Comment by chmod600 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by chmod600 | Hacker News Reader

If the police and or DA won't protect you for political reasons, that's a pretty good argument that you should be able to defend yourself.

It's fundamentally unfair to deny carry permits for decades and then also fail at effective policing.

Most murderers have already committed a lot of crimes, sometimes including other murders. If the police are ineffective many won't be known or reported, but I will hazard a guess that the attacker did commit them. In other words, the effective police+DA could have prevented the stabbing and didn't.

It sucks that the answer is to shoot criminals rather than prosecute them. But that is what the answer will be in the world of ineffective police+DA after Bruen. And frankly, it's good that the option will be there as a last resort for vulnerable citizens.

I know people will suggest all kinds of "better options". But those better options have been known for a long time and nothing has been done. The victims are just a statistic... collateral damage of politics.

Agree. I started carrying during Covid and have had to draw once to stop a mugger attacking me when I was with my elementary school age kid on the way to the science museum downtown (Seattle).

Out of curiosity, what was your take on firearms 5 years ago? I’m glad to see there are people realizing that in this country the only person responsible for your own safety is yourself.

Be careful defending yourself in a city like SF. You’ll likely end up in jail without the right attorneys.

My take is that if someone is close enough to stab you, you probably aren't going to be able to pull your gun in time to stop them, so it's better just to avoid situations where you might get stabbed.

I agree. In any concealed carry class the first thing they teach you is situational awareness and how to avoid a bad situation.

A gun is not a magical shield of protection, but it gives a fighting chance and they do work at least sometimes. If we are already denying someone an adequate police+DA system, by what argument can we also deny them the means to defend themselves with a firearm?

"Avoid situations where you might be stabbed" is not a great answer, either. What was the victim doing to invite stabbing? Should we just evacuate SoMa and leave it to the criminals?

> What was the victim doing to invite stabbing? Should we just evacuate SoMa and leave it to the criminals?

I would not go there. This thread in particular suggests that it is a crime-infested hellhole, but it's a sentiment I have seen here and other forums commonly. Guns also give assailants a fighting chance; I also try and avoid situations where I could be shot.

Firearms rights are an intellectual exercise to me, for the most part. I know they are personal to some, but this is an intellectual forum.

In the last five years, the pro-gun-rights side of the equation has moved more away from the idea of fighting a tyrannical government to an idea of self defense.

Also, I see those two ideas as related. A tyrannical government need not turn the military against disfavored citizens. It need only deny them police protection and turn criminals loose.

Ukraine is also interesting and there's probably some lesson there about gun rights, but I'm not well informed on that matter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com