Why do efforts to reform U.S. firearm sales always fail after mass shootings? | Hacker News Reader

Why do efforts to reform U.S. firearm sales always fail after mass shootings?

politics.stackexchange.com

10 pointsAustin_Conlon17 comments

The reason that people don't support bans on guns isn't that they don't think mass shootings might happen, so mass shootings happening don't change their opinion on whether guns should be banned.

A mass shooting happening doesn't really change anybody's calculus. The people who want to ban guns have wanted to ban guns well before [latest event], and the people who don't aren't persuaded by [latest event]. [latest event], however tragic, is rarely materially different from what has come before.

I think Sandy Hook was materially different, but insufficiently so to change the fundamental calculus. And with that as a fait accompli, there's not a lot of room left for anything that could change it.

The US has a large subset of the population who strongly believe that civilian gun ownership is an effective deterrent to government tyranny. Whether this is true in fact is irrelevant, the perception is what matters. These people are not ever going to be convinced by body count, because their highest ideal is the idea of liberty.

Alternate view, they actually just like violence. Their highest ideal is being a threat to people who disagree with them (or children)

That is plausible. It can definitely be argued that the segment of the population most vocally in favor the second amendment are the same people most likely to be pro-law enforcement, which reduces the credibility of the tyranny argument.

I typically see pro-law enforcement as being compatible with anti-tyranny argument, both in people I know and logically. Most police are able to function relatively independently from actual government control. There's often wide discretion on how police enforce (or don't) laws, and my understanding of the law is that police have no obligation to protect people from crimes at all, if they so choose.

Similarly, people commonly 'support the troops' yet distrust 'the government' entirely. It's a bizarre duality (to me) but very common.

Taking their position at face value: If I'm in favor of freedom, then I'm in favor of the military, to keep us free from foreign domination. I'm in favor of the police, because in practical terms I'm more free if I don't have to worry about being robbed on the street or murdered in my home. And I'm in favor of private gun ownership, so that the citizens can put up a fight against the government if the government ever descends into tyranny.

Note well: In this post, I am not saying that such a position is right, or even sane - merely that it's consistent.

A persistent and significant portion of the nation believes that firearms are an integral defense against tyranny and promised right from the constitutional amendments.

Oh look, a gun thread. There must have been another mass shooting in the US. Let's all spend some time together and learn once again why gun violence in the US isn't a problem, it's a solution, and the problem is liberals and leftists wanting to take away people's guns.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com