5 ms·

>I like that, and I like this law. Are you able to imagine the reverse? where instead of some insane person losing it and addressing some ugly words at you he

>I like that, and I like this law. Are you able to imagine the reverse? where instead of some insane person losing it and addressing some ugly words at you he will just kill you, your family will probably won't like the it anymore.

noidesto 5y ago
Insane people may kill you, and your family whether this law exists or not.
- simion314 5y ago
  It is not the same if an insane person enters my home or a school with a pocket knife. And I am thinking at "temporary" insane people, like the ones that after the girlfriend dumps them they go at her work place/home and kill everyone they find including children. Same dude without a gun will do 1-x less damage. But if the citizens decided this is what they want I am not arguing against that. Just feels weird to hear someone say : "beggars will be nicer since they know I might have a gun" but not also consider the reverse "me, my family will have to be more cautios since anyone could have a gun".
- igetspam 5y ago
  Sane people make irrational decisions in the heat of the moment. Shooting you could be that decision. But hey, it could be crazy person too so no big.
ARandomerDude 5y ago
That would be very bad indeed, but it's also a situation that is statistically more likely to happen in California than Texas, just to add some perspective. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_violent_crime_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr...
- defaultname 5y ago
  Violent crime (which is a very broad spectrum of crimes, most not life threatening. Spitting on someone. A bar fight. And more severe violence) is slightly higher in California. Gun crimes are way higher in Texas. Over 50% higher than California. Aren't all those guns supposed to cow the criminals?
  - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
    Are "gun crimes" a thing? Isn't that covered by violent crime? It expected that violent crime uses a weapon of convenience and since CA restricts firearms, then firearms figure less often in violent crime. What's clear from the statistics is, restricting firearms did not make a statistical difference for violent crime in CA.
    - defaultname 5y ago
      Well yes, gun crimes are a thing. They are tracked separately. They have separate penalties. And there are loads more of them in Texas than California. Is it because "CA restricts firearms", then you're countering the guy above who claimed that Texas is a more peaceful society because of all of those guns. For that matter, Texas has more murders per capita than California. For all you hear about the wild streets of San Francisco, the crazy gangs of LA, etc... more murders in Texas. For that matter, NYC violence "exploded" over the past year. New York state still has less murders per capita than Texas despite a catastrophically bad year. Ouch. Guess those guns aren't keeping everyone safe. In reality they end up getting used to murder people.
      - amadeuspagel 5y ago
        Comparing the murder rate of two random states with different gun laws doesn't actually tell us anything about the effects of gun laws on the murder rate. Would love to know how a comment based on the same logic arguing the reverse would do on HN. Brazil has way more restrictive gun laws then the US and way more murders. "Ouch." Guess those guns are in fact keeping everyone safe.
jlturner 5y ago
In practice this is something we simply do not have enough data points on (places where the population is armed). It’s easy to speculate one way or another, but you are only legally protected in self defense, not homicide. I’m not convinced that people being armed would increase homicide rate, could just as easily decrease it (ie Cold War effect). As the original comment poster mentioned cars are lethal weapons as well, and you don’t see many intentional hit and runs. Guns are very loud and you’re not likely to go unnoticed committing gun violence. Personally I don’t know that it is a good thing to have everybody armed, but it really is on nobody but yourself to protect yourself and your dependents. To this end, I carry (and recommend others carry) pepper spray, which is very effective in non-lethally disabling an agitator in self defense without the mental or legal burdens and pains of injuring or killing another human being. (Disclosure: I used to work in EMS, violence is everywhere in different forms. Additionally I own a shotgun for the sole purpose of hunting food, and I think the idea of “keeping it handy for self defense” is the dumbest home protection idea I’ve ever heard; you’re more likely inflict accidental self harm keeping a weapon handy in the house or carrying it than safely locked up)
- simion314 5y ago
  >you are only legally protected in self defense, From what I seen in US you can kill anyone if you then can argue that "I was afraid for my life" and you are white and have some money. I am not sure how exceptional this cases are though. But if this laws are what the citizens want then I am not against it, just the argument I responded felt wrong.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > As the original comment poster mentioned cars are lethal weapons as well, and you don’t see many intentional hit and runs. All hit and runs are intentional, but the only intent required is foe the “and run” part. Because intent for the “hit” isn’t part of the crime, and its already a serious felony where injuries occur, its rarely worth the effort to try to ascertain or prove intent for the “hit” case. OTOH, its worth noting that thr same political faction behind loosening gun carry restrictions has also been actively working to loosen restrictions on intentionally hitting people with cars, in direct response to people committing criminal homicide that way. (Weirdly, its also the faction that likes to pretend to be “pro-life”.)

