Comment by Rule35 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Rule35 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> If the hoops to get a gun were increased 10 fold it wouldn’t effect me at all.

I imagine this line is annoying people. That you aren't bothered isn't the issue if others are. That you don't see the issue with a delay, or a background check, says more about your one-size-fits-all view than the complexity/simplicity of the problem. Personally I never have menstrual issues so I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

I come from country people, where even today going to the city is an event. And it's almost a holiday to go to "the big city". So a purchase you might be able to go to walk to the store to start a waiting period for might be between two months-apart trips for my family and much more inconvenient.

You also sound like you live in the city so your needs for protection are a lot different than in the country. In the city a pistol with frangible ammo, or a shotgun at home, are the max you'd need. In the country my driveway was 1.5km so different solutions are needed. What's a scary black gun in the city, when in the country, is a way to both keep coyotes from livestock at great distance and defend yourself from people if needed. Being 500m+ from a problem means you need more bullets (larger magazine) than being at 3' from the bad guy in the city, etc.

They're different worlds with different problems.

Look at Canada where the issue recently become polarized but not across party lines. Some nutcase in a surplus police car with a replica uniform drove around a small community gunning people down while the police holed up in the city for safety. He preyed on country people many kilometers from anyone else, with a rifle he'd smuggled up from the USA. Now the city people want to ban scary guns despite that a ban wouldn't have interfered with this shooter, but people from the country want to buy exactly the same gun he used because it's the best-in-class for home defense in those same scenarios.

I apologize for my flippant response. You’re right I didn’t think about the “country folks”. I was merely highlighting that more steps need to be taken at the burden of lawful, sane, well meaning, no-harm-to-anyone gun owners to try to stem the flow of guns into the hands of those that aren’t mentally fit to own them.

A psychologist likely won’t be able to figure out things very quickly you’re right. Perhaps a discussion could be had to find a solution there to prevent more who would do harm with them from getting said guns.

I also said nothing about gun-shows. They perform the same background checks but have been very lax in the past. And then private gun sales on recently required further vetting at least in my home state of Oregon.

In the countryside do you really need an AR15 for self defense? Surely a shotgun at home makes more sense. And then to protect livestock a high powered rifle?

I don’t know what all the solutions might be but I do know that I am willing to pay in much longer lead times to get a gun if it means the next mass shooter is less likely to.

> I apologize for my flippant response.

Np. I wasn't offended.

> I don’t know what all the solutions might be but I do know that I am willing to pay in much longer lead times to get a gun if it means the next mass shooter is less likely to.

I wonder how many shooters would have been stopped. I know one recently went shooting the day he received his guns but I don't know if he had enough guns before that. Had he been denied, what would he have done?

> In the countryside do you really need an AR15 for self defense? Surely a shotgun at home makes more sense. And then to protect livestock a high powered rifle?

Defense, against animals, likely no. Almost all animals except moose and bears are smart enough to avoid people. But defense of livestock and property, yes.

Are you saying an AR-15 isn't powerful enough for animals? It'd a moose at defensive range, but isn't what I'd want for hunting. But it'll kill any cougar-sized animal or smaller in a single hit, even at great range.

If bears are an issue you might want a 30-06, or an AR-10 to get the benefit of modern gear.

For defense against people it depends. I think the crazed shooter like in Canada is a pretty rare circumstance and the likely scenario is your wife defending the family against opportunistic robbers. In that case you want something quick and reliable, like a semi-auto battle rifle, with a high-capacity magazine. You aren't shooting at 600m, but perforating a car at 30m. But country defense is handled by the idea of weapons. Simply by being armed you and your neighbors probably won't need to use it, making the tactics of what is ideal somewhat irrelevant. Being that a shotgun is just an anti-human defensive weapon (it'll just anger a bear, very badly) it might not be worth the cost unless you use it for birding as well. The main benefit is the frangibility of the shot and lower wall-penetration which is more of a city concern.

The Canadian shooting happened and took so long to stop because even country people are largely disarmed there. You have magazine size limits, gun limits, have to store the gun locked and unloaded, and you can't intend to use the gun for defense!?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com