4 ms·

I agree with the headline not being clear. However, what do you think about this ruling?

prirun 4y ago
My basic stance on guns is that people who commit or intend to commit crimes using guns do not know or care about gun laws. We can pass all the laws in the world to control guns and they will be about as effective as all the laws we have to control drugs, which is to say, not very effective. My belief is that the more we restrict access to guns, the stronger the black market for them. This has proven true with alcohol (Prohibition) and drugs, and I believe, without knowing it to be a fact of course, that it will prove true with guns. Criminals do not care about gun laws. Only law-abiding citizens will obey gun control laws. If we outlaw guns completely except for police, then I believe criminals will still have guns and will not need to worry about a homeowner, school teacher, or other law-abiding member of the public being able to challenge them when they (the criminal) commit their crimes with a gun.
- lax4ever 4y ago
  Even beyond that, I find the arguments of gun control advocates to be lacking. "We need to take away guns because a very small percentage of people are violent with them." "Well, what do we do when we need help from someone who has ignored the gun laws?" "Well, you call people with guns, of course!" "But, they're minutes away? How is that going to help me now?" Advocates for gun control seem to forget that guns are the single greatest equalizer for self-defense this world has ever seen. Being attacked by someone larger than you? A gun is going to help. Someone attacking you already has a gun? You are giving yourself a far better chance of survival by being armed than just sitting there like a deer staring at car headlights waiting to be run over. Physical strength and in certain cases even numerical advantages mean little in comparison to the sheer stopping power a firearm can wield, even before it is fired. There are not many people in this world who won't take a pause when a gun is pointed at them and many defensive gun uses in the US (of which the estimates range from 300,000 to upwards of 3,000,000) don't even require the firearm to be discharged. For all the gun homicides in the US, many more lives are saved simply by the presence of guns. Don't get me wrong, I get just as pissed off every time a gun is used in a manner like Buffalo, Uvalde, Florida, etc. but don't take away the tool whose presence has the greatest single effective in stopping someone in their tracks simply because of a few bad actors.
  - Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
    "There are not many people in this world who won't take a pause when a gun is pointed at them and many defensive gun uses in the US (of which the estimates range from 300,000 to upwards of 3,000,000) don't even require the firearm to be discharged." The vast majority, otherwise we'd have some truly amazing gun injury and death statistics. From memory of some of the survey results, the first by a gun control group which figured 1 million uses but didn't check for more than one use a year, it was either around 85% or a bit over 90% where the gun being used in self-defense is not discharged, the credible threat is enough. Even more without anyone getting hit, or hit badly.
  - quantified 4y ago
    If you support drug legalization for responsible users, we're on the same page.
    - seanw444 4y ago
      That's what the libertarians have been about for forever. Democrats: hypocrites. Republicans: hypocrites. Libertarians: you can be a trans, pot-smoking, gun enthusiast. We don't care.
      - quantified 4y ago
        People who follow the label affinities are PITAs. I'm not a libertarian, too much belief in the need for people to recognize obligations as well as rights. All the approaches have some positions of merit and many of BS.
- tacheiordache 4y ago
  How about people who are crazy but have no access to guns on the black market? Do you think unrestricted access is a solution just because gangs? Seems a bit dimwitted to me but that's subjective of course, I'd never ever have the desire to own a weapon, let alone shoot one. I have different hobbies, you know... Also I understand the self defense stance, but why would anyone be able to own machine guns and weapons of mass destruction? It's beyond me. And not wanting to restrict crazy people from having this ability is starting to make me suspect gun proponents are a lil crazy themselves. They have and agree on no limits on what one can own. But when it comes to weed or prostitution or abortion they're the first ones to scream murder.
  - lax4ever 4y ago
    And people who legally and respectfully own guns don't have different hobbies? All they can possibly think about is going out a shooting? Beyond that, clearly taking away guns doesn't stop violent crime. Domestic abuse is still a major issue even without guns. Knife, club, and acid attacks have taken the UK by storm. Robbery, rape, looting, arson, all things that can and in many cases are done without a firearm.
    - krapp 4y ago
      I don't think anyone has ever suggesting that gun control prevents all forms of violent crime. Rather that gun control prevents gun crime by virtue of not providing access to the guns with which to commit said crimes.
      - lax4ever 4y ago
        At the cost of otherwise disarming a much, much larger segment of the population who have never committed a crime with a firearm and are much better protected against crimes of many various types, including those with firearms.
        krapp 4y ago
        No, at the cost of disarming everyone, including the population intent on committing a crime with a firearm.
