4 ms·

So what you’re saying is, the real problem is that Americans are just a violent bloodthirsty lot. Maybe the rest of the world should stop telling Americans to

So what you’re saying is, the real problem is that Americans are just a violent bloodthirsty lot. Maybe the rest of the world should stop telling Americans to control gun ownership (ie ”ban guns”, despite nobody ever suggesting a total ban) and instead we should be promoting control of Americans (ie. “ban Americans”, although nobody would suggest a total ban. I’m sure zoos would want some).

heartbeats 7y ago
That's incredibly racist.
- stephenr 7y ago
  I know they/you may think otherwise, but "American" isn't a race, mate.
yellowapple 7y ago
> the real problem is that Americans are just a violent bloodthirsty lot. More like "Americans are more subject (relative to, say, Europeans) to the economic and mental health hardships that typically beget violent crime". That is, I'm far less motivated to rob a store at gunpoint if I can actually feed myself and my family through legitimate means. I'm far less motivated to kill someone in anger if I have access to mental health resources that can help me address that anger less destructively. I'm far less motivated to join a gang if my life - and that of my family - doesn't depend on me doing so (or more precisely, if that gang is no longer able to convince me of that). Guns are tools. Taking away the tool does not take away the desire to commit crime. I'd expect Hacker News, of all places, to understand the importance of root cause analysis.
- stephenr 7y ago
  A car is a tool. A truck is a tool. A 747 is a tool. All have the capacity to very quickly cause a death and injury to a unit of people colloquially known as "a fucking lot" when operated incorrectly. Guess how society generally tries to overcome the problem of death and injury caused by "incorrectly" operating those tools? Education, combined with testing (i.e. government-enforced licensing for operation of the tool). A gun is a tool. A goodly number of the models favoured by Americans have the capacity to very quickly cause a death and injury to a unit of people colloquially known as "a fucking lot" when operated correctly. Guess how society (outside of America) tries to overcome the problem of death and injury caused by "correctly" operating those tools? Education, combined with testing, and in many case, restrictions on which kind of "tools" are deemed an acceptable "tool" for one of the tasks it can achieve, outside of death and injury to other humans. No one needs an AR-15/etc for hunting deer or bears or whatever other lesser animal needs to die, or sport shooting, or anything really, other than laying down covering fire against the "Charlies in the trees". It'd be like if you decided to buy a 400ton mining truck, and drive it on the road. At 9m+ wide, with a turning circle of 42m, it's safe to assume the level of damage to the roads and infrastructure wherever you go, could be measured with a unit colloquially known as "a fucking lot". Gun control laws does not equal a ban on guns. Most US states require no licensing to own and no permit to purchase a firearm, and a number require no special license to carry it on your person in public, either concealed or otherwise. Those that do impose an age limit, generally set it at 18 - so you can buy a tool to murder your neighbours but you can't buy a bud light.
  - heartbeats 7y ago
    This is an interesting philosophical argument, but it doesn't actually stack up to the facts. While it may feel righteous to regulate them more, it is all but guaranteed to have next to no effect on gun violence. The AR-15 undoubtedly has a military background, although it isn't the exact same weapon as the M16. Does this mean firearms with a less militaristic style, like the Ruger Mini-14[0], should be allowed? This weapon wasn't banned during the assault weapons ban, for example. Yet from a purely mechanical point of view, bullets come out of the operational end when you pull the trigger. It is no less unpleasant to get shot by a sport or hunting rifle, even if the designer did not intend for it to ever be used against humans. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14
    - stephenr 7y ago
      > While it may feel righteous to regulate them more, it is all but guaranteed to have next to no effect on gun violence. .... You realise that there are dozens of examples of other countries that have enacted gun control, and then seen gun violence go down, right? > The AR-15 undoubtedly has a military background, although it isn't the exact same weapon as the M16. Does this mean firearms with a less militaristic style, like the Ruger Mini-14[0], should be allowed? Ok, so a few things here. (a) I just referenced AR-15's because most people have heard of them. A mini-14 is no more appropriate for sport shooting than the aforementioned AR15. (b) The rifle you mentioned is named so because it resembles a previous military rifle (M14), and is itself used by a number of military and law enforcement agencies around the world, so it's still "military style" anyway (c) My point was that semi-automatic rifles aren't needed for hunting, or target shooting, regardless of how "militaristic" they look. 12 people being shot in a school aren't going to feel any less shot because the gun doesn't look like the military use it. > This weapon wasn't banned during the assault weapons ban, Given that the law in question required a weapon to have 2 feature from a list that includes grenade launcher to be considered a "assault weapon", that's not really surprising. It's a semi-automatic rifle. It also wouldn't be affected by a ban on trans fats either. > It is no less unpleasant to get shot by a sport or hunting rifle If someone is shooting into a crowd with a bolt action rifle, you are a lot less likely to be shot in the first place. That's literally the whole fucking point: it's a much slower rate of fire.

