Comment by dustyleary | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dustyleary | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It feels qualitatively different to argue that “he and I disagree on firearms but we continue to work together” is the same basic concept.

Imagine you’re a gay man, happily married. You work at Mozilla.

Don’t you think it would be difficult to go into work, and report to your CEO, knowing that he had donated against gay marriage? That he feels your way of life has no place in America?

Mozilla is an outspoken champion of net neutrality, anonymity, free speech, open standards, and several other ideologies that emphasize freedom. How can you clap at an all-hands meeting when your CEO stands in front of the company and talks about the importance of these freedoms, while knowing that he also feels so strongly that your private relationship with your husband is so abhorrent that he thought it was a good use of $1000 to try to ban it?

If the liberals “win”, and guns are banned tomorrow, like they are in Australia, are you so committed to your firearm rights that you’ll consider moving to another country, or suicide because life just isn’t worth living? Do you think it’s ludicrous that gay people might consider those options?

Firearms are a choice. Being gay is not. Judgement against gay marriage is judgement against who you are. Judgement against firearms is judgement against a hobby.

Take the argument back 50 years. Do you think a white boss who donated money against equal rights could/would treat black employees fairly?

Imagine that you’re a gay employee at Mozilla. You’ve been gunning for a promotion into upper management, and someone else wins the position. Are you never going to wonder, “Does his skin crawl when we shake hands? Would I have won the position if my Facebook didn’t have pictures of me and my husband on it?”

Have you ever wondered if your love of firearms has impacted your professional career?

> It feels qualitatively different to argue that “he and I disagree on firearms but we continue to work together” is the same basic concept.

I get that it feels different to you - but I'm telling you in good faith that it doesn't to me.

> Don’t you think it would be difficult to go into work, and report to your CEO, knowing that he had donated against gay marriage?

Certainly. I've quit jobs because of similar issues. If someone feels about gay marriage the way I do about guns and the right to self-defense, it sounds entirely reasonable to me for them not to financial support people who actively work against their political interests.

> If the liberals “win”, and guns are banned tomorrow, like they are in Australia, are you so committed to your firearm rights that you’ll consider moving to another country, or suicide because life just isn’t worth living?

Yes. Five years ago when I was choosing a place to move from rural Arkansas to further my career as a developer, California, Illinois, New York, and several other states were out of the question because of their gun laws. Now that I'm more established, I'm moving back to Arkansas and a large part of that is the political climate here in Virginia.

Given the choice between disarmament and emigration, I'd emigrate. Given the choice between disarmament and death, I would fight. It's that serious of an issue to me and to far more people than you'd believe unless you've lived somewhere surrounded by people who share this view.

> Firearms are a choice. Being gay is not. Judgement against gay marriage is judgement against who you are. Judgement against firearms is judgement against a hobby.

Respectfully, you're completely wrong here. Firearms are not a hobby for me, they're symbolic of my entire cultural perspective. It is no more a choice than religious affiliation.

> Have you ever wondered if your love of firearms has impacted your professional career?

Of course it has. I'd be making significantly more money right now if I'd moved to San Jose, New York City, or even Portland.

---

I'm re-reading my comments above, and hesitating to submit them because I'm concerned that they might easily be seen as justification to lump me in with the GOP. Let me be clear about that - I don't consider myself a Republican, and I don't consider myself a conservative. I'm an extreme libertarian. I have no animosity towards homosexuals, and it doesn't matter to me how someone presents themselves or structure their personal relationships. "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

The main point I'm trying to make is that online communities in particular are made up of people with drastically different perspectives on life. Some of those differences are obvious, but some are not. Some of them are expected to be respected while it's socially acceptable to disregard others out of hand. That's not right.

> I get that it feels different to you - but I'm telling you in good faith that it doesn't to me.

I think there's a very obvious difference:

(hopefully) Your views on guns and personal liberty are based on ethics and under the system you believe is ethical, personal liberty and firearms are important. You do not hold a code of ethics because it allows you to use firearms, but you believe you are allowed to use firearms due to the ethical system. (I may be mistaken here, but allow me to overstep and state that I'd find anyone who developed an ethical system to support their use of firearms downright scary).

For someone who is gay, there's nothing like that. They find different people attractive. No ethical systems to it.

In other words, "I love people of my same sex" is an axiom, "people should be allowed to use firearms" is a conclusion.

> For someone who is gay, there's nothing like that. They find different people attractive. No ethical systems to it.

And why is that difference relevant?

>In other words, "I love people of my same sex" is an axiom, "people should be allowed to use firearms" is a conclusion.

I feel that I addressed that.

I can't see how you did?

Why is a firmly held conviction less important than a physical attribute you are born with?

I never said anything about importance. I said they were different, and I believe that they should be treated differently because they are different, not because one is more important than the other.

It isn't. Anti-discrimination law includes religion in the set of protected classes.

Although I wish ranged weapons were not prevalent in my city so I can run away from a assailants, and although if it were up to me, I would make it illegal to carry guns outside the home / firing ranges / etc. because then we wouldn't have gun homicides the size of the Paris attacks every 6 days in the USA, even so...

I respect that we live in a country where people have different political beliefs and we should engage with them. And I respect that a large part of the country feels strongly about owning guns. And I also understand that the Constitution has the second amendment -- and even though the first explanatory clause is invariably ignored by gun activists ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") I leave it up to the Courts to make this decision. Incidentally, after McDonald vs Chicago it's likely that ALL cities including New York may eventually be forced by the federal government to allow open carry and concealed carry on the street!