- quantified 4y ago
  It's true for all laws, and yet we write plenty of laws. Like pestilent microbes or pieces of space junk, once there's enough of them out there it's hard to navigate and easy to catch damage for a long time. For guns in working order, even completely freezing all manufacture would leave lots of rapid semi-autos out there for a century or more. Same for the ammo. Horse and barn door. No vaccine for this like there is for smallpox or polio, though, you can't fix criminal or stupid.
  - lax4ever 4y ago
    What is your definition of a rapid semi-auto? This is certainly not a term used by the majority of gun owners/manufacturers. EDIT: A semi-automatic firearm is defined by that which fires a single bullet per pull of the trigger and then automatically reloads a round for the next pull of a trigger. There really is no "rapid" to it because this kind of reloading is either a do or do not.
    - quantified 4y ago
      There was a really good writeup posted on HN a couple of weeks back, I need to locate the link. The gist was that there is a combination of factors for receiver and magazine that define the assault factors of the rifle, and anti-gun people always get pwned by being steered to minor and irrelevant differences between the military and civilian versions, and trying to define gun instead of platform. The author is a gun owner and enthusiast, but not a Wayne LaPierre.
  - prirun 4y ago
    > It's true for all laws, and yet we write plenty of laws. True, but doesn't mean they're effective. I've long held that before enacting a new law, lawmakers should be required to remove an existing ineffective, unneeded, or outdated law, even if it's in a different area. Someone below mentioned "unrestricted access to guns". I don't have a problem with registering a gun, or even background checks, though since we have that now, it doesn't seem to be very effective. People get outraged when horrible things happen, as they should. They want to do something to try to prevent it from happening again, which is also good. But bad things do happen and will continue to happen, and we need to accept this as part of life that we can't control. We also need to make sure we're addressing the real problem when looking for solutions. I just read this article related to the Uvalde shooting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/25/uvalde-texas-school-shooting-gunman/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/25/uvalde-texa... I'm not taking up for the shooter, but was interested in his background. a) lived with his mom who was a drug addict b) was 18 and bought the guns when he turned 18. So I'm guessing he had planned this for a while c) was never in trouble with the law, so not sure how gun laws would have prevented anything d) had only 1 friend who moved away e) was bullied since middle school for stuttering, so if he was 11 then, that's 7 years of bullying and harassment f) was later bullied and called a fag (I guess, article didn't specify) for wearing eyeliner to school Who among us could endure 7 years of bullying, 5 days a week, without even 1 friend or a decent parent? And maybe also wrestling with being gay? The human spirit does have limits...
- ryandrake 4y ago
  > My belief is that the more we restrict access to guns, the stronger the black market for them. This has proven true with alcohol (Prohibition) and drugs, and I believe, without knowing it to be a fact of course, that it will prove true with guns. On the political side, it also consistently hands Republicans an easy, winning wedge issue. Gun Rights is a "single-issue voter lightning rod" in the USA. There are lots of people whose political views are left or center-left (on the USA's weird scale of course), yet who hold their nose every year and grudgingly vote (R) simply Because Guns. I've always thought one of the best things the Democrat party could do to improve their chances nationally is to just give up on their gun control stance. That single action would probably boost them 10-20% in many rural/hunting areas that are otherwise democrat-leaning.
  - poulsbohemian 4y ago
    So let's just say Dems do that... how do you stop school and other public space shootings?
    - Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
      Since the Democrats are entirely willing to violate white line Constitutional language, why limit it to the Second Amendment? Enforce with extremely severe penalties a complete media blackout on the name and sufficient biographical details of such shooters. The lack of a notoriety payoff will address quite a few. Reverse or as so many are now saying ignore the judicial rulings that removed force as a tool in dealing with the mentally ill. [Redacted], and I think the above harsh and Un-American actions would all but eliminate the problem, and not for example, not that's it's going to be impossible, simply shift the tool of choice to the much more dangerous one of arson.
  - Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
    You say this, but right this very moment a bill with more gun control is being whisked through the Congress with the support of 14 Senators, who've already got it past cloture. Of course, one interpretation is that they don't want to win back the Congress this year. As for the Democrats, they've been anti-gun too long, too hard for anyone in " rural/hunting areas" which they've also made clear they want to outright destroy if they haven't already for them to try to make a switch for the foreseeable future. Those of us who are a bit old remember how 7 years of election disasters from the Republicans taking back the Congress in 1994 to Al Gore in 2020 (and no matter what you think about Florida, that the election was even close should tell you something) resulted in a truce that only lasted until Obama's reelection. The party would have to fundamentally transform itself and reverse 157 years of policy (Dred Scott, which Thomas quoted in his decision, or you could start with post-Reconstruction).

