Hacker News Reader

Comment by MaysonL | Hacker News Reader

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.

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.

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

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

> 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.

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