7 ms·

The idea that “getting shot in the head” is a mysterious phenomenon that needs intense sociological research is so utterly fucking insane that it’s hard to brea

The idea that “getting shot in the head” is a mysterious phenomenon that needs intense sociological research is so utterly fucking insane that it’s hard to breathe. It’s the guns. It’s the guns. It’s the guns. The phenomena exists because the object exists and is sold in every town in America for reasons that range from the deranged to the sinister.

Jimmc414 4y ago
Murder predates projectile weapons.
- happymellon 4y ago
  Projectile weapons certainly increase its volume though.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - wrycoder 4y ago
    God created men, and Sam Colt made them equal. Let’s say you are a fifty year old woman. Just try defending yourself without a gun.
    - arghandugh 4y ago
      Let’s say your child is shot to death at school. Why didn’t you arm them? Why didn’t your five year old have a handgun? Why didn’t your child know how to shoot to kill? Guns are the great equalizer, you know.
      - wrycoder 4y ago
        I know you're just jerking me around, but to answer your question: An infant isn't capable of handling any weapon. At around the age of twelve, children, if accustomed to guns, are capable of defending themselves, and have done so, both in the pioneer days and currently. But, we don't allow children to be armed in school, because not all children are emotionally mature. That's why we set age limits on legal firearm ownership. We depend on the school staff and facilities to keep them safe and we expect that children will be civilized by their families and their schooling to respect authority. Sadly, that is not always the case, especially in the last few decades. Using a gun in self defense is a last resort. Lawful gun owners are very reluctant to do so, because they understand the responsibility and ramifications of doing that.
        arghandugh 4y ago
        I’m not jerking you around, I’m telling you point-blank that your solution to this problem is the actual problem itself. You have created a utter fucking nightmare world, and now you want to fix it with more nightmares. Fuck you. Fuck your guns. Fuck your lawful gun ownership culture. Fuck you.
        happymellon 4y ago
        > Using a gun in self defense is a last resort. Lawful gun owners are very reluctant to do so, because they understand the responsibility and ramifications of doing that. Found the person who not only didn't read the article, but is essentially summed up by it.
        wrycoder 4y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta... VT and NH, with triple the gun ownership of CA, have one half of the CA gun murder rate. NH and VT are constitutional carry states, with gun laws consistent with the US Constitution. CA is heavily regulated. How do you account for this?
        happymellon 4y ago
        So you read the article?
        wrycoder 4y ago
        Yes. It's a jumble, but it implies California is doing great. Actually, it's not. Besides, it appears that the gun murder rate is independent of gun ownership: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state#/media/File:Gun_Ownership_Related_to_Gun_Violence_by_State_(United_States).svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
        happymellon 4y ago
    - happymellon 4y ago
      Ah, and this is why they don't have mass shootings in the USA, only other countries because Americans are all well armed! Oh wait...
      - wrycoder 4y ago
        You do know that the “mass shootings” are almost always done in locations where citizens with legal pistols are not allowed to carry them, i.e. gun-free zones? And when there are armed citizens present, the shooters are usually quickly stopped?
Georgelemental 4y ago
> The idea that “getting shot in the head” is a mysterious phenomenon that needs intense sociological research is so utterly fucking insane that it’s hard to breathe. > It’s the shooters. It’s the shooters. It’s the shooters. The phenomenon exists because the criminals exist and are not imprisoned in every town in America for reasons that range from the deranged to the sinister. Did I do it right?
- sorethescore 4y ago
  That’s nice, but what are they shooting? Peas? Water? I’m curious.
  - Georgelemental 4y ago
    > That's nice, but who is doing the shooting? Dogs? Potted plants? I'm curious. We could do this all day.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- makerofthings 4y ago
  In the uk, we realised it was the people and not the guns. We also saw that you can’t stop people being unreliable and dangerous, but we can get rid of the guns. We did, and we’re better for it.
  - stuckinhell 4y ago
