Hacker News Reader

Comment by phpisthebest | Hacker News Reader

To be Fair, based on the History of " restrict guns " it is clear no amount of restrictions is enough to satisfy those that want to restrict guns, confiscation and total ban is the clear end goal

it is NOT "bad faith" to say that, when there is clear evidence that no matter how many times compromise is reached they return the very next day asking for more and more restrictions

View on HN

Factually false, if you believe this you are in an echo chamber. Yes, there are a few who want to ban guns, but I know many people, some of whom are gun owners, who support reasonable restrictions.

Trying to paint the entire movement with the views of it's most extreme members is absolutely bad faith communication.

So "gun owners" fall into 2 camps

1. Sport Shooters 2. Self Defenders

There are some that over lap, but I am not a sport shooter, i own guns exclusively for self defense, most gun owners that "support reasonable restrictions" do so because they only care about maintaining shooting sports, and are fine with restrictions because normally they are targeted to self defense uses of fire arms.

There is also a small subset of gun owners that are ignorant of the current state of law and believe rhetoric like "closing the gun show loop hole" or other such non-sense.

None of this however changes the fact that the MAJOR organizations that support gun control, and big name politicians pushing for gun control have their implicit stated goal of total ban of the most common weapons in use today, (Semi-Auto rifles and pistols with capacities greater than 8)

So sure maybe they will allow people to have a black power musket, or some other such non-sense and you believe that classifies as "not a total ban" but to me that is a total ban

> So "gun owners" fall into 2 camps

Again, not true. You need to get out of your filter bubble and meet more kinds of people. People own guns for many reasons and those different reasons do drive different gun usage.

A ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity pistols is not even remotely the same thing as banning all guns or even banning all non muskets. I don't think such a ban has popular support even among those who do support greater restrictions.

To be fair, banning guns seems to also ban mass shootings.

At face value, it may seem to, but whether it practically would, in the US especially, is a totally different question.

At the very least the reduced access would reduce occurrences and fatality rates. UK and Australia are probably good comparable cultures/case studies.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/australi...

Are there countries where guns have been banned, and mass shootings increase? Are there countries where banned guns have been allowed, and mass shootings increased?

Other countries have their own version of mass shootings. They often involve knives, explosives, or vehicles instead.

You trade one for the other. Mentally unstable/unhealthy people commit mass violent acts regardless of the tools available.

In practically zero cases of mass shootings was the assailant completely mentally healthy. Taking away one particular violent tool is not going to solve the mental health problem in this country.

> They often involve knives, explosives, or vehicles instead.

Which, btw, are all regulated in the US.

Only when you ignore all the countries it doesn’t. Somalia banned guns.

a comparison between the us and somalia making about as much sense as it appears to at face value.

Banning gun Free Zones, and allowing armed citizens will do the same thing

See Indiana Mall Shooting

Or, you get a bloodbath, like what happened in Kenosha, where everyone (except the first person who was killed) involved was convinced they were the good guy with a gun.

In the fog of war of an active shooting, nobody has any idea of who is the threat, and who is responding to the threat, and nobody has time to sit around and wait for 8 months for a jury to determine whether the shooting was justified or not.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on what happened in Kenosha.... Because your rendition of events as no match for what was reveled in trial, and other sources

When you're in an active situation you don't have time to wait 8 months for a trial to clear things up. Rittenhouse believed he acted in self-defense... And at the time, so did Huber, and Grosskreutz.

This seems to be a complete re-writing of the facts revealed from eye witness and video accounts of the events of that evening. The jury also seems to disagree with this alternate narrative.

It may be what some folks want to believe happened, but it is absolutely not the facts.

> The jury also seems to disagree with this alternate narrative.

The jury decided that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. That finding is not inconsistent with anything I said.

The whole problem of firing off guns in a crowd is that everyone involved might be acting in self-defense, and yet still end up killing eachother.

Life isn't a video game, or an action movie. You can't always tell who the 'bad guy' is, or even if there is one.

People do not defend themselves by chasing after and repeatedly attacking a stranger.

People absolutely have and occasionally do rush active shooters, which is what happened in the second part of the situation.

And if you don't ever believe that confronting an active shooter is ever the correct thing to do, why do you think having a gun will help you? Take your own advice and run away, you don't need a gun to do that.

> The jury also seems to disagree with this alternate narrative.

The prosecution couldn't bring to the stand the people he killed -- because they were dead.

When your in an event the person running TOWARDS the police being chased by a mob is generally not the criminal, just saying...

I do not believe that the people who attacked Rittenhouse believed that he was an active shooter they needed to stop, not for a moment do I believe that, nor did the jury, nor did anyone else that has a rational mind

Active shooters do not run toward police with their hands up

Reply on news.ycombinator.com