4 ms·

> The claim is we will restrict/license/outlaw xyz for the kids, but really, a data-drive approach would have focused on different things entirely (eg additiona

> The claim is we will restrict/license/outlaw xyz for the kids, but really, a data-drive approach would have focused on different things entirely (eg additional behavioral health services for kids, suicide prevention etc) Well, most of Europe simply has banned guns in the hands of civilians instead, so that's some data as well. The only reason why the US is so extremely lax on firearms is because people keep blathering on about how guns are the last line of defense against a tyrannical government - and yet, what do the most rabid of these people do? Vote in and defend a literal tyrant.

jaharios 3mo ago
> Vote in a literal tyrant. Tyrant? You may disagree with him, but he got in through the system. Now if he doesn't get out that is another story.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- mallets 3mo ago
  Being a tyrant has little to do with term limits or office duration.
  - Ntrails 3mo ago
    A couple of dictionary checks suggest some set of: - Ruler who is unrestrained by law or constitution - A usurper of sovereignty - Ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly Obviously b) is not applicable as per GP. He has also been constrained by the supreme court and others multiple times in this term, which suggests a) is a stretch. c) probably a fair accusation, though I'm not sure I would agree.
- one33seven 3mo ago
  Hitler was elected too (not saying he is Hitler)
  - Gareth321 3mo ago
    Hitler was not elected Chancellor by the German public. Germany had/has a mixed-member proportional system, meaning that coalitions may form after everyone votes President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor on 30 January 1933 after negotiations among conservative politicians who believed they could control him. The Nazi Party was the largest party, but it won only 33.1% of the vote in the final free Reichstag election of November 1932 and never secured a popular majority. Once appointed, Hitler exploited emergency powers and political intimidation to dismantle democratic institutions and convert his government into a dictatorship. During his political ascent he used his Brownshirts - a large, organised paramilitary force - to assault political opponents, break up rival meetings, intimidate voters, and fight street battles, helping destabilise the Weimar Republic and suppress opposition.
    - greedo 3mo ago
      Your comment implies that Hitler seized power despite a lack of popularity. The historical record shows that Hitler was wildly popular in Germany, even up to the end of WW2.
      - Gareth321 3mo ago
        I very clearly provided the exact percentage popularity he had at the height of his democratic rise. Whether you'd like to accurately call that less than a third, or "wildly popular" is I suppose subjective.
        greedo 3mo ago
        You provided the percentage of voters. This is not an accurate proxy for support.
      - marysol5 3mo ago
        I mean 3 seconds after the Nazis surrendered, there was suddenly no Nazis in Germany
derektank 3mo ago
>The only reason why the US is so extremely lax on firearms is because people keep blathering on about how guns are the last line of defense against a tyrannical government No, it’s because the right to own firearms is very explicitly stated in our constitution and the constitution requires an extreme super majority to update. A 50%+1 majority is all that’s required to ban civilian ownership of guns in most parliamentary systems, not so in the US. The culture is downstream of the law.
- phoghed 3mo ago
  Or just a reinterpretation of a single line of the constitution.
  - plagiarist 3mo ago
    Oh, SCOTUS doesn't radically reinterpret the Constitution in that direction. Or, perhaps maybe it does, but nobody's bought Clarence the right RV yet.
- xethos 3mo ago
  > the right to own firearms is very explicitly stated in our constitution The right to bear arms does not necessarily mean firearms. Arms doesn't necessarily even have to include firearms, and America is already pretty damn strict about certain armaments, such as sub-machine guns. Americans are allowed to have certain firearms, sometimes, in some places. I'm not sure how one squares that with the blanket statement from the American constitution that Americans have the right to bear arms, unless it's simply an impossibly poorly-informed citizenry
  - kelnos 3mo ago
    You can personally interpret the US constitution however you want, I suppose, but the only interpretation that matters is that of the Supreme Court. And they have held over and over that 2A includes a right to many different kinds of firearms. I feel like you're the one who is poorly informed? (For the record, I am in favor of strong gun control laws, but your statement just ignores reality.)
wang_li 3mo ago
No part of Europe has “simply banned guns”. Some countries have stricter policies but it’s possibly to own a gun in every country. Some countries are famous for gun ownership, eg switzerland that expects men to keep their militarily issued gun in the home.
- kelnos 3mo ago
  I'd be a lot more comfortable with gun ownership in the US if we could require every owner to have military-level firearms training and certification.
  - eecc 3mo ago
    Well, that was the whole point of the 2A: effective preparedness. But gun manufacturers ragebaited this exceptionally effective marketing campaign around their products and here’s where you folks stand
  - marysol5 3mo ago
    That would require you to actually follow the constitution, instead you've got "Nuh-uh! I don't read the rest of the 2A"
psd1 3mo ago
> Well, most of Europe simply has banned guns in the hands of civilians instead, so that's some data as well No, that's some bullshit. How do you think we eat pheasant and rabbit and venison? Show me a pheasant farm and I'll show you forty acres of unfenced woodland littered with empty cartridges. Observe! https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-ownership-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-owner...
- consp 3mo ago
  My guess is the person is drawing from one country and applying it to all. The rules are varied all over the EU. e.g. You can buy pheasant, rabbit and venison at the butcher shop where I live. No hunting required, which you can do but requires a special permit, next to the weapons permit for the shotgun and is very limited in scope.
  - psd1 3mo ago
    I'll wager that rabbit and that pheasant that you see skinned and cleaned in the shop were shot by a man in a field. I'm open to counterexamples, so let me know what your butcher tells you. I like your attitude of charity - we should not rush into judgement. But mschuster91's comment said: > most of Europe simply has banned guns in the hands of civilians This is bullshit. GP must be aware that they are profoundly ignorant on the topic, so why are they holding an opinion, let alone posting it? Should we tolerate bullshit on HN?
marysol5 3mo ago
>Well, most of Europe simply has banned guns in the hands of civilians instead Nope

jaharios 3mo ago

> Vote in a literal tyrant. Tyrant? You may disagree with him, but he got in through the system. Now if he doesn't get out that is another story.

