Hacker News Reader

Comment by grecy | Hacker News Reader

Of course. Let's pretend Billy Bob is a heated rage because he just found out so-and-so slept with so-and-so (or whatever).

What's more likely?

a) He walks around to so-and-sos house with his legally purchased, unlicensed, unregistered semi automatic assault rifle and 1000+ rounds, and kills the whole family, and anyone else unlucky enough to be nearby.

b) He spends days (weeks?) making his own gun, gunpowder and projectile by hand, and is still motivated all those days later to walk around and kill everyone, with a small caliber, (probably) non-semi automatic, (probably) small/no magazine.

Gun control won't stop people killing each other with guns. It will make it many times harder for the average Joe, therefore it will reduce the frequency, and the overall homicide rate.

View on HN

I resent your (probably intentional) choice of names. Were you trying to pick on rednecks/hicks?

Anyways, most likely: he does nothing.

Your option A is silly. First, 1000 rounds of .223 is fairly heavy (that's > 30 magazines of normal size). Second, "Unregistered"? "Unlicensed"? What good is paperwork going to do if he decides to shoot someone? We already have ( http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#background ) federal measures regulating gun sales, so we do try not to make things super-easy for felons and the like.

Also, your option B is dumb. Days or weeks, instead of a fast job with some piping to make a really ghetto shotgun? What does small caliber even mean to you? You are correct that it would be non-semiauto, as the mechanics of an open-bolt automatic weapon are simpler than even a bolt-action weapon (compare, say, the M3 greasegun to a Mauser). I could go on.

Lastly, you omit the option where he attacks them with a knife, or makes a simple blackpowder IED, or what not.

You're just being alarmist and ignorant.

To clarify:

The only firearms in the US (federal level) that are registered are NFA items (machine guns, suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns, etc).

Firearms are not "licensed", people are. And in the US, in a vast majority of the states, there is no required licensing of people wanting to own a weapon. States like Illinois or New York are the exception.

> I resent your (probably intentional) choice of names. Were you trying to pick on rednecks/hicks?

Apologies. I was trying to use a "generic" name.

> Second, "Unregistered"? "Unlicensed"? What good is paperwork going to do if he decides to shoot someone?

I expect he'll be less likely to kill people if he knows the weapon is tied to him. (and he might not have it in the first place, which is the case if I try to buy one in Australia right now)

> What does small caliber even mean to you?

I mean say a .22 instead of a center fire. Less killing power. bolt action also means less killing power (i.e. much slower)

> Lastly, you omit the option where he attacks them with a knife, or makes a simple blackpowder IED, or what not.

knife could harm or kill just a couple of people. IED is in the same range as a homemade gun in that it takes a long time and lots of effort to make.

> You're just being alarmist and ignorant.

Actually, I own a .30-06 and a 12 gauge and regularly go hunting.

> I was trying to use a "generic" name.

No, you were not. It was deliberately aimed as a classist swipe.

  I expect he'll be less likely to kill people if he knows 
  the weapon is tied to him.

If he's already hot-blooded, it seems reasonable that he won't care.

  I mean say a .22 instead of a center fire. Less killing 
  power. bolt action also means less killing power (i.e. 
  much slower)

Ah, okay, but why not something like a 12-gauge shell, or just a blunderbuss? Or just normal/common 9mm/.45 ammunition?

  knife could harm or kill just a couple of people.

Mankind has been using knives to kill in great numbers since we discovered the first sharp flint. Even in only the past ten years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre

I won't even waste time pointing out how effective a set of box cutters can be.

  IED is in the same range as a homemade gun in that it 
  takes a long time and lots of effort to make.

This is incorrect.

  Actually, I own a .30-06 and a 12 gauge and regularly go  
  hunting.

Cool. What models, out of curiosity?

> If he's already hot-blooded, it seems reasonable that he won't care.

Good point, he might do it anyway due to "blind rage"

> Ah, okay, but why not something like a 12-gauge shell, or just a blunderbuss? Or just normal/common 9mm/.45 ammunition?

I was making the assumption that any home-made rifle would be crude and small caliber, probably bolt-action (at best). I was assuming it would have less "killing power" because of the time to re-load and crudeness of it all. (I was not commenting on the force of the round itself)

> Mankind has been using knives to kill in great numbers since we discovered the first sharp flint. Even in only the past ten years:

The first incident was 8 children killed (and let's be honest, you can kill 7 and 8 year olds with your hands). The second incident was 3 adults killed. That's a lot different that 12 dead and 70 people shot overall with a semi-auto.

> Cool. What models, out of curiosity?

The .30-06 is a Remington 700 XCR. Up here in Yukon by law you must use a minimum of .30 for bison, so it's good for them (we gone one last year), moose (we got two), caribou (still looking). The season opens next week, can't wait.

Bolt Action means less killing power? WTF. You claim to be a hunter with an '06, yet you think a .223 is more powerful? The .30-06 is roughly 3x more powerful than the .223 fired by an AR15 which is really just a glorified varmint round.

