4 ms·

HNrs, what are your thoughts on this? Opinions are law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves versus surge in gun violence by criminals possessin

by hbarka 4y ago

HNrs, what are your thoughts on this? Opinions are law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves versus surge in gun violence by criminals possessing guns.

injb 4y ago
There are multiple threads on it from yesterday if you want to see what the HN community thinks. But you might as well know, most of them are just people complaining about things unrelated to this ruling, which is what usually happens when people discuss things like this. In summary, this ruling doesn't change much: no one who wasn't allowed to have a gun before will be allowed to have one as a result of this ruling. The act of carrying a concealed gun in public will still be a crime by default, even if you are allowed to have a gun.
- Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
  You are of course correct that no changes to the facts on the ground will happen quickly, and if you assume New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen does not get enforced, maybe not even in New York state but like MacDonald not outside of Illinois (Chicago used to have a similar ban on simple gun ownership) I'm not going to argue with you before we have evidence, very possibly years from now. But in theory today's 7 modern slave states will be dragged kicking and screaming into the same sorts of polices that apply to the other 43 states in the nation. And I think this will be good, "'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free." (Lincoln, who implicitly launched the nation's second wave of gun control.)
  - salawat 4y ago
    Eh... That was technically already in force long before Lincoln. He just caused the Nation to have to actually process the fact that was a possibility. Everyone else up until that time were either "meh", "duh", or "Oh Lord, the coloreds can buy guns now."
- hbarka 4y ago
  >> The act of carrying a concealed gun in public will still be a crime by default, even if you are allowed to have a gun. I don’t know what you mean by that. A CCW permit is legal and not a crime. This ruling would compel Shall-Issue in places like California. California is a May-Issue state and an average law-abiding citizen has a better chance of winning the lottery than getting a CCW issued. Now you can sue.
  - injb 4y ago
    Yeah I just meant you won't have a CCW permit by default. You'll have to apply/pay/wait for one. I'm assuming that's how it'll be handled anyway. If the cops catch you carrying without the permit, they'll probably be able to treat you as a criminal until you can prove you have one.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > If the cops catch you carrying without the permit, they'll probably be able to treat you as a criminal until you can prove you have one. Even if you have the permit, if you're black you it’ll be shoot first, questions later, and no accountability.
    - hbarka 4y ago
Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
Those two fit together very well, this isn't an either/or. 43 states with 74% of the nation's population having Shall Issue or better concealed carry regimes tells us the former option is not disastrous ("better": half the states not requiring a licence). Common sense tells us we won't be able to take guns away from criminals without currently unacceptable policies like Bloomberg's "Stop and Frisk" which some claim made NYC safer for a while. A knowledge of history reminds us what happened the last time a deadly serious attempt to seize weaponry from the people was made, although hard experience tells us the only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history. Common sense and history also tells us that whatever you think of the higher level merits, going "soft on crime" like the Warren Court was emblematic of and today BLM and "Defend the Police" means a surge in all crime and that breaking out "gun violence" makes no sense, an Asian in a city where effective defense is illegal murdered by a criminal doesn't care what instrument was used. Note on the Warren Court period: there's an overlay of the demographic bulge of the Baby Boom that makes it impossible to say how much the policies adopted at the time made a fundamental difference. Although I'd say, not that I believe for a second it'll be addressed, removing force from the toolkit for the severely mentally ill had a significant impact (as in forcing people to take their meds, just these wonder drugs being available as my mother witnessed as a nurse in the 1950s does not mean they'll be rigorously taken).

by hbarka 4y ago

HNrs, what are your thoughts on this? Opinions are law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves versus surge in gun violence by criminals possessing guns.

injb 4y ago

There are multiple threads on it from yesterday if you want to see what the HN community thinks. But you might as well know, most of them are just people complaining about things unrelated to this ruling, which is what usually happens when people discuss things like this. In summary, this ruling doesn't change much: no one who wasn't allowed to have a gun before will be allowed to have one as a result of this ruling. The act of carrying a concealed gun in public will still be a crime by default, even if you are allowed to have a gun.

Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
You are of course correct that no changes to the facts on the ground will happen quickly, and if you assume New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen does not get enforced, maybe not even in New York state but like MacDonald not outside of Illinois (Chicago used to have a similar ban on simple gun ownership) I'm not going to argue with you before we have evidence, very possibly years from now. But in theory today's 7 modern slave states will be dragged kicking and screaming into the same sorts of polices that apply to the other 43 states in the nation. And I think this will be good, "'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free." (Lincoln, who implicitly launched the nation's second wave of gun control.)
- salawat 4y ago
  Eh... That was technically already in force long before Lincoln. He just caused the Nation to have to actually process the fact that was a possibility. Everyone else up until that time were either "meh", "duh", or "Oh Lord, the coloreds can buy guns now."
hbarka 4y ago
>> The act of carrying a concealed gun in public will still be a crime by default, even if you are allowed to have a gun. I don’t know what you mean by that. A CCW permit is legal and not a crime. This ruling would compel Shall-Issue in places like California. California is a May-Issue state and an average law-abiding citizen has a better chance of winning the lottery than getting a CCW issued. Now you can sue.
- injb 4y ago
  Yeah I just meant you won't have a CCW permit by default. You'll have to apply/pay/wait for one. I'm assuming that's how it'll be handled anyway. If the cops catch you carrying without the permit, they'll probably be able to treat you as a criminal until you can prove you have one.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > If the cops catch you carrying without the permit, they'll probably be able to treat you as a criminal until you can prove you have one. Even if you have the permit, if you're black you it’ll be shoot first, questions later, and no accountability.
  - hbarka 4y ago

Throwawayaerlei 4y ago

Those two fit together very well, this isn't an either/or. 43 states with 74% of the nation's population having Shall Issue or better concealed carry regimes tells us the former option is not disastrous ("better": half the states not requiring a licence). Common sense tells us we won't be able to take guns away from criminals without currently unacceptable policies like Bloomberg's "Stop and Frisk" which some claim made NYC safer for a while. A knowledge of history reminds us what happened the last time a deadly serious attempt to seize weaponry from the people was made, although hard experience tells us the only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history. Common sense and history also tells us that whatever you think of the higher level merits, going "soft on crime" like the Warren Court was emblematic of and today BLM and "Defend the Police" means a surge in all crime and that breaking out "gun violence" makes no sense, an Asian in a city where effective defense is illegal murdered by a criminal doesn't care what instrument was used. Note on the Warren Court period: there's an overlay of the demographic bulge of the Baby Boom that makes it impossible to say how much the policies adopted at the time made a fundamental difference. Although I'd say, not that I believe for a second it'll be addressed, removing force from the toolkit for the severely mentally ill had a significant impact (as in forcing people to take their meds, just these wonder drugs being available as my mother witnessed as a nurse in the 1950s does not mean they'll be rigorously taken).