8 ms·

This is shameful behavior - it is tantamount to mob rule & harassment, with the effective statement that "We strongly dislike what you're doing, so we are going

• walshemj 13y ago
  If I where a Googler working in SF id have to start seriously thinking about getting a PPW license. PPW is short hand for the Uk licence to carry a gun for personal protection - and yes there are tech companies that do have staff that do that.
  • hgsigala 13y ago
    Do you honestly think that carrying a weapon in the san francisco bay area is a good idea?
    • BryanB55 13y ago
      Yes. But clearly you have an opposing view on the right to defend yourself with a firearm. No need to make this into a gun debate.
      • ThomPete 13y ago
        And yet you do exactly that.
        • aaronem 13y ago
          As far as I can tell, it's a necessary consequence of any mention of firearms on HN, in any context. There seems little point in blaming any one participant, in any one instance, for the perennial argument over what is perhaps the most immediately, or at least the most reliably, polarizing issue ever raised on HN.
          • DanBC 13y ago
            Fireamrs is only one hot-button topic for HN. Others include Isreal / Palestine; sexism; RMS; etc. it is trivially easy to troll HN. HN does not do well at ignoring trolls or not responding to overly-enthusiastic posters. (There are some exceptions to this where a person will carefully talk through differences in opinion to try to understand or communicate a point of view but these are exceptions).
      • deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    • walshemj 13y ago
      If I am getting threatened by random loonies yes - just as if I had worked for one of my previous employers in NI I would have been very careful about who I talked to and which places I went. one of my mates is married to a DA in the USA and has had to "cheek his guns just in case some one tried to make the threat good. Don't assume that all us Brits are fluffy little things who will have a fit of palpitations when fire arms are mentioned
    • danielweber 13y ago
      I can come up with lots of reasons for why carrying a concealed weapon is more likely to be harmful than beneficial in these circumstances. But why is it a bad idea to carry a weapon in SF? Are people stopped and frisked? Are there metal detectors everywhere? Are there pickpockets all over the place that will steal your weapon and use it against you?
      • stefan_kendall 13y ago
        It is extremely difficult to legally buy and conceal a handgun that conforms to California law. You also can't pickpocket a gun to anyone carrying it appropriately. Try to take a gun from a cop and see what happens.
        • kasey_junk 13y ago
          Weapon retention is an extremely stressed training point for most law enforcement agencies (even over effective shooting in many places). That's because many LEO shootings involve their service weapons that have been taken (I've seen estimates in the 8-12% range). This is in a population that is trained in weapon retention. I've rarely met non-LEO folks who spend adequate time on the skill.
  • BryanB55 13y ago
    Good luck. I'd encourage this even if you are not a Google employee. You'll probably want to move out of California if you want the right to defend yourself and family though. Getting a concealed carry license there is next to impossible.
    • pavel_lishin 13y ago
      > Good luck. I'd encourage this even if you are not a Google employee. How come?
      • BryanB55 13y ago
        Well you asked so I'll answer but I understand that a lot of people on HackerNews may not share my same views on self defense. Also to be clear, I don't think a non-violent blockade necessitates the use of a firearm. However, I think the topic came up because protests can and do lead to a handful of rogue protestors going too far, getting too angry and attacking people. So to answer your question in a general statement: I'm a firm believer that is my responsibility to protect my life and my family and no one else's. I also think it is naive to believe that I could never be the victim of a crime or brutal attack by someone equipped with a more effective weapon than my hands. I'd much rather have a firearm in my hand then a cell phone waiting for 911 when someone is clearly trying to inflict severe harm or death.
        • pavel_lishin 13y ago
          Fair enough; I respect your desire and right to do so. I don't think it's for everyone, though, so I asked why you wanted to encourage everyone to do it. Thanks for answering my question. I, personally, believe that I'm statistically likely to make a situation worse or possibly hurt myself if I own a handgun. So I choose not to have one. I might choose differently at a later date, depending on where I live.
  • wl 13y ago
    San Francisco almost never issues such licenses. If memory serves, only two people currently have CCW licenses issued by the City and County of San Francisco. Those two people who have them have serious political connections.
    • refurb 13y ago
      Last I heard it was down to a single person. However, CCWs in California are state-wide licenses and many of the more rural counties are pretty liberal with giving them out. Even Sacramento is close to a "shall-issue" county. I've heard San Diego is pretty decent too. In other words, if you live in a county where you can get a CCW, you can carry it legally in the entire state.
  • abritishguy 13y ago
    The only place that a member of the public can get a PPW in the UK is Northern Ireland.
    • walshemj 13y ago
      yes and there was a huge fuss when they put the BT logo on the car park passes.
      • walshemj 13y ago
        Two who ever voted me down around 20% of my ex coworkers I know in BT from NI had close family members killed by terrorists in the troubles.
        • aaronem 13y ago
          "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." The trouble with the eternal firearms argument is that anti-firearms types tend to be theorists (many of whom, in my experience, have never even laid hands on a firearm, to say nothing of firing one), and pro-firearms types to be practitioners. It's sort of like expecting a random Haskell programmer and a random PHP programmer to see eye-to-eye on anything, or indeed to be able to have a productive conversation with one another. In theory, this can occur. In practice...
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    • ericcumbee 13y ago
      Why is it that you think because someone has a gun they are incapable of acting rationally? If I were in the above situation I would not draw my gun with out feeling that there was a real threat to my life or property. And in that case I would rather have a gun than not have a gun.
