4 ms·

This comment made me get off my ass and remember my YC login. Your post parses correctly, but what you're saying doesn't really correspond with reality. > Guns

by hguant 11y ago

This comment made me get off my ass and remember my YC login. Your post parses correctly, but what you're saying doesn't really correspond with reality. > Guns can even fire accidentally, with an accidental discharge on dropping the firearm being a possibility on any gun without a firing pin block (which is practically any long gun, the kind you can buy at Walmart in some states, with no waiting period in some states). Poppy cock. Modern firearms don't just go off [0]. It is true that many long rifles and shotguns don't have a firing pin block. They have hammer blocks instead (the difference being a firing pin block is activated when the shooter grasps the grip, while a hammer block prevents the hammer of pin from making contact with the cartridge until the trigger is actually pulled). Most firearms incorporate multiple safety systems. Furthermore, every firearm made in America in the last century has been certified as drop safe. The test is that the gun is dropped from a certain height (I think it's 39 inches) onto a concrete floor, with the hammer back and a round in the chamber - ie the worst case 'I was about to shoot something but butterfingered and now my live firearm is falling to the ground." That was instituted by firearms manufacturers after a spate of bad press when a factory defect meant a batch of Colt 1911's could fire if dropped with a round in the chamber (for those interested, the problem was with the strength of the firing pin spring; after several thousand rounds were fired through the weapon, the tension on the spring would be low enough that it could be over come by inertia). The 1968 Gun Control Act made drop testing mandatory. > A poorly handled gun may shoot in a totally unpredictable trajectory, and a first time user would be unlikely to consider collateral damage. (Nursery behind the attacker?) Yes, and an orphanage across the street in case you miss popping your own kid. Here's the thing - everything you're saying is based on some pretty big assumptions that just aren't true. A study conducted back in 2007 by the Force Science Center where people who had never fired a hand gun before were put through simulated gun fights found that "naive shooters ... are amazingly accurate in making head shots at close range." [1] Point and shoot is something we humans tend to do really really well. The biggest issue you aren't considering is that the biggest advantage of a gun is that you just have to have it. Power isn't shooting someone accurately - it's bringing a gun to a knife fight. Having a knife means you have to close to the target to engage - having a gun means I can stand back and project power. [0]There are cases where guns will fire accidentally. These are extraordinarily rare, and are generally due to trying to use an unmaintained firearm in a way it isn't supposed to be. [1] http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/66.html http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/66.html EDIT: formatting edit

rtb 11y ago
> bringing a gun to a knife fight I'm so glad I live in the UK where both criminals and self-defence is mostly knife based. I think the American style of "bringing a gun to a knife fight" just escalates everything. You think you need a gun in order to kill a would-be assailant. The OP says he used a knife to scare them off. I know which I prefer.
- hguant 11y ago
  tl;dr - the point of a weapon in this situation is to project and multiply force, not to kill. Firearms are the best means of doing so. > You think you need a gun in order to kill a would-be assailant. The OP says he used a knife to scare them off. I know which I prefer. I guess the point I'm trying to make and I should have phrased this more clearly, is that the primary purpose of having a weapon in this situation (either as a criminal or in the case of home defence) isn't to kill someone - it's to project force. Guns and knives are both force multipliers, it's just that a gun is much more efficient and therefore a much better force multiplier. The point isn't to kill someone, it's to coerce them with the threat of force to do what you want them to. OP was making that threat when he scared off his home intruder(s) by holding out a knife and 'leaving them an exit' - in essence he was saying "leave my home or I will use potentially lethal force on you." The situation doesn't fundamentally change if OP is armed with a knife or a firearm; it's just the strength of that threat is greatly increased. Another way to look at this - if OP and his assailant are rough equals in terms of ability to do harm to each other, it doesn't matter if OP has a knife or a gun, as long as he has one or the other. Anything that amplifies his ability to enforce his threat of force should be enough to tip the balance of power is his favour (assuming a rational adversary). Guns only become necessary or useful when there's a disparity between the assailant and the now hypothetical OP. There's a moderately well known case in America where a Texas woman's home was being attacked by two men (it turned out they wanted to steal her husband's prescription painkillers). Her ability to coerce these men without a weapon was extremely limited. However, she had a firearm, and was able to stop the attack through the threat, and use, of force. > I think the American style of "bringing a gun to a knife fight" just escalates everything. I mean, you're right. The problem is that a) things have escalated, and b) de-escalating it would mean deep systemic changes to the American Constitution and the perceived balance of power between the State and the Citizen. The reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment is two fold - first it's to provide for common defense in the form of a State militia, which is largely a moot point in this country. The second, and this is a bit controversial, is to provide citizens with a means of resisting the Federal government in the event of tyranny. One would think this would be a moot point as well, in a country that spends an obscene amount of money on its armed forces, but it has moral significance - saying that at the last, the citizen is responsible for the protection of their own liberty, and preserving the means of that protection. </rant>

by hguant 11y ago

rtb 11y ago

> bringing a gun to a knife fight I'm so glad I live in the UK where both criminals and self-defence is mostly knife based. I think the American style of "bringing a gun to a knife fight" just escalates everything. You think you need a gun in order to kill a would-be assailant. The OP says he used a knife to scare them off. I know which I prefer.

hguant 11y ago
tl;dr - the point of a weapon in this situation is to project and multiply force, not to kill. Firearms are the best means of doing so. > You think you need a gun in order to kill a would-be assailant. The OP says he used a knife to scare them off. I know which I prefer. I guess the point I'm trying to make and I should have phrased this more clearly, is that the primary purpose of having a weapon in this situation (either as a criminal or in the case of home defence) isn't to kill someone - it's to project force. Guns and knives are both force multipliers, it's just that a gun is much more efficient and therefore a much better force multiplier. The point isn't to kill someone, it's to coerce them with the threat of force to do what you want them to. OP was making that threat when he scared off his home intruder(s) by holding out a knife and 'leaving them an exit' - in essence he was saying "leave my home or I will use potentially lethal force on you." The situation doesn't fundamentally change if OP is armed with a knife or a firearm; it's just the strength of that threat is greatly increased. Another way to look at this - if OP and his assailant are rough equals in terms of ability to do harm to each other, it doesn't matter if OP has a knife or a gun, as long as he has one or the other. Anything that amplifies his ability to enforce his threat of force should be enough to tip the balance of power is his favour (assuming a rational adversary). Guns only become necessary or useful when there's a disparity between the assailant and the now hypothetical OP. There's a moderately well known case in America where a Texas woman's home was being attacked by two men (it turned out they wanted to steal her husband's prescription painkillers). Her ability to coerce these men without a weapon was extremely limited. However, she had a firearm, and was able to stop the attack through the threat, and use, of force. > I think the American style of "bringing a gun to a knife fight" just escalates everything. I mean, you're right. The problem is that a) things have escalated, and b) de-escalating it would mean deep systemic changes to the American Constitution and the perceived balance of power between the State and the Citizen. The reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment is two fold - first it's to provide for common defense in the form of a State militia, which is largely a moot point in this country. The second, and this is a bit controversial, is to provide citizens with a means of resisting the Federal government in the event of tyranny. One would think this would be a moot point as well, in a country that spends an obscene amount of money on its armed forces, but it has moral significance - saying that at the last, the citizen is responsible for the protection of their own liberty, and preserving the means of that protection. </rant>