 10y ago
  > Do you even believe that people have right to defend themselves, or should they let the crime unfold and then let the law take its due course? I don't think it is simple as that. To be sure, guns might provide positive outcomes in some situations. But does that benefit outweigh their downsides. Downsides like deaths caused by accidents with firearms. Downsides like mass shootings that would be difficult to accommolish without easy access to firearms. As for the benefits, how often do firearms prevent homicide? It's a hard thing to measure. I'm skeptical they prevent much at all. For one thing the type of "gang" style homicide you are imaging is not a very common variety. In 2011, the FBI only identified 11.7 percent of homicides as being carried out by a stranger to the victim. Just by the numbers, getting killed by your spouse or coworker is more likely. I imagine the protective benefit of firearms is far less in these situations. Another point is that even carrying a firearm isn't protection against an unexpected attack.
  - AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
    >Downsides like mass shootings that would be difficult to accomplish without easy access to firearms. They were easy to accomplish because they targeted places that they knew for sure where the people would be unarmed, our laws ensured it. An attempt against local gun club or police station is not going to succeed, is it? People who want commit crimes don't care if the guns they use were acquired legally. They can acquire a gun from black market. And just like with drugs, making it illegal ensures that there would be a thriving black market. We made those events possible by making gun-free zones. I hope we collectively would come to senses and trust our fellow human being, instead of treating everyone as psychopathic criminal. >Downsides like deaths caused by accidents with firearms. Less than 600 deaths in 2013. but 16,000 deaths related to Ibuprofen. You may say one accident is too many. I would say one person stopped by us collectively from protecting themselves against an aggressor is one too many. You are thinking about group. I care about individual. And Gun Access must be looked at through individual rights lens. > Another point is that even carrying a firearm isn't protection against an unexpected attack. I am not asking for complete guarantee of safety against attack. BTW, do you think cops can provide that? I am asking for opportunity to defend myself without being preemptively disarmed, that's all. People launch startups knowing that most will fail. They appreciate the opportunity to try. Gun Access is an opportunity to try, if you want to take it, no one is forcing it on you, just like no one is forcing everyone to launch a startup. One may feel secure in capabilities of police to keep them safe. One may feel secure in corporate job instead of a startup. But, one must have an option to start a startup if one so desires. One must have an option to defend oneself with guns, if one so desires.
- nugator 10y ago
  God, I am so happy that I don't live in the US. Citizens having guns does not increase the security in your society. When will you understand that your high rate of people getting killed by guns, compared to other western countries, is caused by your way of thinking that more guns is the solution to all problems?
  - AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
    > God, I am so happy that I don't live in the US. Whatever floats your boat. Enjoy. > Citizens having guns does not increase the security in your society. It is not a mechanism to address a communal goal of increased security of our society. It is a recognition of individual right to defend themselves. >your way of thinking that more guns is the solution to all problems Solution to all problems? We do understand that it is not a solution to all problems, already.
    - InitialLastName 10y ago
      > It is a recognition of individual right to defend themselves. It's a recognition of the individual right to feel defended. Statistics (and the results of every other developed country in the world) suggest that feeling is wrong.
      - AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
        It's binary, not statistics. Would you grant that there has been at least one case where gun was used successfully to defend oneself? If so, then for that person, that option was worthwhile and exercised successfully. All statistics be damned. And I for one, doesn't want to revert the outcome of that event because of statistics. It is highly individual decision to exercise an option available to them. Success or failure of that option has nothing to do with it, hence statistics of outcome of the event doesn't have a bearing on the option being available. Should I not have right to give $20 to a homeless person? Statistics may say it would most likely get used for drugs. Does that mean society should outlaw donating money to homeless persons? You may publish stats and provide alternative means to help homeless, but individual decisions to donate to homeless can't be outlawed, can it be? http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ What may be moral as group goal as seen by outsider bystander, may be immoral when seen from individual perspective. People are not statistical samples, people are individuals. I associate myself with individual first, before group. I prefer individual safety first, I value it more than some perceived group benefit.
