6 ms·

> Just because there are gun abusers, you wouldn't want to take away the 2nd amendment which keeps the government in check I don't think this is a good compari

> Just because there are gun abusers, you wouldn't want to take away the 2nd amendment which keeps the government in check I don't think this is a good comparison. The second ammendment was appended in 1791 if I'm not mistaken, i. e. shortly after the war for independence on american soil against an empire, which was fought with militias (hence the third ammendement). That's a totally different scenario than the 21st century. It should be monitored who acquires an assault rifle. Or you end up with the highest rate of school amok per capita globally[1], because gun owners are either mentally unstable themselves or not capable of preventing a mentally unstable person from getting hold of the rifle due to a lack or knowledge. Licenses make just as much sense as they do for cars. Which brings me to the division of powers. The constitution balances executive, legislature and judiciary in its three articles. It is very difficult for either of these organs to abuse power without being met with a restriction. This has been the concept since the very beginning, as you surely know judging by the gh handle, and you bet the federalist paper authors favored an institutional solution over arming each citizen. In other words, the second ammendement is just as little of an ultimate for checks and balances as the web 3 is for whistleblowing. We already have securedrop and globalleaks. Going a step further is possible, but not strictly necessary, and should not be treated as such in my opinion. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1155011/number-school-shootings-g7-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1155011/number-school-sh...

publiush 5y ago
When we have a government without corruption, we probably won't need to be armed. That isn't the case today. Checks and balances work in a young government, but after hundreds of years, friendships, camaraderies, it's not difficult to have loosely coupled groups infiltrating all branches. Things eventually crumble as perfect systems are hard. This is akin to the monarchies, where a king may have risen to power as a good leader, but a later king may not have been so kind. These things aren't perfect, but having multiple systems to pick up where other systems fail provides us the ultimate leverage in the end. Would you take airbags out of cars because they sometimes fail and always harm those who feel their impact and chemicals and everyone is "supposed to wear seat belts by law" anyway?
- afavour 5y ago
  > When we have a government without corruption, we probably won't need to be armed. That isn't the case today. Checks and balances work in a young government, I’d argue the opposite: it’s the threat of armed resistance that only works with a young government. The idea that an armed group could overthrow the government in the US today has always struck me as fanciful. The army would shut down such an attempt very, very easily.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    You forget the ties between the army and the 2nd amendment people, don't you? I'm no American but I can't really see most soldiers starting to shoot their own?
    - afavour 5y ago
      In that case surely the second amendment isn’t necessary, then. You’ve already got the army!
      - skinkestek 5y ago
        Look to Turkey for a failure of that model. Although I should say that I am always convinced by those who say that that particular coup was staged by Erdogan as a pretext.
wyager 5y ago
> The second ammendment was appended in 1791 if I'm not mistaken, When the first amendment was written, they only had primitive printing presses. Obviously it does not apply to the internet, electronic printers, etc.
- m1sta_ 5y ago
  This is quickly devolving into a Facebook "conversation". I'm disappointed. In any case, there is a very good argument for the first amendment changing in response to today's challenges, culture, and technology.
toolz 5y ago
Why are school shootings the bar here? Do we care about murdered children, or very specifically only murdered children in school by a gun? Certainly the US has tons of room for improvement, but it seems very disingenuous to cherry-pick a subset of what people actually care about just to oversell your point.
- m1sta_ 5y ago
  It's an example, and a compelling one. That is not the same as cherry picking.
  - DennisAleynikov 5y ago
    School shooting statistics are a deeply uncompelling example. Tragedies are often non statistically relevant
    - schleck8 5y ago
      Luckily in this case they are.
throaway46546 5y ago
Assault rifles were banned in 1986. The only assault rifles available on the civilian market are registered pre-ban ones. Due to limited supply they tend to be quite expensive ($10,000+). You have to register with the ATF and pay a special tax to purchase one.
- dave_sullivan 5y ago
  Huh? Pretty sure you can still buy an AR-15 in a lot of states, am I missing something?
  - throaway46546 5y ago
    An AR-15 style rifle is not an assault rifle. The definition of an assault rifle is "a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine". Selective fire means "the capability of a weapon to be adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, burst mode, and/or fully automatic firing mode". These were banned by the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. There are "assault weapon" bans like that in my home state of California that ban certain cosmetic features on guns. These are completely pointless as an AR-15 is functionally no different from any other semi-automatic firearm. Examples: Assault Rifle https://i.imgur.com/pGnxHRD.jpg https://i.imgur.com/pGnxHRD.jpg "Assault Weapon" https://i.imgur.com/xhsZ2dK.jpg https://i.imgur.com/xhsZ2dK.jpg Not an "Assault Weapon" https://i.imgur.com/VKtpdSy.jpg https://i.imgur.com/VKtpdSy.jpg
    - dave_sullivan 5y ago
      This is the kind of autistic pedantry I come to HN for. I don't know what I was thinking.
      - throaway46546 5y ago
        thank you
  - anamax 5y ago
    What makes an Armalite Rifle-15 significant to you? I ask because it isn't actually all that interesting as far as guns go. It shoots a fairly low-power cartridge, roughly equivalent to 30-30, which means that it isn't powerful enough for deer hunting in some states. That's part of why it's easy to shoot even for XX folks. (Another part is the ergonomics; the stock and hand-grip make it easier to shoot correctly from the shoulder than most rifles.) It's semi-auto, but so are most guns these days. It doesn't shoot any faster than other semi-autos. Standard capacity magazines aren't any larger. It is possibly the most popular rifle of all time, certainly in the last 50+ years.
yesbut 5y ago
> It is very difficult for either of these organs to abuse power without being met with a restriction. I think, as we have seen over the past ~40 years, it is very easy for either of them to abuse power. On the other hand, it is very difficult for voters to implement legislation that improves the lives of everyday people in any meaningful way. That is really what the Constitution did. It created a complex system of government with veto points around every corner to, in the words of James Madison, "protect the minority of the opulent (wealthy property owners) against the majority (the plebs)". And this is certainly how it is currently functioning. I stopped romanticizing the constitution years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10#Background
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> Or you end up with the highest rate of school amok per capita globally The US has a high rate of firearms fatalities. Around two thirds of these are suicides. Around zero thirds of them are school shootings. School shootings are sufficiently rare that when they happen, they make national news. Which is catastrophic, because studies have shown that media coverage of school shootings induces school shootings. It's attention-seeking behavior by the criminally insane, so if you show them that it generates attention, it increases their attraction to the act. Most US media outlets know this and do it anyway, because it generates a lot of hits. This is the primary reason why the US has relatively more than other countries, including other countries with a high rate of firearms ownership. > Licenses make just as much sense as they do for cars. It doesn't work for this. If you have a driver's license and know it will be taken away if you drive drunk, that's an effective deterrent. School shooters tend to be young people with no prior criminal history. They would pass a background check. Having a license to take away after the fact is meaningless when after they fact they're going to prison forever. In theory where this does something is for criminal gangs, where you say you want to deny people with a criminal history a firearm. Criminal gangs actually are a significant fraction of firearms fatalities. But here's how that works out: People with a criminal history who go back to a life of crime just get a gun through their criminal organization the same way they get the illegal drugs they're dealing. Meanwhile, people with a criminal history who reform themselves will commonly also carry a gun, for self-defense against criminals from their past life. Laws against this don't deter it when the alternative is getting murdered. Then this otherwise reformed criminal gets caught in possession of a firearm yet not committing any other crime, so they go back to prison and get another chance to get caught up with criminals. A large number of black people are currently in prison for no other crime than "felon in possession of a firearm," and were in possession of it for no other reason than self-defense. Or weren't in possession of it at all but were near enough to one owned by someone else for a bad cop to opportunistically file the charge. Banning possession of a technology is weak. If you wrongfully shoot someone, you should go to prison. If you have a gun and don't harm anyone with it, no one should have a problem with that.
- dmingod666 5y ago
  Between 2009 to 2018 there were 288 school shooting incidents in the US. During this time there were a total of 5 similar incidents in the rest of the world. Something is definitely wrong.