My basic stance on guns is that people who commit or intend to commit crimes using guns do not know or care about gun laws. We can pass all the laws in the world to control guns and they will be about as effective as all the laws we have to control drugs, which is to say, not very effective. My belief is that the more we restrict access to guns, the stronger the black market for them. This has proven true with alcohol (Prohibition) and drugs, and I believe, without knowing it to be a fact of course, that it will prove true with guns. Criminals do not care about gun laws. Only law-abiding citizens will obey gun control laws. If we outlaw guns completely except for police, then I believe criminals will still have guns and will not need to worry about a homeowner, school teacher, or other law-abiding member of the public being able to challenge them when they (the criminal) commit their crimes with a gun.

lax4ever 4y ago
Even beyond that, I find the arguments of gun control advocates to be lacking. "We need to take away guns because a very small percentage of people are violent with them." "Well, what do we do when we need help from someone who has ignored the gun laws?" "Well, you call people with guns, of course!" "But, they're minutes away? How is that going to help me now?" Advocates for gun control seem to forget that guns are the single greatest equalizer for self-defense this world has ever seen. Being attacked by someone larger than you? A gun is going to help. Someone attacking you already has a gun? You are giving yourself a far better chance of survival by being armed than just sitting there like a deer staring at car headlights waiting to be run over. Physical strength and in certain cases even numerical advantages mean little in comparison to the sheer stopping power a firearm can wield, even before it is fired. There are not many people in this world who won't take a pause when a gun is pointed at them and many defensive gun uses in the US (of which the estimates range from 300,000 to upwards of 3,000,000) don't even require the firearm to be discharged. For all the gun homicides in the US, many more lives are saved simply by the presence of guns. Don't get me wrong, I get just as pissed off every time a gun is used in a manner like Buffalo, Uvalde, Florida, etc. but don't take away the tool whose presence has the greatest single effective in stopping someone in their tracks simply because of a few bad actors.
- Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
  "There are not many people in this world who won't take a pause when a gun is pointed at them and many defensive gun uses in the US (of which the estimates range from 300,000 to upwards of 3,000,000) don't even require the firearm to be discharged." The vast majority, otherwise we'd have some truly amazing gun injury and death statistics. From memory of some of the survey results, the first by a gun control group which figured 1 million uses but didn't check for more than one use a year, it was either around 85% or a bit over 90% where the gun being used in self-defense is not discharged, the credible threat is enough. Even more without anyone getting hit, or hit badly.
- quantified 4y ago
  If you support drug legalization for responsible users, we're on the same page.
  - seanw444 4y ago
    That's what the libertarians have been about for forever. Democrats: hypocrites. Republicans: hypocrites. Libertarians: you can be a trans, pot-smoking, gun enthusiast. We don't care.
    - quantified 4y ago
      People who follow the label affinities are PITAs. I'm not a libertarian, too much belief in the need for people to recognize obligations as well as rights. All the approaches have some positions of merit and many of BS.
tacheiordache 4y ago
How about people who are crazy but have no access to guns on the black market? Do you think unrestricted access is a solution just because gangs? Seems a bit dimwitted to me but that's subjective of course, I'd never ever have the desire to own a weapon, let alone shoot one. I have different hobbies, you know... Also I understand the self defense stance, but why would anyone be able to own machine guns and weapons of mass destruction? It's beyond me. And not wanting to restrict crazy people from having this ability is starting to make me suspect gun proponents are a lil crazy themselves. They have and agree on no limits on what one can own. But when it comes to weed or prostitution or abortion they're the first ones to scream murder.
- lax4ever 4y ago
  And people who legally and respectfully own guns don't have different hobbies? All they can possibly think about is going out a shooting? Beyond that, clearly taking away guns doesn't stop violent crime. Domestic abuse is still a major issue even without guns. Knife, club, and acid attacks have taken the UK by storm. Robbery, rape, looting, arson, all things that can and in many cases are done without a firearm.
  - krapp 4y ago
    I don't think anyone has ever suggesting that gun control prevents all forms of violent crime. Rather that gun control prevents gun crime by virtue of not providing access to the guns with which to commit said crimes.
    - lax4ever 4y ago
      At the cost of otherwise disarming a much, much larger segment of the population who have never committed a crime with a firearm and are much better protected against crimes of many various types, including those with firearms.