      • DanBC 13y ago
        Recommending gun ownership in response to non-violent protest seems sub-optimal. Perhaps a gun is a useful tool in that kind of situation, but surely there's a bunch of other conflict de-escalation stuff that can be learnt first.
        • ericcumbee 13y ago
          you assume that the gun is the first option, when in fact its a last resort.
          • DanBC 13y ago
            But I see recommendations for guns all the time. I don't see recommendations for de-escalation techniques. Perhaps this is something that gun companies could do to promote their responsible gun carry image? They could provide training programmes on conflict managemen and de-escalalation along with safe gun use?
        • aaronem 13y ago
          Of course, and ericcumbee's point is well made; people who've never put any actual thought into what it's like to go armed are generally very quick to assume that those who do go armed see putting holes in things as a handy means of resolving any situation, from an argument in traffic to a panhandler begging change. (Far be it from me, of course, to speculate on any personal qualities, or lack thereof, which might be inadvertently revealed, by those who make this unwarranted assumption, in the process of doing same.) That said, if I am effectively trapped in my home by a currently non-violent protest which has as its manifesto the sort of manifest lunacy on display in the linked article, I am going to want to be able to defend family and self with force majeure, should matters proceed beyond noisy and foolish hot-headedness into an outright attack.
  • mortov 13y ago
    PPW in the UK ? Really ? Post Dunblane, all handguns are illegal in mainland UK. The only exceptions are for law enforcement/armed forces. [We'll ignore diplomatic missions using immunity/convention exceptions.] Northern Ireland does have PPW (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kin... and, handily for this topic, an FOI response on PSNI website http://www.psni.police.uk/firearms_applications_ppw.pdf http://www.psni.police.uk/firearms_applications_ppw.pdf). Without getting into all the republican politics, Northern Ireland is distinct in terms of the legal system and status compared to the mainland (of Scotland, England and Wales). You cannot use an example from NI to extend to the rest of the UK. I'll leave other commentors to discuss how sensible it is to talk about bringing guns into what seems to be a pretty hot debate on the street. One comment I read recently which has stuck with me goes along the lines of "there is no situation which resorting to violence will not make worse".
  • imroot 13y ago
    I have my CCW (Carrying of Concealed Weapon) license. In Kentucky, you must go through an instructional class before getting your weapon -- and you learn that pulling your weapon out should only happen when you're prepared to use it in a lethal manner -- otherwise the aggressor could fight you for your weapon. You don't get a handgun as a show of force -- you get one to protect yourself from imminent harm...and some asshat blocking a bus isn't putting you in imminent harm: you're in the bus, and hopefully the bus driver has already called 911 to get the person/people who are blocking the road out of your way.
  • jedmeyers 13y ago
    You will never get it. The only reasonable sheriff to issue a CCW in the vicinity is in San Mateo county.
• XorNot 13y ago
  Meanwhile in another thread, people are lamenting the idea that the government can require you to get a permit to peacefully protest, and arrest you otherwise...
  • MAGZine 13y ago
    Protests against the government shouldn't require a permit from the government. That's really, really dumb, I'm sure we can all agree.
    • maxerickson 13y ago
      The permit is for the use of the public space. I don't think there should be harsh penalties for misusing public space, but I don't really trust people to be reasonable either (meaning I'm comfortable with some rules about the uses of public spaces).
• tfinniga 13y ago
  I agree. I'd imagine if a bunch of google employees did something similar at the house of the person who organized this protest, it wouldn't be seen as being fair.
• gaius 13y ago
  I mean, it's kinda like driving by your house with a camera then putting the pictures on the web. Or slurping up your wifi credentials. Good thing Google employees would never get involved in anything like that.
  • 02 13y ago
    It is exactly like those things.
    • walshemj 13y ago
      but Google did not turn up mob handed an picket you house and make threats about you and your family did it.
      • diydsp 13y ago
        > threats Can you please tell me where they threatened? I'm curious to know if they overstepped the boundaries of peaceful protest.
        • walshemj 13y ago
          err do I need to "tell" you that being blockaded into my home and having flyers with threatening language abut me handed to my neighbors woudl make me feel threatened - it's perception that matters here.
          • chillingeffect 13y ago
            You have repeated your belief that if you /feel/ threatened then you /are/ threatened. But threatened feelings are not enough to convict. Feelings are not facts. But, let's suppose you /were/ right for a moment. What conclusions would that lead us to? If you were right and gaius (the poster above) or I felt /threatened/ by google's actions of photographing our houses and slurping our wifi credentials, would that mean that google had indeed threatened us? After all, he /felt/ threatened. In your words, the perception of being threatened matters, right? So, if you're to be believed, google _has_ threatened /me/, because /I/ feel threatened by their taking pictures in public and slurping my wifi. If this is true, then according to you, what they have done /is/ tantamount to mob rule and harassment, and Google /is/ guilty of same, as it follows all the way back up to Bahamat's post above. But of course this is not true. Google is not guilty of mob rule and harassment. Or do you believe that Google is guilty of mob rule and harassment? If there is a threat, there must be evidence of a threat. Above posters and I have requested evidence. Evidence of a crime, not evidence of feelings. To back up the charge of a threat, can you articulate: 1. A statement to inflict pain, injury, damage, etc. 2. The event for which retribution is sought? If you have those two, you have a threat. Otherwise, I'm very sorry for the feelings you feel, but the protestors have acted no worse than Google. I'm grateful my country allows us to communicate our grievances to one another.