Hacker News Reader

Comment by _mlbt | Hacker News Reader

> With no second amendment, you could plainly ban firearms altogether.

Banning them doesn’t get rid of them. As the saying goes, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

> Demonstrate that there would be an increase in violent crime without guns.

As a corollary to my previous point. Criminals will still have guns because they are criminals and they don’t have any respect for the law. They will be emboldened by knowing that every potential victim they come across will be unarmed.

> The current government was elected in a society with guns. The best way to prevent tyrannical governments is an educated populace that doesn’t vote for tyrants.

What is preventing a government from declaring marshal law and suspending elections as soon as the citizens are disarmed? You greatly underestimate how afraid the elites are of an armed populace.

View on HN

> Banning them doesn’t get rid of them.

Check historical instances of gun bans. They don’t line up with this assertion.

> They will be emboldened by knowing that every potential victim they come across will be unarmed.

Check historical instances of gun bans. They don’t line up with this assertion.

> What is preventing a government from declaring marshal law and suspending elections as soon as the citizens are disarmed?

The same thing that prevents this in countries with gun bans.

Most rural communities will not be willingly surrendering their firearms under any circumstances. They are heavily armed, yet they have very low rates of gun violence, at least until tyrants come for their guns that is.

Contrast that to urban areas where extensive gun control laws are in place. The issues are social and cultural and are not something that a gun ban will solve.

We are not Western Europe or Australia.

Also, like I said in another comment, guns are everywhere here and that toothpaste is already out of the tube. Most guns are not registered. No one knows for certain how many there are and who owns them. There will at best be no cooperation with forced confiscation, and most likely there will be active resistance against such a tyrannical incursion upon the rights of free people. Even law enforcement and large swaths of the military are unlikely to cooperate with confiscation efforts.

> They are heavily armed, yet they have very low rates of gun violence

Citation needed. Per capita, those in rural areas are more likely to die from suicide by gun than urbanites from gun homicide. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/280...

> The issues are social and cultural and are not something that a gun ban will solve.

Citation needed. Where have gun bans failed and why? Mexico, central, and South America, primarily because it’s so easy to obtain weapons in the U.S. and smuggle them down.

> There will at best be no cooperation with forced confiscation, and most likely there will be active resistance against such a tyrannical incursion upon the rights of free people.

Citation needed. There are absolutely nut jobs that won’t follow the law, but that’s true of any law. The solution isn’t to not pass laws. These folks will be dealt with like any other criminal.

You make a lot of assertions that seem to stand up to even the tiniest bit of scrutiny. You don’t back any of it up with any data.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com