4 ms·

(I hope you don't mind me quoting parts of your comment—it helps me categorize stuff.) > You say 60k deaths from guns is bad Well, 30k. And I'm not saying the

(I hope you don't mind me quoting parts of your comment—it helps me categorize stuff.) > You say 60k deaths from guns is bad Well, 30k. And I'm not saying the 4 deaths are okay, I'm saying it's not an epidemic and, statistically, schools are safe. But, I'm still not sure how that part of your comment logically proves much. > As a counter example I will posit that gun owners have failed to put forth any meaningful policy changes...pushing for less control. I'd suggest that gun owners have always had to play catch-up. For example, consider the '94 AWB. It was rammed through as a halfway, last-minute measure that pitted gun owners against each other and has left a bad taste in many of their mouths. The general feeling is if they give an inch, "the other side" will take a mile. It's evident if you compare and contrast the positions groups like GOA and NRA take on bills. I'd also posit that defense of one's self _from_ the state is an underlying reason for the 2nd amendment. Considering the massive (over 350 million) number of firearms in the US and entrenched gun culture, I'm of the opinion the amendment is fine in that respect. > I think most reasonable people will agree that things like hunting can be treated separately from other uses of firearms by civilians. As it should. I think where we disagree is on the type and scope of difference. > But gun control debate often gets lost in nuance. Who cares about bump stocks when you can buy the AR-15...[or] buy a 22 and blow your brains out in the parking lot? Granted, an AR-15 is not necessarily more dangerous than "any old rifle." It's simply a platform that encompasses different calibers, gas systems, etc. But, good gun control could help stymie sales to prohibited persons. Is it any better, though, if instead of purchasing a $200 pawn shop gun the person hangs himself? When I had a family member dealing with that issue we were told that, essentially, those who _want_ to commit suicide _will_. Have we achieved much if we've simply caused those people to change methods? Anyway, as an aside, I appreciate the dialogue. It's not too often this topic can be discussed without name calling and such or without degrading into "muh rights" versus "think of the children."

IgorPartola 9y ago
On my side of the aisle, the feeling is that gun rights groups take a mile with every opportunity they get. While some states, like Connecticut, have enacted slightly stricter gun control measure, federal laws have been more and more relaxed as the likes of NRA lobby and bully congress. Again, I don’t believe gun owners and especially organizations that represent them have done anything to make me safer in this country. All they managed to accomplish is to stoke the fire around gun ownership to the tune of rising profits for gun manufacturers. Because of that I support the idea that they aren’t responsible actors and should not be a major voice in the debate. Basically self regulation didn’t work. Again, if we are talking about gun experts, Wayne LaPierre ain’t one. As far as the second amendment, yes there are a lot of guns in this country. But, I still posit that it failed: 1. We don’t have a well regulated militia. We have a bunch of individuals, often times with poor training. 2. The individual gun owners are not doing anything to keep the State free. There have been no instances where there was even an attempt to form the well regulated militia it talks about. 3. Even if a major threat to the State showed up, within or without, in a modern world hand guns and semi automatic rifles would not stand up to modern military tech. That fight is over before it starts. Notice that the second amendment does not talk at all about personal safety, hunting, or anything like that. It basically says that for the purposes of having a civil defense force, individuals can own guns. So in my view it doesn’t even apply to most cases of gun ownership. As for suicide stuff, I am not sure if you are familiar with some of the stats around it, but basically women are more likely to attempt suicide but men have a higher rate of success. The difference is that men tend to use more lethal methods, often times hand guns. In HN terms, guns reduce friction. Of course if someone is determined to commit suicide, they will. But the other thing is that most people are not. They will go through the steps but also look for an off ramp as they do. And the longer the steps, the more chance they have to change their mind. Suicide is a very complex issue with a large number of underlying causes, but I would argue that not having access to a firearm will in some cases give the person extra time to think before they go through with it. Lastly, as for mass shootings, I would say that schools were safer in 2017 vs 2016, etc. but they aren’t at an acceptable level of safety in absolute terms. As a citizen I want my schools safer than this. Also, check this out http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117259 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal..... I also appreciate the dialogue. If only this had any real world effect :)
- barsonme 9y ago
  > federal laws have been more and more relaxed as the likes of NRA lobby and bully congress. How so? Also, keep in mind the _entire_ gun lobby spends less than Microsoft does each year. It's pitifully small compared to many other lobbying groups. > Again, if we are talking about gun experts, Wayne LaPierre ain’t one. Yeah. Although I don't recall bringing him up. :-) > 1, 2, and 3 1. Sure, perhaps not "well-regulated" (whatever that means), but see #2 2. They are, because see #3 3. Not really. Consider the case of the middle east: two super powers—Russia in the late 70s/80s and the US ever since—haven't been able to "win" their wars in that area for the last 40 or so years. Why? Because ultimately you still need boots on the ground physically controlling the area. Sure, we could use our military prowess to turn the entire thing into a sea of glass, there's _zero_ benefit to that. Which is why we've lost over 4,000 soldiers instead of just bombing the place and calling it good. Now consider if the US government turned on its citizens or if the US were attacked by another state. You'd end up with the same thing as the middle east, except for the US has many more firearms and, in case #1, the US government would be fractured: plenty of soldiers and police would not want to take the government's side. That's what plenty of people think about wrt "militia." > Notice that the second amendment does not talk at all about personal safety...my view it doesn’t even apply to most cases of gun ownership. This is part of the long debate about the 2nd amendment. You can reach different conclusions depending on how you interpret it. When it was written, firearm ownership was simply an assumed right. People owned guns and could protect themselves with them. Depending on how you parse the 2nd amendment's text you can reach different conclusions. That one comma could make a world of difference (historical details about gun ownership notwithstanding). > but I would argue that not having access to a firearm will in some cases give the person extra time to think before they go through with it. And so it seems the question is then: are there better ways that don't trample gun rights, and if not, is losing the gun rights worth the extra time it buys some individuals? (As an aside, I'm not incredibly familiar with suicide, I just know what I was told by doctors when I had a close family member "go through" it, for lack of a better term.) > As a citizen I want my schools safer than this. I do too, but at 4 per 50 million (1 per 12.5 million) I'd consider it safer for my kids to attend school than, say, swim in pools or drive a car—both of which are considered routine and "safe" events. Interesting link! I've always wondered what would happen to the rates of mass killings and such (the "high profile" incidents) if we'd focus on it less. It seems the 24/7 news stories only seem to inflame tensions and normalize it, increasing the propensity of it happening again and spreading fear of what is an otherwise rare occurrence (see: right-wing folk and terrorist attacks). > If only this had any real world effect :) We can dream, huh?