    The UK is island nation with controlled borders. America is the size of continental Europe. In America a rocket launcher was found near a elementary school in California. Rocket Launchers are highly illegal. We have a massive amount of illegal weapons coming from south of the border. That's Obama had a big scandal called the fast and furious (https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/obama-relents-in-fight-over-fast-and-furious-documents-221741 https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/obama-relents-in-figh...). The illegal guns they sold the cartel were coming back over the border and being used in crimes.
dokem 4y ago
Guns are not complex devices. Making them illegal does not make them go away. People are not hard to kill and if you want to do a lot of damage it’s hard to beat a can of gasoline or a U-haul. Find something else to cry about.
- happymellon 4y ago
  The article talks about the irrational conversations that gun ownership has in the USA. You can't study it. By banning any observation no one can prove whether the majority of shootings come from the gun owner or someone who stole the gun. As such the negative "making them illegal does not make them go away" also cannot be proved by you.
- vlovich123 4y ago
  That’s neither here nor there. Legislation certainly can change the amount of guns available. Compare Canada or Australia which too had similar gun cultures prior to legislation. Sure it doesn’t get rid of all guns. No one is claiming that it would but that’s an unreasonable bar that’s only set by critics. Even countries with strict gun control still have guns. However gun deaths are more rare because the penalty associated with even holding a gun illicitly are quite high, so in practice the number of guns floating around is lower and their use is really constrained (mainly because the cost of acquiring a gun is higher). Sure, the US has way more private gun ownership than other countries when they took steps towards effective legislation. It’ll take longer for any meaningful legislation to take effect, and only if it’s a national thing to mitigate cross-border transport. And SCOTUSes current ideological bent and strange 2nd amendment interpretation further complicates things at all levels. For what it’s worth the 2nd amendment seems to only ever have been interpreted about national regulations of formal state militias (eg the state’s National guard, police, etc). The reinterpretation in Heller to mean protection of private ownership is both recent (2008) and quite strange. A significantly worse decision than whatever Roe got wrong in legal theory and one that had strict social harm vs Roe which actually at least had positive social outcomes.
  - dokem 4y ago
    You are willfully misinterpreting 2a. Police and national guard are not militias. 'The people' does not mean the state. This is not a recent interpretation. The bill of rights outlines citizen's rights not the state. Obviously the state can have weapons. If you are a US citizen you have some learning to do.
throwayyy479087 4y ago
New Hampshire and Vermont and Montana have murder and gun ownership rates that refute this. It’s a hard topic.
- ParksNet 4y ago
  Its an easy topic: demographics.
  - drekipus 4y ago
    That's the dirty topic that no one wants to address in the gun debate.
    - arghandugh 4y ago
      How dare you play coy and cute? The entire fantasy and brand promise of guns is that you (white) will be able to confront nonwhites with deadly force. It’s all vile racism on top, on bottom, and in the interior. Fuck right off with this dogwhistle bullshit.
      - drekipus 4y ago
        I'm saying it's a dirty topic, precisely because of responses like yours. That might be your brand promise but it's not mine. Who said I'm white?
  - red-iron-pine 4y ago
    you're burying the lede. tell us what those demographics are.
twretgfsd 4y ago
i own guns, somehow they still havent managed to walk around on their own and start shooting people
- krapp 4y ago
  Oh hey look, it's the bad faith green account. We've all been waiting for you to show up. It wouldn't be a political thread on Hacker News without you.
908B64B197 4y ago
Let me see if I get it right "It’s the trucks. It’s the trucks. It’s the trucks. The phenomena exists because the object exists and is sold in every town in America for reasons that range from the deranged to the sinister." In foreign countries without second amendment rights criminals just ram trucks into people instead. Since no guns are involved, these don't get reported as "mass shootings", not that it would bring any comfort to the victims and their families [0] [1] [2]. In all seriousness, this isn't Harry Potter where the wand "speaks" to the wizard. An inanimate object won't "convince" someone to commit a crime. Focusing on the human shooting the gun would yield much better results. But say "mental health" and watch everyone suddenly go very silent and ignore the issue. Much easier to blame the evil inanimate object! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_van_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_van_attack