That is why I upvoted this comment to counteract knee jerk downvotes.

To everyone who thinks Brendan Eich's support for Prop 8 is "different" than supporting a ban on guns, you have to ask yourself if you have a huge double standard.

>> and even though the first explanatory clause is invariably ignored by gun activists

It is not ignored, it is misrepresented and misunderstood by anti-gun activists, but I am not about to go into all the details of that here...

> Incidentally, after McDonald vs Chicago it's likely that ALL cities including New York may eventually be forced by the federal government to allow open carry and concealed carry on the street!

People with Licenses are not a concern, and should not concern anyone. Gun Violence against others is committed by criminals. Most "Gun Violence" committed by Legal Gun Owners is suicide which I believe should be legal anyway and not considered "Violence"

> I would make it illegal to carry guns outside the home / firing ranges / etc. because then we wouldn't have gun homicides the size of the Paris attacks every 6 days in the USA, even so.

Once you account for other sources and caused of Gun Violence (i.e the War on Drugs, and other government actions) the "threat" from legal gun owners is a statistical abnormality

If you want to reduce gun violence focus less on the tool (i.e the gun) and more on the causes of violence in general. Put that effort in toe Drug Abuse reform, decriminalization of Drugs, better mental health systems, reduction in poverty, inner city out reach and educational programs, about 1,000 other things that would be more effective at ending a lot of violence including gun violence than attempting to ban guns from law abiding people

> People with Licenses are not a concern, and should not concern anyone. Gun Violence against others is committed by criminals.

Of course they concern people including myself! Just because someone has a license doesn't mean they won't do something stupid. That includes a license to drive cars. There are lots of restrictions such as speed limits, traffic lights and so on. And everyone is a "law abiding citizen" until their very first homicide.

>Once you account for other sources and caused of Gun Violence (i.e the War on Drugs, and other government actions) the "threat" from legal gun owners is a statistical abnormality

I am well aware that half of all gun violence is suicide, and I specifically exclude it from my estimates when I say that the USA has gun HOMICIDES the size of the Paris attacks every 6 days.

Just to be clear - mass shootings account for a tiny percentage of those, and the issue is not with assault weapons. It is with GUNS. More guns means more chances for regular people to get into spontaneous gun violence over altercations in a bar or on the street. Nevermind gangs and so on.

Yes I am NOT talking suicides.

My point, however, is that just as we are discussing things now, you should discuss about gay marriage and other things. And not just knee jerk fire someone when they don't bring their political views to work.

>>>And everyone is a "law abiding citizen" until their very first homicide.

Really? Everyone is law abiding until they commit a murder...

>I specifically exclude it from my estimates when I say that the USA has gun HOMICIDES the size of the Paris attacks every 6 days.

It is completely absurd to compare a nationwide static about violence where many many many many individual events unconnected to each other occur to one organized event.

> Nevermind gangs and so on.

This is the core problem with your aurgument, France does not have the same Gang problem we have in the US, France does not have the same Aggressive Policing as we do in the US.

You can not simply "never-mind" the gangs, as the gangs are what account for the statistical differences between the US and France, if you remove Gang Related Homicides you get a comparable level of Violent crime between France and the US

>>>My point, however, is that just as we are discussing things now, you should discuss about gay marriage and other things. And not just knee jerk fire someone when they don't bring their political views to work.

I agree with this, Free Speech is under attack, not by government but by people that believe they have the right to not be offended, not be confronted with opposing views, to live their life in a echo chamber bubble where only people that agree with them exists.

When a Tweet or facebook post that some one finds "offensive" results in a national boycott to get an individual fired we as a society have lost all connection with the concept of Free Speech

>>>>And everyone is a "law abiding citizen" until their very first homicide. >Really? Everyone is law abiding until they commit a murder...

Fine, if you want to be that pedantic before you address what I say, I meant "everyone WHO MAKES THEIR FIRST HOMICIDE is not a killer until their first homicide". So the phrase "law abiding citizens" doesn't mean you have "nothing to worry about".

>It is completely absurd to compare a nationwide static about violence where many many many many individual events unconnected to each other occur to one organized event.

It's not absurd at all if the other country (France) doesn't have gun homicides the rest of the time! And it's doubly not absurd when the President tweets this:

http://variety.com/2015/biz/news/donald-trump-paris-terror-a...

>I agree with this

So we mostly agree, but you chose to comment on the stuff we disagree on to pick a fight? :)

>So the phrase "law abiding citizens" doesn't mean you have "nothing to worry about".

If you look at the criminal history and actions of most murders, homicide is not their very very very first crime. There is normally a pattern of behavior often time resulting in them losing their legal right to own a gun well before their first homicide

This of course does not apply to "crimes of passion" but Gun Control will do very little to prevent those murders it will just not be gun that is used to kill the person

>>but you chose to comment on the stuff we disagree on to pick a fight? :)

I am not picking the fight, nor did I bring gun control into it. I will however defend my right to defend myself using what ever tool I choose to including a gun. I will defend this right to self protection in all venues and at all times.

You've raised some excellent points with regards to firearms, though I had never considered them in this context as comparable to other minority groups, you have changed my mind.

One thing though, having recently been in the Portland area I can tell you firearm rights are not as badly abused as the general Portland stereotype would suggest. Portland itself has a few silly gun laws, but Oregon as a whole has a decent CCW law which overrides those of the city. It's a surprisingly gun friendly place to be.

For many communities, guns are not just a "hobby". They are an integral part of life and culture. The fact that people don't take the time to understand this is a huge issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com