IgorPartola 9y ago

On my side of the aisle, the feeling is that gun rights groups take a mile with every opportunity they get. While some states, like Connecticut, have enacted slightly stricter gun control measure, federal laws have been more and more relaxed as the likes of NRA lobby and bully congress. Again, I don’t believe gun owners and especially organizations that represent them have done anything to make me safer in this country. All they managed to accomplish is to stoke the fire around gun ownership to the tune of rising profits for gun manufacturers. Because of that I support the idea that they aren’t responsible actors and should not be a major voice in the debate. Basically self regulation didn’t work. Again, if we are talking about gun experts, Wayne LaPierre ain’t one. As far as the second amendment, yes there are a lot of guns in this country. But, I still posit that it failed: 1. We don’t have a well regulated militia. We have a bunch of individuals, often times with poor training. 2. The individual gun owners are not doing anything to keep the State free. There have been no instances where there was even an attempt to form the well regulated militia it talks about. 3. Even if a major threat to the State showed up, within or without, in a modern world hand guns and semi automatic rifles would not stand up to modern military tech. That fight is over before it starts. Notice that the second amendment does not talk at all about personal safety, hunting, or anything like that. It basically says that for the purposes of having a civil defense force, individuals can own guns. So in my view it doesn’t even apply to most cases of gun ownership. As for suicide stuff, I am not sure if you are familiar with some of the stats around it, but basically women are more likely to attempt suicide but men have a higher rate of success. The difference is that men tend to use more lethal methods, often times hand guns. In HN terms, guns reduce friction. Of course if someone is determined to commit suicide, they will. But the other thing is that most people are not. They will go through the steps but also look for an off ramp as they do. And the longer the steps, the more chance they have to change their mind. Suicide is a very complex issue with a large number of underlying causes, but I would argue that not having access to a firearm will in some cases give the person extra time to think before they go through with it. Lastly, as for mass shootings, I would say that schools were safer in 2017 vs 2016, etc. but they aren’t at an acceptable level of safety in absolute terms. As a citizen I want my schools safer than this. Also, check this out http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117259 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal..... I also appreciate the dialogue. If only this had any real world effect :)

barsonme 9y ago
> federal laws have been more and more relaxed as the likes of NRA lobby and bully congress. How so? Also, keep in mind the _entire_ gun lobby spends less than Microsoft does each year. It's pitifully small compared to many other lobbying groups. > Again, if we are talking about gun experts, Wayne LaPierre ain’t one. Yeah. Although I don't recall bringing him up. :-) > 1, 2, and 3 1. Sure, perhaps not "well-regulated" (whatever that means), but see #2 2. They are, because see #3 3. Not really. Consider the case of the middle east: two super powers—Russia in the late 70s/80s and the US ever since—haven't been able to "win" their wars in that area for the last 40 or so years. Why? Because ultimately you still need boots on the ground physically controlling the area. Sure, we could use our military prowess to turn the entire thing into a sea of glass, there's _zero_ benefit to that. Which is why we've lost over 4,000 soldiers instead of just bombing the place and calling it good. Now consider if the US government turned on its citizens or if the US were attacked by another state. You'd end up with the same thing as the middle east, except for the US has many more firearms and, in case #1, the US government would be fractured: plenty of soldiers and police would not want to take the government's side. That's what plenty of people think about wrt "militia." > Notice that the second amendment does not talk at all about personal safety...my view it doesn’t even apply to most cases of gun ownership. This is part of the long debate about the 2nd amendment. You can reach different conclusions depending on how you interpret it. When it was written, firearm ownership was simply an assumed right. People owned guns and could protect themselves with them. Depending on how you parse the 2nd amendment's text you can reach different conclusions. That one comma could make a world of difference (historical details about gun ownership notwithstanding). > but I would argue that not having access to a firearm will in some cases give the person extra time to think before they go through with it. And so it seems the question is then: are there better ways that don't trample gun rights, and if not, is losing the gun rights worth the extra time it buys some individuals? (As an aside, I'm not incredibly familiar with suicide, I just know what I was told by doctors when I had a close family member "go through" it, for lack of a better term.) > As a citizen I want my schools safer than this. I do too, but at 4 per 50 million (1 per 12.5 million) I'd consider it safer for my kids to attend school than, say, swim in pools or drive a car—both of which are considered routine and "safe" events. Interesting link! I've always wondered what would happen to the rates of mass killings and such (the "high profile" incidents) if we'd focus on it less. It seems the 24/7 news stories only seem to inflame tensions and normalize it, increasing the propensity of it happening again and spreading fear of what is an otherwise rare occurrence (see: right-wing folk and terrorist attacks). > If only this had any real world effect :) We can dream, huh?