6 ms·

But are guns illegal, though? From what I can gather [1], they're not. Some semi-automatic firearms, considered as assault weapons, are illegal in Chicago. [1

But are guns illegal, though? From what I can gather [1], they're not. Some semi-automatic firearms, considered as assault weapons, are illegal in Chicago. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois

towndrunk 8y ago
So are you saying the Gangs will follow the laws?
- netgusto 8y ago
  Not spontaneously, no. But law enforcement are more likely to be able to make them follow the law if there's actually a law to be followed.
- abrahamepton 8y ago
  The argument for gun control has never been that criminals will just obey the gun control laws. The point is, and has always been, and will always be, to reduce the number of guns available. Fewer guns === fewer shootings. Axiomatic. Of course, it's substantially easier said than done. But the mechanism by which gun control reduces gun crimes really doesn't require any criminal to spontaneously follow the law for some reason. It's a public-health measure, like vaccinating kids.
  - jeffdavis 8y ago
    "Fewer guns === fewer shootings. Axiomatic." That's not an axiom. Left as an exercise: find a subset of guns such that, if they were destroyed, is likely to increase the number of shootings.
    - abrahamepton 8y ago
      Yes, I would argue it is in fact an axiom: a statement that is regarded as being established or self-evidently true. Since basically all of the evidence we have available to us suggests that fewer guns lead to fewer shootings, and more guns lead to more shootings; since the only real objections to that logic are rather contrived "find the subset of guns such that removing them leads to more shootings" logical toys with little if any foundation in the real world; and since it's, I mean, just clearly correct - I'm curious why you think such a proposition is not obviously true. Clearly there is a debate about the effectiveness of gun control in America, the one country on the planet that has yet to make up its mind about this. However, I would suggest that such a debate is not being carried out in good faith.
      - 21 8y ago
        > more guns lead to more shootings If only it was so simple: > Switzerland hasn't had a mass shooting since 2001, when a man stormed the local parliament in Zug, killing 14 people and then himself. > The country has about 2 million privately owned guns in a nation of 8.3 million people. In 2016, the country had 47 homicides with firearms. The country's overall murder rate is near zero. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/switzerland-high-rates-gun-ownership-why-doesnt-no-mass-shootings-a8230606.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/switzerlan...
        abrahamepton 8y ago
        Oh hey look: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an... So: Switzerland vs "the United States and across high-income countries"; Switzerland vs "data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s"; Switzerland vs "across 50 states over a ten-year period (1988-1997)"; Switzerland vs "across states, 2001-2003"; Switzerland vs "In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states." So. It is pretty simple: Switzerland, as in basically every other aspect of its existence, is an outlier. Social science is not the same thing as mathematical theory, I grant you, and so what is axiomatic in the world is not necessarily as tidy as what is axiomatic in the middle of proving a theorem. Nevertheless: the evidence is clear that more guns lead to more shootings. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear on this common-sense point, and there's no particularly compelling counterexample since, again, Switzerland is quite unlike the United States in many ways. So: it is an axiom that more guns lead to more shootings. Except, perhaps, for the Swiss.
      - jeffdavis 8y ago
        Calling something an axiom (when it's not) dismisses any nuance and leads to bad policies, even if it's "mostly true". "More cars === more global warming" is mostly true, but might lead to really bad policies if taken too strictly. For instance, someone might make new cars illegal, which would prevent us from taking advantage of more efficient or more electric cars thta actually help the situation.
    - CompanionCuuube 8y ago
      { x is all firearms in the custody of law enforcement } Done in one.
  - benjohnson 8y ago
    >>Fewer guns === fewer shootings. Axiomatic. No way is that axiomatic: What room would you rather be in: 100 people in a room, each with a gun. One person is Hitler. 100 people in a room, only one person has a gun and it's Hitler. What your theory is missing is that often the intent of the person with a gun matters much more than the gun itself.
    - abrahamepton 8y ago
      Oh my god. This is so dumb that I'm almost compelled to frame it and put it on a wall. Let me know when you decide to join us in the real world, with real problems, where the statement "fewer guns === fewer shootings" is in fact axiomatic. I am confident that it is, if for no other reason than the way you choose to "disprove" it is by asking me to imagine a room with 100 people and Hitler in it. Like, if that's the best you got...it's a fucking axiom, my dude. Be better.
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        > Let me know when you decide to join us in the real world, with real problems, where the statement "fewer guns === fewer shootings" is in fact axiomatic. That may not be the real world. In fact, all you've supplied so far is your repeated assertion that it is. Maybe you should be better - like, supply something that looks like evidence rather than just assertion. > I am confident that it is, if for no other reason than the way you choose to "disprove" it is by asking me to imagine a room with 100 people and Hitler in it. Like, if that's the best you got...it's a fucking axiom, my dude. No. That's one person's one counterargument is something that you consider to be way out there. That does not make your assertion an axiom. It makes it an assertion with a counter-argument that you consider to be bogus, and that's all. And: "my dude"? Really? Being smug and condescending doesn't make you more convincing; it just means you're acting like a jerk.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - dang 8y ago
        Please don't break the site guidelines just because someone else did. That only makes things worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

towndrunk 8y ago

So are you saying the Gangs will follow the laws?