Jimmc414 4y ago

Murder predates projectile weapons.

happymellon 4y ago
Projectile weapons certainly increase its volume though.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wrycoder 4y ago
  God created men, and Sam Colt made them equal. Let’s say you are a fifty year old woman. Just try defending yourself without a gun.
  - arghandugh 4y ago
    Let’s say your child is shot to death at school. Why didn’t you arm them? Why didn’t your five year old have a handgun? Why didn’t your child know how to shoot to kill? Guns are the great equalizer, you know.
    - wrycoder 4y ago
      I know you're just jerking me around, but to answer your question: An infant isn't capable of handling any weapon. At around the age of twelve, children, if accustomed to guns, are capable of defending themselves, and have done so, both in the pioneer days and currently. But, we don't allow children to be armed in school, because not all children are emotionally mature. That's why we set age limits on legal firearm ownership. We depend on the school staff and facilities to keep them safe and we expect that children will be civilized by their families and their schooling to respect authority. Sadly, that is not always the case, especially in the last few decades. Using a gun in self defense is a last resort. Lawful gun owners are very reluctant to do so, because they understand the responsibility and ramifications of doing that.
      - arghandugh 4y ago
        I’m not jerking you around, I’m telling you point-blank that your solution to this problem is the actual problem itself. You have created a utter fucking nightmare world, and now you want to fix it with more nightmares. Fuck you. Fuck your guns. Fuck your lawful gun ownership culture. Fuck you.
      - happymellon 4y ago
        > Using a gun in self defense is a last resort. Lawful gun owners are very reluctant to do so, because they understand the responsibility and ramifications of doing that. Found the person who not only didn't read the article, but is essentially summed up by it.
        wrycoder 4y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta... VT and NH, with triple the gun ownership of CA, have one half of the CA gun murder rate. NH and VT are constitutional carry states, with gun laws consistent with the US Constitution. CA is heavily regulated. How do you account for this?
        happymellon 4y ago
        So you read the article?
        wrycoder 4y ago
        Yes. It's a jumble, but it implies California is doing great. Actually, it's not. Besides, it appears that the gun murder rate is independent of gun ownership: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state#/media/File:Gun_Ownership_Related_to_Gun_Violence_by_State_(United_States).svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
        happymellon 4y ago
  - happymellon 4y ago
    Ah, and this is why they don't have mass shootings in the USA, only other countries because Americans are all well armed! Oh wait...
    - wrycoder 4y ago
      You do know that the “mass shootings” are almost always done in locations where citizens with legal pistols are not allowed to carry them, i.e. gun-free zones? And when there are armed citizens present, the shooters are usually quickly stopped?

Georgelemental 4y ago

> The idea that “getting shot in the head” is a mysterious phenomenon that needs intense sociological research is so utterly fucking insane that it’s hard to breathe. > It’s the shooters. It’s the shooters. It’s the shooters. The phenomenon exists because the criminals exist and are not imprisoned in every town in America for reasons that range from the deranged to the sinister. Did I do it right?

sorethescore 4y ago
That’s nice, but what are they shooting? Peas? Water? I’m curious.
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  > That's nice, but who is doing the shooting? Dogs? Potted plants? I'm curious. We could do this all day.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
makerofthings 4y ago
In the uk, we realised it was the people and not the guns. We also saw that you can’t stop people being unreliable and dangerous, but we can get rid of the guns. We did, and we’re better for it.
- stuckinhell 4y ago
  The UK is island nation with controlled borders. America is the size of continental Europe. In America a rocket launcher was found near a elementary school in California. Rocket Launchers are highly illegal. We have a massive amount of illegal weapons coming from south of the border. That's Obama had a big scandal called the fast and furious (https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/obama-relents-in-fight-over-fast-and-furious-documents-221741 https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/obama-relents-in-figh...). The illegal guns they sold the cartel were coming back over the border and being used in crimes.