bblough 10y ago
>Also, most US states make one pass a test to prove that one is capable of operating an automobile to some minimum standard of "not killing people". I think that's generally only for operation on public roads. I'm pretty sure that you can go buy a car, have it transported to your private property via trailer, and then drive it around your property all you want without a license. Also, see https://www.quora.com/Can-you-buy-a-car-without-a-drivers-license-If-so-how?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Can-you-buy-a-car-without-a-drivers-li...
- AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
  Or you steal a car. I can't fathom this fascination with law-abiding criminals.
AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
> It's much easier to kill a person with a gun than a KitchenAid mixer. KitchenAid makes knives as well. > Also, most US states make one pass a test to prove that one is capable of operating an automobile to some minimum standard of "not killing people". How many car thefts are there per year? What makes you think that that process you describe for a test to prove one is capable of operating an automobile ensures that car won't be used as a weapon? If anything, it ensures that person with such intentions is properly trained at using the car up to the point of using it as a weapon. Even if those test do somehow check for "minimum standard of not killing people", Why do you think someone who just wants a car to be used as a weapon would put herself through those tests instead of stealing one? You must grant that stopping people from committing crimes is an unsolved hard problem. It's OK to work on that problem, what's not OK is to act as if it is a solved problem. Till the problem is solved, we must allow people to have an option to defend themselves with guns if they are so inclined.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Why can't we make statistical decisions about tools based on the sort of capabilities that they provide and the trade offs that come with those capabilities?
  - AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
    Because communal goals can't trump individual freedoms. Communal goals must maintain freedoms that our battle tested constitutional rights guarantee. I am fine with such analysis. But, we must keep above guidelines in mind when looking at pros/cons that the analysis reveals. You may say 500 accidental deaths are not too many and we should take away rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States Each homicide is where the victim could have availed the option of defending self with guns. Whether such attempt to defend was successful or not, doesn't matter. What matters is that we as society didn't stop that person from having that option. 4.9 homicides per 100k people, that's 16,170 opportunities where a person could have used that option but failed. Then there are incidents where threat of gun stops a homicide. Is 500 accidents are OK as a cost? First of all, I don't agree that gun accidents are a cost that we are paying for having gun rights, there could be knife accidents or bow/arrow accidents if guns are banned. I look at it differently, imagine if you can go to each of those homicides as it is in progress, hit stop button on the time machine and tell the victim that please realize that you use to have an option to defend yourself in this situation with a gun, but we intentionally took it away because few other people were careless in their use of guns. Do you find it ethical to do that? I don't. And therein lies my stand on this. Play it little differently, imagine each successful use of gun to defend oneself or their loved ones. Using time machine, do you feel comfortable going back to each such incident, take the gun away from the victim and ask them to use the phone instead. If you go back enough in time, then there wouldn't be phone, you would have to ask them to fight with frying pan. Can you do that? If not, how is the situation different today? How can we ask someone to not defend themselves and face a more powerful adversary with bare hands? Are you ok with people dying or being raped or looted where they had used guns successfully to avoid those outcomes? If you are ok with it then how are you not the enemy of those people?