noidesto 5y ago

Insane people may kill you, and your family whether this law exists or not.

simion314 5y ago
It is not the same if an insane person enters my home or a school with a pocket knife. And I am thinking at "temporary" insane people, like the ones that after the girlfriend dumps them they go at her work place/home and kill everyone they find including children. Same dude without a gun will do 1-x less damage. But if the citizens decided this is what they want I am not arguing against that. Just feels weird to hear someone say : "beggars will be nicer since they know I might have a gun" but not also consider the reverse "me, my family will have to be more cautios since anyone could have a gun".
igetspam 5y ago
Sane people make irrational decisions in the heat of the moment. Shooting you could be that decision. But hey, it could be crazy person too so no big.

ARandomerDude 5y ago

That would be very bad indeed, but it's also a situation that is statistically more likely to happen in California than Texas, just to add some perspective. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_violent_crime_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr...

defaultname 5y ago
Violent crime (which is a very broad spectrum of crimes, most not life threatening. Spitting on someone. A bar fight. And more severe violence) is slightly higher in California. Gun crimes are way higher in Texas. Over 50% higher than California. Aren't all those guns supposed to cow the criminals?
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  Are "gun crimes" a thing? Isn't that covered by violent crime? It expected that violent crime uses a weapon of convenience and since CA restricts firearms, then firearms figure less often in violent crime. What's clear from the statistics is, restricting firearms did not make a statistical difference for violent crime in CA.
  - defaultname 5y ago
    Well yes, gun crimes are a thing. They are tracked separately. They have separate penalties. And there are loads more of them in Texas than California. Is it because "CA restricts firearms", then you're countering the guy above who claimed that Texas is a more peaceful society because of all of those guns. For that matter, Texas has more murders per capita than California. For all you hear about the wild streets of San Francisco, the crazy gangs of LA, etc... more murders in Texas. For that matter, NYC violence "exploded" over the past year. New York state still has less murders per capita than Texas despite a catastrophically bad year. Ouch. Guess those guns aren't keeping everyone safe. In reality they end up getting used to murder people.
    - amadeuspagel 5y ago
      Comparing the murder rate of two random states with different gun laws doesn't actually tell us anything about the effects of gun laws on the murder rate. Would love to know how a comment based on the same logic arguing the reverse would do on HN. Brazil has way more restrictive gun laws then the US and way more murders. "Ouch." Guess those guns are in fact keeping everyone safe.

jlturner 5y ago

In practice this is something we simply do not have enough data points on (places where the population is armed). It’s easy to speculate one way or another, but you are only legally protected in self defense, not homicide. I’m not convinced that people being armed would increase homicide rate, could just as easily decrease it (ie Cold War effect). As the original comment poster mentioned cars are lethal weapons as well, and you don’t see many intentional hit and runs. Guns are very loud and you’re not likely to go unnoticed committing gun violence. Personally I don’t know that it is a good thing to have everybody armed, but it really is on nobody but yourself to protect yourself and your dependents. To this end, I carry (and recommend others carry) pepper spray, which is very effective in non-lethally disabling an agitator in self defense without the mental or legal burdens and pains of injuring or killing another human being. (Disclosure: I used to work in EMS, violence is everywhere in different forms. Additionally I own a shotgun for the sole purpose of hunting food, and I think the idea of “keeping it handy for self defense” is the dumbest home protection idea I’ve ever heard; you’re more likely inflict accidental self harm keeping a weapon handy in the house or carrying it than safely locked up)

simion314 5y ago
>you are only legally protected in self defense, From what I seen in US you can kill anyone if you then can argue that "I was afraid for my life" and you are white and have some money. I am not sure how exceptional this cases are though. But if this laws are what the citizens want then I am not against it, just the argument I responded felt wrong.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
> As the original comment poster mentioned cars are lethal weapons as well, and you don’t see many intentional hit and runs. All hit and runs are intentional, but the only intent required is foe the “and run” part. Because intent for the “hit” isn’t part of the crime, and its already a serious felony where injuries occur, its rarely worth the effort to try to ascertain or prove intent for the “hit” case. OTOH, its worth noting that thr same political faction behind loosening gun carry restrictions has also been actively working to loosen restrictions on intentionally hitting people with cars, in direct response to people committing criminal homicide that way. (Weirdly, its also the faction that likes to pretend to be “pro-life”.)