Hacker News Reader

Comment by kelp | Hacker News Reader

> The rest would probably pursue deadly force even if they didn't have access to firearms.

I hope I'm not making a straw man here, but I think your argument is that people who are going to resort to violence will find a way, even if they don't have a gun.

The thing that always gets glossed over in this argument is how much damage you can do with various weapons.

Yes, there are people prone to violence for various reasons. And yes, people, do get beat with pipes, or stabbed (both big SF news stories lately.)

But you can kill much much more efficiently with a gun. So those prone to violence, with access to guns are able to do much more damage much more quickly and easily.

View on HN

Again, you are under the spell of the assumption that if you give someone a gun, it somehow magically changes them into willing to kill. Thats a very long reach.

Look at places like college towns where there are a lot of drunk people, and fights break out. How often do you see people being killed in these regards? These are people of all sorts of mental temperaments, under the influence, managing to just punch/kick/wrestle each other without resulting to stabbing each other, despite knives being readily available.

Even more so, for the people that could be prone to violence but of sane mind, knowing that someone may be armed can be a deterrent for them actually engaging in violence, because most of those people still have a sense of self preservation, not willing to die over someone disrespecting them in some way.

And when that one outlier person who is not of sane mind and violent enough to actually use deadly force decides to go at it, its much better that if everyone else has the means to stop him.

> Again, you are under the spell of the assumption that if you give someone a gun, it somehow magically changes them into willing to kill. Thats a very long reach.

I was not saying that at all.

I was specifically responding to the part of your comment that I quoted, where you said:

> The rest would probably pursue deadly force even if they didn't have access to firearms.

And I was specifically addressing that point and only that point.

Yes, those rest are specifically outliers. From gang members, to mentally ill people, to junkies without a grasp on reality. Vast majority people aren't trying to get into shootouts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com