Hacker News Reader

Comment by baby | Hacker News Reader

You are putting everyone else in danger when you start carrying weapons, as an ex-resident of the bay I'm really happy that the rules are against weapons in general

View on HN

How exactly? IMHO, sf would be a lot safer if the criminals would have at least the concept that someone could respond to their violence with equal violence.

Today, aside from the slim chance of being caught by an unengaged police force, the cost is zero.

Are... you seriously suggesting that if it was easier to get guns there might be less violent crime?

Yes. That is what is likely being suggested.

A well armed society is a polite society.

But hey, if you live in an ivory tower, why let the common folk have a right to bear arms? Doesn't that sound elitist to you?

A certain someone by the name of Ronald Reagan (yeah... that guy... the one worshiped by conservatives) signed the Mulford Act into law to keep Black Panthers from open carrying guns. California's history on gun control seems oddly classist and racist when you think about it.

> A well armed society is a polite society.

I asked my grandfather about that. He came back with a story how one time he and his dad went into town and found out that the Pharmacist shot the Postman and killed him. said there was blood in the street. That was outside of Memphis in 1910.

So yeah all nice in thoery, in practice men kill each other over stupid things.

>So yeah all nice in thoery, in practice men kill each other over stupid things.

And your point? Murder is illegal and punishable if it's not considered "justified homicide" under a court of law. But murder being illegal never stopped some folks from committing the act anyway.

Personally, I'd rather have an insurance policy on hand if needed in case a nut decides to want to attempt to cause me undue harm. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

What about every other developed nation that seems to manage without a fully armed populace?

If your theory is that Cali has crime cuz no guns, why do other nations in the world with stricter gun rules seem to get by without this “chaos”?

You gotta have some other variables in there for this to hold up.

Wait, what chaos are you referring to? I'm simply stating that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the US Constitution and it's wrong that the Sheriff is acting as some kind of gatekeeper on who should be allowed to exercise their rights, beyond what is codified in law. That's all I'm really pointing out here, in line with the article posted here.

Frankly, we could definitely go into comparing other countries and how they handle this compared to the US, but this is an entirely different can of worms I can't really do justice here in an HN comments section.

I may suggest checking out /r/gunpolitics on reddit, or if you're aligned with liberal or leftist ideology, I strongly recommend /r/liberalgunowners and /r/SocialistRA for more information. I frequent those spaces often.

Finally, for all the news does to point out violent crimes committed with firearms, there are numerous defensive uses of guns that occur nearly every single day that slip under the radar. /r/dgu on reddit can show you some examples there.

I was referring to your 'well-armed society is a polite society'.

All this energy put into trying to say that "increasing gun ownership will somehow decrease crime" is frustrating because it clearly is missing the forest for the trees. None of the explanations seem to apply when looking at other countries in the world.

And.... like.... nobody's wallet is worth another person's life.

As a quick note, I appreciate the candor of your responses. And, I understand the sentiment you point out about a wallet not being worth another person's life. But sadly, not everyone necessarily will take your cash and dash. I'm really mostly focused on someone who is determined to leave you dead for one reason or another.

And of course, use of a gun, even defensively, should only be a last resort. I'm not advocating that everyone become Rambo and shoot their way through problems. Every action has a consequence, and whether you were justified in your shooting or not, the jury will decide that in their deliberation of the evidence.

> A well armed society is a polite society.

This country has a long way to go... no wonders why we’re stuck with nuclear weapons.

To expand on this... there are virtually zero intentional homicides at gun ranges and gun shows where hundreds of weapons are present.

Also all gun laws are discriminatory toward the poor and minorities disproportionately.

I can't agree more. Simply put, even if you do manage to get a thumb up from the Sheriff in California for a permit, the fees really are a tax on the poor as well.

Yet mass shootings and gun violence only seem to occur overwhelmingly in countries where there is less friction to buy weapons (like the US).

That depends on what you define as a "mass shooting". Some of the statistics turn out to be playing a game of sleight of hand, defining events that really shouldn't be classified as a mass shooting as a mass shooting. Most of that talk is to get the peanut gallery up in a tizzy about a problem that is far less dire than suggested.

Here's a link to some data being combed from 2019.

https://www.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/comments/cmzzlc/25...

Also, there are instances where suicides are being tagged as mass shootings as well.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-we-prevent-mass-sho...

Frankly, I think we could stand to increase education around the issue of guns, mental health, and personal responsibility, rather than trying to reflexively legislate away access to firearms, which primarily affects law abiding citizens and not criminals.

Just some food for thought.

Guns are easy to get for criminals, in SF they are hard to get for law abiding citizens.

So yes, if people who follow the law can equalize force with criminals, the criminals would consider more careful applying their force indiscriminately.

Isn’t it basically property damage?

Whose car is so valuable that they should be allowed to shoot someone for breaking into it?

Maybe there’s some deeper statistics or like a bunch of violent crime that I’m unaware of but my wallet ain’t worth the thief getting shot.

>my wallet ain’t worth the thief getting shot.

Well, mine is. And I'm glad that we both get to decide that for ourselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com