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
mallets 3mo ago
Being a tyrant has little to do with term limits or office duration.
- Ntrails 3mo ago
  A couple of dictionary checks suggest some set of: - Ruler who is unrestrained by law or constitution - A usurper of sovereignty - Ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly Obviously b) is not applicable as per GP. He has also been constrained by the supreme court and others multiple times in this term, which suggests a) is a stretch. c) probably a fair accusation, though I'm not sure I would agree.
one33seven 3mo ago
Hitler was elected too (not saying he is Hitler)
- Gareth321 3mo ago
  Hitler was not elected Chancellor by the German public. Germany had/has a mixed-member proportional system, meaning that coalitions may form after everyone votes President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor on 30 January 1933 after negotiations among conservative politicians who believed they could control him. The Nazi Party was the largest party, but it won only 33.1% of the vote in the final free Reichstag election of November 1932 and never secured a popular majority. Once appointed, Hitler exploited emergency powers and political intimidation to dismantle democratic institutions and convert his government into a dictatorship. During his political ascent he used his Brownshirts - a large, organised paramilitary force - to assault political opponents, break up rival meetings, intimidate voters, and fight street battles, helping destabilise the Weimar Republic and suppress opposition.
  - greedo 3mo ago
    Your comment implies that Hitler seized power despite a lack of popularity. The historical record shows that Hitler was wildly popular in Germany, even up to the end of WW2.
    - Gareth321 3mo ago
      I very clearly provided the exact percentage popularity he had at the height of his democratic rise. Whether you'd like to accurately call that less than a third, or "wildly popular" is I suppose subjective.
      - greedo 3mo ago
        You provided the percentage of voters. This is not an accurate proxy for support.
    - marysol5 3mo ago
      I mean 3 seconds after the Nazis surrendered, there was suddenly no Nazis in Germany

derektank 3mo ago

>The only reason why the US is so extremely lax on firearms is because people keep blathering on about how guns are the last line of defense against a tyrannical government No, it’s because the right to own firearms is very explicitly stated in our constitution and the constitution requires an extreme super majority to update. A 50%+1 majority is all that’s required to ban civilian ownership of guns in most parliamentary systems, not so in the US. The culture is downstream of the law.

phoghed 3mo ago
Or just a reinterpretation of a single line of the constitution.
- plagiarist 3mo ago
  Oh, SCOTUS doesn't radically reinterpret the Constitution in that direction. Or, perhaps maybe it does, but nobody's bought Clarence the right RV yet.
xethos 3mo ago
> the right to own firearms is very explicitly stated in our constitution The right to bear arms does not necessarily mean firearms. Arms doesn't necessarily even have to include firearms, and America is already pretty damn strict about certain armaments, such as sub-machine guns. Americans are allowed to have certain firearms, sometimes, in some places. I'm not sure how one squares that with the blanket statement from the American constitution that Americans have the right to bear arms, unless it's simply an impossibly poorly-informed citizenry
- kelnos 3mo ago
  You can personally interpret the US constitution however you want, I suppose, but the only interpretation that matters is that of the Supreme Court. And they have held over and over that 2A includes a right to many different kinds of firearms. I feel like you're the one who is poorly informed? (For the record, I am in favor of strong gun control laws, but your statement just ignores reality.)

wang_li 3mo ago

No part of Europe has “simply banned guns”. Some countries have stricter policies but it’s possibly to own a gun in every country. Some countries are famous for gun ownership, eg switzerland that expects men to keep their militarily issued gun in the home.

kelnos 3mo ago
I'd be a lot more comfortable with gun ownership in the US if we could require every owner to have military-level firearms training and certification.
- eecc 3mo ago
  Well, that was the whole point of the 2A: effective preparedness. But gun manufacturers ragebaited this exceptionally effective marketing campaign around their products and here’s where you folks stand
- marysol5 3mo ago
  That would require you to actually follow the constitution, instead you've got "Nuh-uh! I don't read the rest of the 2A"

psd1 3mo ago

> Well, most of Europe simply has banned guns in the hands of civilians instead, so that's some data as well No, that's some bullshit. How do you think we eat pheasant and rabbit and venison? Show me a pheasant farm and I'll show you forty acres of unfenced woodland littered with empty cartridges. Observe! https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-ownership-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-owner...

consp 3mo ago
My guess is the person is drawing from one country and applying it to all. The rules are varied all over the EU. e.g. You can buy pheasant, rabbit and venison at the butcher shop where I live. No hunting required, which you can do but requires a special permit, next to the weapons permit for the shotgun and is very limited in scope.
- psd1 3mo ago
  I'll wager that rabbit and that pheasant that you see skinned and cleaned in the shop were shot by a man in a field. I'm open to counterexamples, so let me know what your butcher tells you. I like your attitude of charity - we should not rush into judgement. But mschuster91's comment said: > most of Europe simply has banned guns in the hands of civilians This is bullshit. GP must be aware that they are profoundly ignorant on the topic, so why are they holding an opinion, let alone posting it? Should we tolerate bullshit on HN?

marysol5 3mo ago

>Well, most of Europe simply has banned guns in the hands of civilians instead Nope