I seriously doubt you really shoot/hunt/own weapons based on the statements you just made.

> Bolt Action means less killing power?

I meant "less" because it's so much slower to reload.

I was not commenting on the "power" of the rifle/round itself.

Obviously, a muzzle loading .50 has lots of "power", but I'd wager you couldn't kill many people in a movie theater with one, as apposed to a semi-auto (of any caliber, really).

I think that the problem lies with Billy Bob, not the gun. It's not worth preventing the edge cases if that means reducing the average person's ability to defend themselves. Say that one person of the family had a pistol, and ran and got it while the Billy was busy shooting the others? The family member could then shoot Billy and possibly save a few family members. Guns are a means of personal power, and while loose gun laws mean that an unlawful person can get a gun, it also means that other people can defend themselves against said person, or other, non-gun-related crimes such as burglary.

And for those who say "bah hard to get illegal guns", replace the word "guns" with "drugs" and tell me how hard those are to get.

That's a pretty bigoted comment. When's the last time you heard of a "redneck"/"hick" as you'd probably call them, commit mass murder with a firearm? If anything, I find them generally far more responsible with firearms because they grew up learning about them, not learning about them in violent action movies with ceramic Glocks.

And that's the big question: What percentage of homicides are done spur of the moment by people who would not acquire weapons illegally under a ban?

Why wouldn't he just grab a knife from his kitchen? Or run them down with his car? Or a bat? Or set their house on fire?

Not having a gun isn't going to stop a person who wants to hurt someone else from doing it. It's just a tool.

> Why wouldn't he just grab a knife from his kitchen? Or run them down with his car? Or a bat? Or set their house on fire?

How many people would he kill compared to a high-caliber semi-automatic assault rifle with 1000+ rounds of ammo?

> It's just a tool.

A tool that enables the holder to seriously injure or kill many more people than other readily available tools.

Stop saying '1000+ rounds of ammo', as it makes you sound like the alarmist you are.

Point of fact - a loaded magazine for an AR-15 weighs in at approximately one pound. To carry '1000+ rounds of ammo', you would need to carry something like 30 magazines. Try it sometime - that only happens in video games for a reason.

A large truck driven through a crowded market could kill many more people than your average looney with a semi-automatic rifle. These highly publicized events make up only a tiny fraction of the number of homicides we experience per year, most of which only use a few bullets, and not from a 'high-caliber semi-automatic assault rifle'. Calm down.

In this particular example he had a finite list of people he wanted to kill in either case, so if moderately athletic guy who's for-armed himself with a baseball bat and knife I'd expect him to be able to murder a person or small number of people with or without a gun.

As to someone who's really crazy and wants to kill as many people as possible, well, people who use bombs seem be much more deadly than people who use guns, so I'd be nervous about banning guns for fear of channeling them into less visceral but more deadly sorts of mayhem.

He probably would but the probability of actually killing the victim would be much lower.

You can kill a lot more people more easily and more accidentally with a gun and also with quite a high probability compared to a knife. Guns just require one click to inflict a fatal wound if you know the tinies imaginable bit of knowledge of where to aim.

So you can just shoot another person off the bat but with a knife or another close-range weapon you have someone who realizes that a) you have a knife and b) you intend to fatally use it against him. That means combat.

I don't know which person attacked is more determined or more difficult to stop, a parent with kids or a person who's just running for life but they're both damn fucking hard. You will have to catch your victim first and if you just did, s/he will try nothing but escape again.

Now, with a knife (or a bat or...) you're likely to be able to wound that other person but actually killing him/her always requires an extra mile. All kinds of odds are stacked against not only the victim but the attacker as well, and as stabbing requires an intimate range and takes time, the outcome is far from certain unless you're really, really good.

I'd much rather be attacked by an amateur knifer than an amateur gunner.

This just isn't true. The easiest way to kill a lot of people quickly (or even semi-accidentally) is with arson.

What part of "HOMICIDAL MANIAC" do you not understand? Do you think he'll only kill the family and anyone else who gets in his way ONLY if he has a gun? I don't think this is how homicidal maniacs work.

> What part of "HOMICIDAL MANIAC" do you not understand?

I understand we should try to prevent them from getting their hands weapons that can harm or injure tens of people in a matter of seconds.

70 people hit by one person in a movie theater with a semi-auto. How many do you think it would have been with a knife? or even a bolt action?

By this logic we should live in a police state. Anything to keep the crime rate down right?

Let's pretend Billy Bob is a heated rage

Using a stereotyped redneck name is ugly.

Next time use first letter of the alphabet, common name. Second person gets second letter, common name and so on.

"Let's pretend Alice is a heated rage because she found out Bob slept with her wife Carol."

Much better, nu?

> Billy Bob

And this kind of simple classist bigotry ("The poor people are dangerous! They aren't like us!") is one reason the people who want to increase firearm regulation have done such a terrible job of it: You can't intelligently impose laws on a culture you have no understanding of, especially if you think it's not important to understand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com