heartbeats 7y ago

That's incredibly racist.

stephenr 7y ago
I know they/you may think otherwise, but "American" isn't a race, mate.

yellowapple 7y ago

> the real problem is that Americans are just a violent bloodthirsty lot. More like "Americans are more subject (relative to, say, Europeans) to the economic and mental health hardships that typically beget violent crime". That is, I'm far less motivated to rob a store at gunpoint if I can actually feed myself and my family through legitimate means. I'm far less motivated to kill someone in anger if I have access to mental health resources that can help me address that anger less destructively. I'm far less motivated to join a gang if my life - and that of my family - doesn't depend on me doing so (or more precisely, if that gang is no longer able to convince me of that). Guns are tools. Taking away the tool does not take away the desire to commit crime. I'd expect Hacker News, of all places, to understand the importance of root cause analysis.

stephenr 7y ago
A car is a tool. A truck is a tool. A 747 is a tool. All have the capacity to very quickly cause a death and injury to a unit of people colloquially known as "a fucking lot" when operated incorrectly. Guess how society generally tries to overcome the problem of death and injury caused by "incorrectly" operating those tools? Education, combined with testing (i.e. government-enforced licensing for operation of the tool). A gun is a tool. A goodly number of the models favoured by Americans have the capacity to very quickly cause a death and injury to a unit of people colloquially known as "a fucking lot" when operated correctly. Guess how society (outside of America) tries to overcome the problem of death and injury caused by "correctly" operating those tools? Education, combined with testing, and in many case, restrictions on which kind of "tools" are deemed an acceptable "tool" for one of the tasks it can achieve, outside of death and injury to other humans. No one needs an AR-15/etc for hunting deer or bears or whatever other lesser animal needs to die, or sport shooting, or anything really, other than laying down covering fire against the "Charlies in the trees". It'd be like if you decided to buy a 400ton mining truck, and drive it on the road. At 9m+ wide, with a turning circle of 42m, it's safe to assume the level of damage to the roads and infrastructure wherever you go, could be measured with a unit colloquially known as "a fucking lot". Gun control laws does not equal a ban on guns. Most US states require no licensing to own and no permit to purchase a firearm, and a number require no special license to carry it on your person in public, either concealed or otherwise. Those that do impose an age limit, generally set it at 18 - so you can buy a tool to murder your neighbours but you can't buy a bud light.
- heartbeats 7y ago
  This is an interesting philosophical argument, but it doesn't actually stack up to the facts. While it may feel righteous to regulate them more, it is all but guaranteed to have next to no effect on gun violence. The AR-15 undoubtedly has a military background, although it isn't the exact same weapon as the M16. Does this mean firearms with a less militaristic style, like the Ruger Mini-14[0], should be allowed? This weapon wasn't banned during the assault weapons ban, for example. Yet from a purely mechanical point of view, bullets come out of the operational end when you pull the trigger. It is no less unpleasant to get shot by a sport or hunting rifle, even if the designer did not intend for it to ever be used against humans. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14
  - stephenr 7y ago
    > While it may feel righteous to regulate them more, it is all but guaranteed to have next to no effect on gun violence. .... You realise that there are dozens of examples of other countries that have enacted gun control, and then seen gun violence go down, right? > The AR-15 undoubtedly has a military background, although it isn't the exact same weapon as the M16. Does this mean firearms with a less militaristic style, like the Ruger Mini-14[0], should be allowed? Ok, so a few things here. (a) I just referenced AR-15's because most people have heard of them. A mini-14 is no more appropriate for sport shooting than the aforementioned AR15. (b) The rifle you mentioned is named so because it resembles a previous military rifle (M14), and is itself used by a number of military and law enforcement agencies around the world, so it's still "military style" anyway (c) My point was that semi-automatic rifles aren't needed for hunting, or target shooting, regardless of how "militaristic" they look. 12 people being shot in a school aren't going to feel any less shot because the gun doesn't look like the military use it. > This weapon wasn't banned during the assault weapons ban, Given that the law in question required a weapon to have 2 feature from a list that includes grenade launcher to be considered a "assault weapon", that's not really surprising. It's a semi-automatic rifle. It also wouldn't be affected by a ban on trans fats either. > It is no less unpleasant to get shot by a sport or hunting rifle If someone is shooting into a crowd with a bolt action rifle, you are a lot less likely to be shot in the first place. That's literally the whole fucking point: it's a much slower rate of fire.