Hacker News Reader

School shootings are usually committed by children… children have little access to politicians and little interest in politics.

> Why is the 2nd amendment sacrosanct even to politicians who get the dangerous end pointed at them?

Sounds like a zinger, but isn’t really.

> Sounds like a zinger, but isn’t really.

Why not?

From the outside, trust me: we have no idea why you're like this.

Every time gun controls come up, the American people's reaction, visible worldwide, is "No! Guns keep us safe from governments gone rogue!" — so why are politicians not scared of them even when actually fired upon?

It really, genuinely, sincerely, makes no sense. Do your politicians think the secret service is magical pixie dust? Or are you all just so numb to the ongoing threat of it that you treat it as an unavoidable part of nature? (As per Onion headline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_...)

> School shootings are usually committed by children… children have little access to politicians and little interest in politics.

I think you've misunderstood the point. Why do the people of the USA support the existence of the 2nd amendment over the lives of their kids? Just that, by itself, is already weird.

The USA is a country happy to let kids shoot each other as a price worth paying for… the constitutional right to threaten politicians? Who then act as if they don't feel threatened? I'm not even sure if that's better or worse than them being terrified by the guns, but it's just so alien a culture.

I mean, where I grew up, the regular placement of political figures in crosshairs in political adverts is already at the level of "WTF!", and yet in the USA it seems to not bat eyelids any more. Even the people whose faces are put in the crosshairs (both of targets and actual live fire) don't seem to object.

It makes no sense.

> From the outside, trust me: we have no idea why you're like this.

> Every time gun controls come up, the American people's reaction, visible worldwide, is "No! Guns keep us safe from governments gone rogue!" — so why are politicians not scared of them even when actually fired upon?

Because the gun-loving populace is mostly on the right and they never actually do anything. Despite what you'll see claimed online, almost all of that kind of crazy comes from the gun-hating left.

But when the left discovers a love of guns, that's when you get things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Occupied_Protest

Edit: Removed distraction from my main point

>the gun-loving populace is mostly on the right and they never actually do anything.

besides try to assassinate the predsident twice. And yes, if your kid gets into your gun, I'd say you're responsible. So many of those school shooter gun owners were right wing.

That's not even mentioning the entire police force leans right to begin with. That's a lot of people with a lot of reckless control because they know they can't be fired easily.

> Luigi was one of four recent, last 12 months, people in the news whom I would count as… well, I'm not sure "left" is the right word, but more generically not-the-Right Americans with guns who I would categorise as an "extremist".

I'm not really sure what Luigi's personal views are, but it's my impression that Luigi was (is) celebrated among both left-wing and right-wing people (including MAGA).

Hold on.

Livelsberger's uncle said "He loved Trump, and he was always a very, very patriotic soldier, a patriotic American." He was also very dissatisfied with the government but I don't see strong indications that he was criticizing from the left.

Crooks donated once to ActBlue. He was also a registered Republican and the FBI deputy director described his social media activity as anti-semitic and anti-immigration. Again, case seems open.

Routh is certainly reasonable to classify as a leftist.

That's why I called them collectively:

> well, I'm not sure "left" is the right word, but more generically not-the-Right Americans with guns who I would categorise as an "extremist".

Despite who and what they targetted.

For a mere protest-based example of oppositon: an ex of mine is an actual literal communist, so way to the left of the Dems in a lot of regards, and yet was still so anti-Dem as to promote Trump the first time around.

The "anti" part seems more relevant than the "pro", when the question is violence.

But perhaps that's just me.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. For my part, I'm very wary of accelerationist tendencies and there are hints of that in the two cases I noted. Only hints, though, neither of those guys made a point of leaving full-on manifestos. (Livelsberger came kind of close with his letter talking about how he needed the country to wake up: "This was not a terrorist attack, it was a wake up call. Americans only pay attention to spectacles and violence. What better way to get my point across than a stunt with fireworks and explosives?")