Hacker News Reader

I don't know, people have plenty of weapons in the U.S., and the person who won the presidency by 3 million votes still didn't take office. Yet in the U.K. where few people have guns, the people voted for Brexit and they will get one. It sounds like gun ownership level is inversely proportional to democracy level to me.

View on HN

The presidency has never been decided by popular vote in the ~225 years the office has existed

That's a pretty serious abuse of correlation...

But, you must admit that context of the post replied to it was very well put.

Formula:

1. Outrageously bold claim

2. Obviously ridiculous and nonsense claim of correlation

3. Things are rarely as simple as some few-word slogan.

I don't think it's outrageous to say that a few people with weapons can command many people without weapons.

I don't, personally, recall the last US election that was settle by a shoot-out.

It seems most modern democracies get by fine without civil wars.

Or: what, exactly, are you suggesting.

I'm suggesting that a fascist dictatorship is harder to establish in a place where everybody is armed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com