AmIFirstToThink 10y ago

>"this is designed to be good at killing people" You are trivializing it. If you talk to a specialist they can tell you all about stopping powers of various calibers and round capacity of a gun. And, yes, it is designed to be good at killing people and I am glad for it. I don't want to threaten an aggressor with a dull letter opener, hardly qualify as a deadly force. When it is used, it better serve the purpose, lives depend on it. I firmly believe there are more good people than bad in this world. I would rather have my fellow human being, my neighbor, armed and able to help, than wait for cops to arrive. I think prolific gun ownership can be an answer to honking and road rage. :-) >Things people who have actually lived in "gang infested areas" know: The union of "gang infested area" and "grocery shopping opportunities are available" is approximately zero (c.f. food deserts). You may chose to not arm yourself, perfectly fine by me. When you say others shouldn't be armed either, that is when you are bigger enemy than the criminals. Do you even believe that people have right to defend themselves, or should they let the crime unfold and then let the law take its due course?

Thrymr 10y ago
> I think prolific gun ownership can be an answer to honking and road rage. :-) You think that escalating a frustrating but not dangerous situation with deadly force is an "answer"?
- AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
  It escalates because people think that it is safe to escalate. If one makes a threatening move that has full possibility of being responded with serious force, people will not be so fast to escalate. May be we will come up with an app for the "connected", electric vehicles where some permissible form of digital flipping can be conveyed to the drivers around you.
  - tasty_freeze 10y ago
    There is a flip side to this. If someone is a complete asshole to me, I should feel comfortable to express my displeasure with their behavior. That isn't escalating, that is communicating. But if I have to fear that the other person has a gun, it silences my legitimate right to communicate.
- s73ver 10y ago
  That's why I can't take any gun rights advocate seriously.
  - AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
    I am serious enough to give that situation a thought. Check my other answer if you care... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14256900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14256900
jaredklewis 10y ago
> Do you even believe that people have right to defend themselves, or should they let the crime unfold and then let the law take its due course? I don't think it is simple as that. To be sure, guns might provide positive outcomes in some situations. But does that benefit outweigh their downsides. Downsides like deaths caused by accidents with firearms. Downsides like mass shootings that would be difficult to accommolish without easy access to firearms. As for the benefits, how often do firearms prevent homicide? It's a hard thing to measure. I'm skeptical they prevent much at all. For one thing the type of "gang" style homicide you are imaging is not a very common variety. In 2011, the FBI only identified 11.7 percent of homicides as being carried out by a stranger to the victim. Just by the numbers, getting killed by your spouse or coworker is more likely. I imagine the protective benefit of firearms is far less in these situations. Another point is that even carrying a firearm isn't protection against an unexpected attack.
- AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
  >Downsides like mass shootings that would be difficult to accomplish without easy access to firearms. They were easy to accomplish because they targeted places that they knew for sure where the people would be unarmed, our laws ensured it. An attempt against local gun club or police station is not going to succeed, is it? People who want commit crimes don't care if the guns they use were acquired legally. They can acquire a gun from black market. And just like with drugs, making it illegal ensures that there would be a thriving black market. We made those events possible by making gun-free zones. I hope we collectively would come to senses and trust our fellow human being, instead of treating everyone as psychopathic criminal. >Downsides like deaths caused by accidents with firearms. Less than 600 deaths in 2013. but 16,000 deaths related to Ibuprofen. You may say one accident is too many. I would say one person stopped by us collectively from protecting themselves against an aggressor is one too many. You are thinking about group. I care about individual. And Gun Access must be looked at through individual rights lens. > Another point is that even carrying a firearm isn't protection against an unexpected attack. I am not asking for complete guarantee of safety against attack. BTW, do you think cops can provide that? I am asking for opportunity to defend myself without being preemptively disarmed, that's all. People launch startups knowing that most will fail. They appreciate the opportunity to try. Gun Access is an opportunity to try, if you want to take it, no one is forcing it on you, just like no one is forcing everyone to launch a startup. One may feel secure in capabilities of police to keep them safe. One may feel secure in corporate job instead of a startup. But, one must have an option to start a startup if one so desires. One must have an option to defend oneself with guns, if one so desires.
nugator 10y ago
God, I am so happy that I don't live in the US. Citizens having guns does not increase the security in your society. When will you understand that your high rate of people getting killed by guns, compared to other western countries, is caused by your way of thinking that more guns is the solution to all problems?
- AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
  > God, I am so happy that I don't live in the US. Whatever floats your boat. Enjoy. > Citizens having guns does not increase the security in your society. It is not a mechanism to address a communal goal of increased security of our society. It is a recognition of individual right to defend themselves. >your way of thinking that more guns is the solution to all problems Solution to all problems? We do understand that it is not a solution to all problems, already.
  - InitialLastName 10y ago
    > It is a recognition of individual right to defend themselves. It's a recognition of the individual right to feel defended. Statistics (and the results of every other developed country in the world) suggest that feeling is wrong.
    - AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
      It's binary, not statistics. Would you grant that there has been at least one case where gun was used successfully to defend oneself? If so, then for that person, that option was worthwhile and exercised successfully. All statistics be damned. And I for one, doesn't want to revert the outcome of that event because of statistics. It is highly individual decision to exercise an option available to them. Success or failure of that option has nothing to do with it, hence statistics of outcome of the event doesn't have a bearing on the option being available. Should I not have right to give $20 to a homeless person? Statistics may say it would most likely get used for drugs. Does that mean society should outlaw donating money to homeless persons? You may publish stats and provide alternative means to help homeless, but individual decisions to donate to homeless can't be outlawed, can it be? http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ What may be moral as group goal as seen by outsider bystander, may be immoral when seen from individual perspective. People are not statistical samples, people are individuals. I associate myself with individual first, before group. I prefer individual safety first, I value it more than some perceived group benefit.

