Hacker News Reader

Comment by calcifer | Hacker News Reader

"No Way To Prevent This", Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_To_Prevent_This,%27_...

On that thought, is there any way to prevent shootings without making guns harder or impossible for citizens to own?

Seems many will not disarm in the US, so should we be exploring other options rather than repeatedly saying the US should be more like other countries?

Is it so bad to make guns as hard to own as a car? Simple licensing would go a long way to reduce the risk of guns.

https://www.vox.com/2019/9/11/20861019/gun-solution-backgrou...

> Is it so bad to make guns as hard to own as a car?

The ONLY people that say this are the ones that would be (fucking) horrified if we treated guns like cars.

Ok. You are proposing I should be able to buy any gun I want whenever I want regardless of size or capacity, automatic, or loud or silenced for cash without any checks or regulations at all? That the only requirement to use it in public is that I need a license - BUT - that carry license is good in all 50 states?

... that sounds good to me! Let’s do it.

Yours is an argument based entirely in ignorance of gun laws. And maybe car laws too.

> Ok. You are proposing I should be able to buy any gun I want whenever I want regardless of size or capacity, automatic, or loud or silenced for cash without any checks or regulations at all?

What? No.

But that's how loosely cars are regulated, and you said you wanted guns regulated like cars. I think what you meant to say is to regulate guns much more strictly than cars.

Well that’s how purchasing a car works, so...

Maybe you’re confusing purchasing a car with licensing a car?

It's not a tradeoff between manufacturing restrictions and licensing restrictions.

I believe he was referring to licensing a car, since the following sentence referred to "simple licensing."

> regardless of size or capacity

Vehicles of different size/capacity do require different qualifications to drive. Certain classes of vehicles require a CDL for their class. See https://driving-tests.org/cdl-classification-licenses/.

You also have to be 21+ in may states to even apply for them in many states.

Last I checked, cars do not require any licensing to own. They require special licensing and often times yearly taxes to operate on public roads (but merely possessing them on public roads does not).

You need to register the car, and that often requires proof of insurance, which requires a driver's license. Either way, my point still stands. You're quibbling over semantics. So few people want to buy a car just to not drive it, that we don't even consider it a problem.

No, you don’t need to register the car if you don’t intend to drive it on public roads. See farms.

> You're quibbling over semantics.

Not at all. He’s accurately reflecting gun laws and car laws. You are willfully hand waving the fact that cars are entirely unregulated except for use on public roads. As where guns are regulated in every facet of their existence.

You are doing this because you read on a liberal site and heard the liberal talking points that guns are easier to get than a car with is wrong.

It’s not semantic, your argument is invalid.

> and often times yearly taxes to operate on public roads (but merely possessing them on public roads does not).

In my jurisdiction one may not "move" or "leave standing" upon a public road an unregistered vehicle, in addition to not being permitted to "drive" it.

Wow, you can't tow an unregistered vehicle? That definitely sounds off, but then I've seen even more silly laws in the past (such as one that forbids minors from playing pinball).

You can tow it if its wheels do not touch the road; otherwise the owner is liable for it being on the road without registration.

The state wants its registration dollars.

They've moved the goalpost from this to "the deaths are statistically insignificant".

Where did they get that idea from? [1]

Amusingly... it was likely their opposition. This is why you should hold yourself and those you align with to high standards. It only stengthens your position...even if you are completely wrong (although only a little bit)

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism

Despite the vail of Wikipedia, your source is The Onion.

Does the onion’s satirical joke take into account all the places there are no guns but this does still happens?

Paris France, and Norway, have both had worse mass and school shootings than any in the USA ever.

Which school shootings in France and Norway have been worse than any in the USA?

Paris was the mass shooting I was referencing. 184 dead irrc.

Norway, School summer camp in 2011. I suppose it’s not exactly what you think of when you think of skin shooting inside a school building, but the people killed were almost exclusively children. Perpetrator use a rifle that has not been legal in Norway for civilians.

It wasn't a school summer camp - it was organized by a left-wing political party - and most of the people killed were adults.

He used a Ruger Mini-14 and a Glock pistol for which he had a legal license as a civilian (for hunting and sport shooting respectively), purchased in Norway - the country with the second highest legal gun ownership rate in the EU - after he failed to illegally acquire guns in Prague.

> He used a Ruger Mini-14 and a Glock pistol for which he had a legal license as a civilian

You have a source for that?

I understood neither of those guns are to be civilian legal.

Also... to the topic. If Norway’s extremely strict (draconian) gun laws didn’t prevent this shooting which was worse than any in US history; why would US benefit from them?

> You have a source for that?

Sure, I can do a Google search for you:

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?u=https:...

> Also... to the topic.

Oh, I'm not interested in playing out that tired debate. I just wanted to correct the misinformation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com