dokem 4y ago

Guns are not complex devices. Making them illegal does not make them go away. People are not hard to kill and if you want to do a lot of damage it’s hard to beat a can of gasoline or a U-haul. Find something else to cry about.

happymellon 4y ago
The article talks about the irrational conversations that gun ownership has in the USA. You can't study it. By banning any observation no one can prove whether the majority of shootings come from the gun owner or someone who stole the gun. As such the negative "making them illegal does not make them go away" also cannot be proved by you.
vlovich123 4y ago
That’s neither here nor there. Legislation certainly can change the amount of guns available. Compare Canada or Australia which too had similar gun cultures prior to legislation. Sure it doesn’t get rid of all guns. No one is claiming that it would but that’s an unreasonable bar that’s only set by critics. Even countries with strict gun control still have guns. However gun deaths are more rare because the penalty associated with even holding a gun illicitly are quite high, so in practice the number of guns floating around is lower and their use is really constrained (mainly because the cost of acquiring a gun is higher). Sure, the US has way more private gun ownership than other countries when they took steps towards effective legislation. It’ll take longer for any meaningful legislation to take effect, and only if it’s a national thing to mitigate cross-border transport. And SCOTUSes current ideological bent and strange 2nd amendment interpretation further complicates things at all levels. For what it’s worth the 2nd amendment seems to only ever have been interpreted about national regulations of formal state militias (eg the state’s National guard, police, etc). The reinterpretation in Heller to mean protection of private ownership is both recent (2008) and quite strange. A significantly worse decision than whatever Roe got wrong in legal theory and one that had strict social harm vs Roe which actually at least had positive social outcomes.
- dokem 4y ago
  You are willfully misinterpreting 2a. Police and national guard are not militias. 'The people' does not mean the state. This is not a recent interpretation. The bill of rights outlines citizen's rights not the state. Obviously the state can have weapons. If you are a US citizen you have some learning to do.

throwayyy479087 4y ago

New Hampshire and Vermont and Montana have murder and gun ownership rates that refute this. It’s a hard topic.

ParksNet 4y ago
Its an easy topic: demographics.
- drekipus 4y ago
  That's the dirty topic that no one wants to address in the gun debate.
  - arghandugh 4y ago
    How dare you play coy and cute? The entire fantasy and brand promise of guns is that you (white) will be able to confront nonwhites with deadly force. It’s all vile racism on top, on bottom, and in the interior. Fuck right off with this dogwhistle bullshit.
    - drekipus 4y ago
      I'm saying it's a dirty topic, precisely because of responses like yours. That might be your brand promise but it's not mine. Who said I'm white?
- red-iron-pine 4y ago
  you're burying the lede. tell us what those demographics are.

twretgfsd 4y ago

i own guns, somehow they still havent managed to walk around on their own and start shooting people

krapp 4y ago
Oh hey look, it's the bad faith green account. We've all been waiting for you to show up. It wouldn't be a political thread on Hacker News without you.

908B64B197 4y ago

Let me see if I get it right "It’s the trucks. It’s the trucks. It’s the trucks. The phenomena exists because the object exists and is sold in every town in America for reasons that range from the deranged to the sinister." In foreign countries without second amendment rights criminals just ram trucks into people instead. Since no guns are involved, these don't get reported as "mass shootings", not that it would bring any comfort to the victims and their families [0] [1] [2]. In all seriousness, this isn't Harry Potter where the wand "speaks" to the wizard. An inanimate object won't "convince" someone to commit a crime. Focusing on the human shooting the gun would yield much better results. But say "mental health" and watch everyone suddenly go very silent and ignore the issue. Much easier to blame the evil inanimate object! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_van_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_van_attack