publiush 5y ago

When we have a government without corruption, we probably won't need to be armed. That isn't the case today. Checks and balances work in a young government, but after hundreds of years, friendships, camaraderies, it's not difficult to have loosely coupled groups infiltrating all branches. Things eventually crumble as perfect systems are hard. This is akin to the monarchies, where a king may have risen to power as a good leader, but a later king may not have been so kind. These things aren't perfect, but having multiple systems to pick up where other systems fail provides us the ultimate leverage in the end. Would you take airbags out of cars because they sometimes fail and always harm those who feel their impact and chemicals and everyone is "supposed to wear seat belts by law" anyway?

afavour 5y ago
> When we have a government without corruption, we probably won't need to be armed. That isn't the case today. Checks and balances work in a young government, I’d argue the opposite: it’s the threat of armed resistance that only works with a young government. The idea that an armed group could overthrow the government in the US today has always struck me as fanciful. The army would shut down such an attempt very, very easily.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  You forget the ties between the army and the 2nd amendment people, don't you? I'm no American but I can't really see most soldiers starting to shoot their own?
  - afavour 5y ago
    In that case surely the second amendment isn’t necessary, then. You’ve already got the army!
    - skinkestek 5y ago
      Look to Turkey for a failure of that model. Although I should say that I am always convinced by those who say that that particular coup was staged by Erdogan as a pretext.

wyager 5y ago

> The second ammendment was appended in 1791 if I'm not mistaken, When the first amendment was written, they only had primitive printing presses. Obviously it does not apply to the internet, electronic printers, etc.

m1sta_ 5y ago
This is quickly devolving into a Facebook "conversation". I'm disappointed. In any case, there is a very good argument for the first amendment changing in response to today's challenges, culture, and technology.