netgusto 8y ago
Not spontaneously, no. But law enforcement are more likely to be able to make them follow the law if there's actually a law to be followed.
abrahamepton 8y ago
The argument for gun control has never been that criminals will just obey the gun control laws. The point is, and has always been, and will always be, to reduce the number of guns available. Fewer guns === fewer shootings. Axiomatic. Of course, it's substantially easier said than done. But the mechanism by which gun control reduces gun crimes really doesn't require any criminal to spontaneously follow the law for some reason. It's a public-health measure, like vaccinating kids.
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  "Fewer guns === fewer shootings. Axiomatic." That's not an axiom. Left as an exercise: find a subset of guns such that, if they were destroyed, is likely to increase the number of shootings.
  - abrahamepton 8y ago
    Yes, I would argue it is in fact an axiom: a statement that is regarded as being established or self-evidently true. Since basically all of the evidence we have available to us suggests that fewer guns lead to fewer shootings, and more guns lead to more shootings; since the only real objections to that logic are rather contrived "find the subset of guns such that removing them leads to more shootings" logical toys with little if any foundation in the real world; and since it's, I mean, just clearly correct - I'm curious why you think such a proposition is not obviously true. Clearly there is a debate about the effectiveness of gun control in America, the one country on the planet that has yet to make up its mind about this. However, I would suggest that such a debate is not being carried out in good faith.
    - 21 8y ago
      > more guns lead to more shootings If only it was so simple: > Switzerland hasn't had a mass shooting since 2001, when a man stormed the local parliament in Zug, killing 14 people and then himself. > The country has about 2 million privately owned guns in a nation of 8.3 million people. In 2016, the country had 47 homicides with firearms. The country's overall murder rate is near zero. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/switzerland-high-rates-gun-ownership-why-doesnt-no-mass-shootings-a8230606.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/switzerlan...
      - abrahamepton 8y ago
        Oh hey look: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an... So: Switzerland vs "the United States and across high-income countries"; Switzerland vs "data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s"; Switzerland vs "across 50 states over a ten-year period (1988-1997)"; Switzerland vs "across states, 2001-2003"; Switzerland vs "In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states." So. It is pretty simple: Switzerland, as in basically every other aspect of its existence, is an outlier. Social science is not the same thing as mathematical theory, I grant you, and so what is axiomatic in the world is not necessarily as tidy as what is axiomatic in the middle of proving a theorem. Nevertheless: the evidence is clear that more guns lead to more shootings. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear on this common-sense point, and there's no particularly compelling counterexample since, again, Switzerland is quite unlike the United States in many ways. So: it is an axiom that more guns lead to more shootings. Except, perhaps, for the Swiss.
    - jeffdavis 8y ago
      Calling something an axiom (when it's not) dismisses any nuance and leads to bad policies, even if it's "mostly true". "More cars === more global warming" is mostly true, but might lead to really bad policies if taken too strictly. For instance, someone might make new cars illegal, which would prevent us from taking advantage of more efficient or more electric cars thta actually help the situation.
  - CompanionCuuube 8y ago
    { x is all firearms in the custody of law enforcement } Done in one.
- benjohnson 8y ago
  >>Fewer guns === fewer shootings. Axiomatic. No way is that axiomatic: What room would you rather be in: 100 people in a room, each with a gun. One person is Hitler. 100 people in a room, only one person has a gun and it's Hitler. What your theory is missing is that often the intent of the person with a gun matters much more than the gun itself.
  - abrahamepton 8y ago
    Oh my god. This is so dumb that I'm almost compelled to frame it and put it on a wall. Let me know when you decide to join us in the real world, with real problems, where the statement "fewer guns === fewer shootings" is in fact axiomatic. I am confident that it is, if for no other reason than the way you choose to "disprove" it is by asking me to imagine a room with 100 people and Hitler in it. Like, if that's the best you got...it's a fucking axiom, my dude. Be better.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      > Let me know when you decide to join us in the real world, with real problems, where the statement "fewer guns === fewer shootings" is in fact axiomatic. That may not be the real world. In fact, all you've supplied so far is your repeated assertion that it is. Maybe you should be better - like, supply something that looks like evidence rather than just assertion. > I am confident that it is, if for no other reason than the way you choose to "disprove" it is by asking me to imagine a room with 100 people and Hitler in it. Like, if that's the best you got...it's a fucking axiom, my dude. No. That's one person's one counterargument is something that you consider to be way out there. That does not make your assertion an axiom. It makes it an assertion with a counter-argument that you consider to be bogus, and that's all. And: "my dude"? Really? Being smug and condescending doesn't make you more convincing; it just means you're acting like a jerk.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - dang 8y ago
      Please don't break the site guidelines just because someone else did. That only makes things worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html