      - krapp 4y ago
        No, at the cost of disarming everyone, including the population intent on committing a crime with a firearm.
quantified 4y ago
It's true for all laws, and yet we write plenty of laws. Like pestilent microbes or pieces of space junk, once there's enough of them out there it's hard to navigate and easy to catch damage for a long time. For guns in working order, even completely freezing all manufacture would leave lots of rapid semi-autos out there for a century or more. Same for the ammo. Horse and barn door. No vaccine for this like there is for smallpox or polio, though, you can't fix criminal or stupid.
- lax4ever 4y ago
  What is your definition of a rapid semi-auto? This is certainly not a term used by the majority of gun owners/manufacturers. EDIT: A semi-automatic firearm is defined by that which fires a single bullet per pull of the trigger and then automatically reloads a round for the next pull of a trigger. There really is no "rapid" to it because this kind of reloading is either a do or do not.
  - quantified 4y ago
    There was a really good writeup posted on HN a couple of weeks back, I need to locate the link. The gist was that there is a combination of factors for receiver and magazine that define the assault factors of the rifle, and anti-gun people always get pwned by being steered to minor and irrelevant differences between the military and civilian versions, and trying to define gun instead of platform. The author is a gun owner and enthusiast, but not a Wayne LaPierre.
- prirun 4y ago
  > It's true for all laws, and yet we write plenty of laws. True, but doesn't mean they're effective. I've long held that before enacting a new law, lawmakers should be required to remove an existing ineffective, unneeded, or outdated law, even if it's in a different area. Someone below mentioned "unrestricted access to guns". I don't have a problem with registering a gun, or even background checks, though since we have that now, it doesn't seem to be very effective. People get outraged when horrible things happen, as they should. They want to do something to try to prevent it from happening again, which is also good. But bad things do happen and will continue to happen, and we need to accept this as part of life that we can't control. We also need to make sure we're addressing the real problem when looking for solutions. I just read this article related to the Uvalde shooting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/25/uvalde-texas-school-shooting-gunman/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/25/uvalde-texa... I'm not taking up for the shooter, but was interested in his background. a) lived with his mom who was a drug addict b) was 18 and bought the guns when he turned 18. So I'm guessing he had planned this for a while c) was never in trouble with the law, so not sure how gun laws would have prevented anything d) had only 1 friend who moved away e) was bullied since middle school for stuttering, so if he was 11 then, that's 7 years of bullying and harassment f) was later bullied and called a fag (I guess, article didn't specify) for wearing eyeliner to school Who among us could endure 7 years of bullying, 5 days a week, without even 1 friend or a decent parent? And maybe also wrestling with being gay? The human spirit does have limits...
ryandrake 4y ago
> My belief is that the more we restrict access to guns, the stronger the black market for them. This has proven true with alcohol (Prohibition) and drugs, and I believe, without knowing it to be a fact of course, that it will prove true with guns. On the political side, it also consistently hands Republicans an easy, winning wedge issue. Gun Rights is a "single-issue voter lightning rod" in the USA. There are lots of people whose political views are left or center-left (on the USA's weird scale of course), yet who hold their nose every year and grudgingly vote (R) simply Because Guns. I've always thought one of the best things the Democrat party could do to improve their chances nationally is to just give up on their gun control stance. That single action would probably boost them 10-20% in many rural/hunting areas that are otherwise democrat-leaning.
- poulsbohemian 4y ago
  So let's just say Dems do that... how do you stop school and other public space shootings?
  - Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
    Since the Democrats are entirely willing to violate white line Constitutional language, why limit it to the Second Amendment? Enforce with extremely severe penalties a complete media blackout on the name and sufficient biographical details of such shooters. The lack of a notoriety payoff will address quite a few. Reverse or as so many are now saying ignore the judicial rulings that removed force as a tool in dealing with the mentally ill. [Redacted], and I think the above harsh and Un-American actions would all but eliminate the problem, and not for example, not that's it's going to be impossible, simply shift the tool of choice to the much more dangerous one of arson.
- Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
  You say this, but right this very moment a bill with more gun control is being whisked through the Congress with the support of 14 Senators, who've already got it past cloture. Of course, one interpretation is that they don't want to win back the Congress this year. As for the Democrats, they've been anti-gun too long, too hard for anyone in " rural/hunting areas" which they've also made clear they want to outright destroy if they haven't already for them to try to make a switch for the foreseeable future. Those of us who are a bit old remember how 7 years of election disasters from the Republicans taking back the Congress in 1994 to Al Gore in 2020 (and no matter what you think about Florida, that the election was even close should tell you something) resulted in a truce that only lasted until Obama's reelection. The party would have to fundamentally transform itself and reverse 157 years of policy (Dred Scott, which Thomas quoted in his decision, or you could start with post-Reconstruction).