toolz 5y ago

Why are school shootings the bar here? Do we care about murdered children, or very specifically only murdered children in school by a gun? Certainly the US has tons of room for improvement, but it seems very disingenuous to cherry-pick a subset of what people actually care about just to oversell your point.

m1sta_ 5y ago
It's an example, and a compelling one. That is not the same as cherry picking.
- DennisAleynikov 5y ago
  School shooting statistics are a deeply uncompelling example. Tragedies are often non statistically relevant
  - schleck8 5y ago
    Luckily in this case they are.

throaway46546 5y ago

Assault rifles were banned in 1986. The only assault rifles available on the civilian market are registered pre-ban ones. Due to limited supply they tend to be quite expensive ($10,000+). You have to register with the ATF and pay a special tax to purchase one.

dave_sullivan 5y ago
Huh? Pretty sure you can still buy an AR-15 in a lot of states, am I missing something?
- throaway46546 5y ago
  An AR-15 style rifle is not an assault rifle. The definition of an assault rifle is "a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine". Selective fire means "the capability of a weapon to be adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, burst mode, and/or fully automatic firing mode". These were banned by the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. There are "assault weapon" bans like that in my home state of California that ban certain cosmetic features on guns. These are completely pointless as an AR-15 is functionally no different from any other semi-automatic firearm. Examples: Assault Rifle https://i.imgur.com/pGnxHRD.jpg https://i.imgur.com/pGnxHRD.jpg "Assault Weapon" https://i.imgur.com/xhsZ2dK.jpg https://i.imgur.com/xhsZ2dK.jpg Not an "Assault Weapon" https://i.imgur.com/VKtpdSy.jpg https://i.imgur.com/VKtpdSy.jpg
  - dave_sullivan 5y ago
    This is the kind of autistic pedantry I come to HN for. I don't know what I was thinking.
    - throaway46546 5y ago
      thank you
- anamax 5y ago
  What makes an Armalite Rifle-15 significant to you? I ask because it isn't actually all that interesting as far as guns go. It shoots a fairly low-power cartridge, roughly equivalent to 30-30, which means that it isn't powerful enough for deer hunting in some states. That's part of why it's easy to shoot even for XX folks. (Another part is the ergonomics; the stock and hand-grip make it easier to shoot correctly from the shoulder than most rifles.) It's semi-auto, but so are most guns these days. It doesn't shoot any faster than other semi-autos. Standard capacity magazines aren't any larger. It is possibly the most popular rifle of all time, certainly in the last 50+ years.

yesbut 5y ago

> It is very difficult for either of these organs to abuse power without being met with a restriction. I think, as we have seen over the past ~40 years, it is very easy for either of them to abuse power. On the other hand, it is very difficult for voters to implement legislation that improves the lives of everyday people in any meaningful way. That is really what the Constitution did. It created a complex system of government with veto points around every corner to, in the words of James Madison, "protect the minority of the opulent (wealthy property owners) against the majority (the plebs)". And this is certainly how it is currently functioning. I stopped romanticizing the constitution years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10#Background

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> Or you end up with the highest rate of school amok per capita globally The US has a high rate of firearms fatalities. Around two thirds of these are suicides. Around zero thirds of them are school shootings. School shootings are sufficiently rare that when they happen, they make national news. Which is catastrophic, because studies have shown that media coverage of school shootings induces school shootings. It's attention-seeking behavior by the criminally insane, so if you show them that it generates attention, it increases their attraction to the act. Most US media outlets know this and do it anyway, because it generates a lot of hits. This is the primary reason why the US has relatively more than other countries, including other countries with a high rate of firearms ownership. > Licenses make just as much sense as they do for cars. It doesn't work for this. If you have a driver's license and know it will be taken away if you drive drunk, that's an effective deterrent. School shooters tend to be young people with no prior criminal history. They would pass a background check. Having a license to take away after the fact is meaningless when after they fact they're going to prison forever. In theory where this does something is for criminal gangs, where you say you want to deny people with a criminal history a firearm. Criminal gangs actually are a significant fraction of firearms fatalities. But here's how that works out: People with a criminal history who go back to a life of crime just get a gun through their criminal organization the same way they get the illegal drugs they're dealing. Meanwhile, people with a criminal history who reform themselves will commonly also carry a gun, for self-defense against criminals from their past life. Laws against this don't deter it when the alternative is getting murdered. Then this otherwise reformed criminal gets caught in possession of a firearm yet not committing any other crime, so they go back to prison and get another chance to get caught up with criminals. A large number of black people are currently in prison for no other crime than "felon in possession of a firearm," and were in possession of it for no other reason than self-defense. Or weren't in possession of it at all but were near enough to one owned by someone else for a bad cop to opportunistically file the charge. Banning possession of a technology is weak. If you wrongfully shoot someone, you should go to prison. If you have a gun and don't harm anyone with it, no one should have a problem with that.

dmingod666 5y ago
Between 2009 to 2018 there were 288 school shooting incidents in the US. During this time there were a total of 5 similar incidents in the rest of the world. Something is definitely wrong.