bblough 10y ago

>Also, most US states make one pass a test to prove that one is capable of operating an automobile to some minimum standard of "not killing people". I think that's generally only for operation on public roads. I'm pretty sure that you can go buy a car, have it transported to your private property via trailer, and then drive it around your property all you want without a license. Also, see https://www.quora.com/Can-you-buy-a-car-without-a-drivers-license-If-so-how?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Can-you-buy-a-car-without-a-drivers-li...

AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
Or you steal a car. I can't fathom this fascination with law-abiding criminals.

AmIFirstToThink 10y ago

> It's much easier to kill a person with a gun than a KitchenAid mixer. KitchenAid makes knives as well. > Also, most US states make one pass a test to prove that one is capable of operating an automobile to some minimum standard of "not killing people". How many car thefts are there per year? What makes you think that that process you describe for a test to prove one is capable of operating an automobile ensures that car won't be used as a weapon? If anything, it ensures that person with such intentions is properly trained at using the car up to the point of using it as a weapon. Even if those test do somehow check for "minimum standard of not killing people", Why do you think someone who just wants a car to be used as a weapon would put herself through those tests instead of stealing one? You must grant that stopping people from committing crimes is an unsolved hard problem. It's OK to work on that problem, what's not OK is to act as if it is a solved problem. Till the problem is solved, we must allow people to have an option to defend themselves with guns if they are so inclined.

maxerickson 10y ago
Why can't we make statistical decisions about tools based on the sort of capabilities that they provide and the trade offs that come with those capabilities?
- AmIFirstToThink 10y ago
  Because communal goals can't trump individual freedoms. Communal goals must maintain freedoms that our battle tested constitutional rights guarantee. I am fine with such analysis. But, we must keep above guidelines in mind when looking at pros/cons that the analysis reveals. You may say 500 accidental deaths are not too many and we should take away rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States Each homicide is where the victim could have availed the option of defending self with guns. Whether such attempt to defend was successful or not, doesn't matter. What matters is that we as society didn't stop that person from having that option. 4.9 homicides per 100k people, that's 16,170 opportunities where a person could have used that option but failed. Then there are incidents where threat of gun stops a homicide. Is 500 accidents are OK as a cost? First of all, I don't agree that gun accidents are a cost that we are paying for having gun rights, there could be knife accidents or bow/arrow accidents if guns are banned. I look at it differently, imagine if you can go to each of those homicides as it is in progress, hit stop button on the time machine and tell the victim that please realize that you use to have an option to defend yourself in this situation with a gun, but we intentionally took it away because few other people were careless in their use of guns. Do you find it ethical to do that? I don't. And therein lies my stand on this. Play it little differently, imagine each successful use of gun to defend oneself or their loved ones. Using time machine, do you feel comfortable going back to each such incident, take the gun away from the victim and ask them to use the phone instead. If you go back enough in time, then there wouldn't be phone, you would have to ask them to fight with frying pan. Can you do that? If not, how is the situation different today? How can we ask someone to not defend themselves and face a more powerful adversary with bare hands? Are you ok with people dying or being raped or looted where they had used guns successfully to avoid those outcomes? If you are ok with it then how are you not the enemy of those people?