Hacker News Reader

Comment by KevinMS | Hacker News Reader

Everybody should be aware of this.

This fact makes the current debate about assault weapons seem even more convoluted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koSSNwTpaRM

UPDATE:: Jeez guys you are sensitive. No I'm not against guns at all. In fact I wouldn't care if you could buy machine guns at sears.

I was pointing out that with all the current "debate" over universal background checks, including mental fitness in background checks, 'assault clips' etc, can't be anything else than demagoguery if anybody can go buy a drill press and order anonymously any if the parts for an AR-15 online legally.

View on HN

Why are you against banning assault weapons in principle?

(I've been hoping for some time that someone would explain this.)

There's no clear definition of an assault weapon. Fully automatic weapons have essentially been banned since 1986 [1]. Once you take away that, the bans on assault weapons pretty much amount to bans on firearms that look scary. Perhaps an AR-15 with a polymer stock will be lighter than a hunting rifle with a wood stock, but ultimately they amount to the same thing.

My objection is that bans based on how something looks are silly.

[1] If you want to get technical, only manufacture of new fully automatic weapons is banned at a federal level. Transfer is still legal, as long as you pay the appropriate taxes and the firearm was manufactured before 1986. Given the limited supply and high prices ($10k+, easily), however, they're extremely rare. States may also have separate bans, like in California.

Why are people against banning civilian ownership of all guns in principle?

I had some very nice experiences as a child with a pellet gun my father bought me. I later had a lot of fun experiences with him at a shooting range with real guns. I don't think I got much more from the shooting range than from my pellet gun.

What's the motive of gun ownership, besides concealed carry and hunting?

Why do you need free speech? If you're not guilty, why are you bothered by police searching your possessions?

History has a couple too many lessons of governments removing the citizens firearms with the result being an increase in violent crime and theft. Many of those cases turn into other civil rights being lost. Also, if you study history of the US, a certain hate group in the southern USA was all for taking guns away from minorities so they could terrorize them.

Also, why add laws to something that is working as violent crimes continues to drop (check the CDC stats)? Why alter something that works?

For specifics home protection is the biggie. Protection against wild and feral animals in rural areas[1]. Sport is a minor part of it.

But, none of those really matter.

1) I really, really hate people who release their no-longer-puppy in rural area and hope it gets picked up by someone kind. They turn feral quickly and kill livestock and horses, and attack children. I have a cousin who is only alive because he had a rifle with him when a pack of 6 attacked him. Animal shelters people.

Shooting guns is fun. For some people, a real rifle, even something like a 22, is going to be more fun than a pellet gun. Trap shooting and sporting clays are also going to be difficult with a pellet gun.

Hunting is also a good reason. The US is big enough that a Federal ban doesn't make sense. While it might be reasonable to ban handguns (for example) in San Francisco, it doesn't make sense to ban them in Alaska or Montana where someone might want to carry a 44 magnum while hiking for protection against bears (ignoring the bear spray/firearms debate - and the fact that a shotgun is probably a better idea).

Personal protection is also a good reason, I think, especially if someone lives in a remote area.

Essentially, the US is a big place, and what's appropriate in Silicon Valley won't work in Alaska.

>Hunting is also a good reason. The US is big enough that a Federal ban doesn't make sense. While it might be reasonable to ban handguns (for example) in San Francisco, it doesn't make sense to ban them in Alaska or Montana where someone might want to carry a 44 magnum while hiking for protection against bears (ignoring the bear spray/firearms debate - and the fact that a shotgun is probably a better idea).

Actually, a starter pistol might be just as good. Unless you've done something to actively piss off the bear, like getting in between a mother and her cubs, the noise of the gunshot is generally enough to stop the bear from charging you. Your goal as a hiker shouldn't be to kill the bear, because that's hard and will probably require a rifle or shotgun slug, but to just scare it off.

And I don't think there's that much of a bear spray/gun debate, because it's probably better to have both. At least, that's what I've been told by a friend that goes every year to Yellowstone to fly fish.

> Your goal as a hiker shouldn't be to kill the bear, because that's hard and will probably require a rifle or shotgun slug, but to just scare it off.

Wouldn't attempting to kill the bear generally make a noise to scare off the bear too? I could perhaps see a starter pistol being as good as a regular gun for protection against bears, but better?

Also (in my extremely limited experience) starter pistols are not particularly loud compared to regular guns anyway, which makes sense since who wants to wear ear protection at a sporting event?

You preclude the two most common reasons as if they are irrelevant. It's like asking 'Why not ban cars in principle? What's the motive behind owning a car, besides transportation, and status?'

I'll answer your question anyway. Besides concealed carry and hunting; the freedom for civilians to own guns is necessary for the security of a free state. Protection from tyranny and oppression.

While I understand concealed carry for self-defense, if a first world government, especially that of the US, wants to truly be tyrannical, they will. They have nukes, stealth bombers, drones, and god knows what nowadays.

This is the common response. What chance would civilians have against a tank or a modern attack aircraft? What isn't mentioned is the fuel truck supplying that tank. How easily one bad bearing can cause a jet to crash.

There are 1.5million active duty military personnel. 80 million civilian gun owners. That is a non-trivial difference in numbers. I doubt a boomer captain would follow an order to nuke Seattle. Regardless of the situation.

People said the same thing about Hiroshima.

[citation needed]

http://www.museumsyndicate.com/item.php?item=56630

That's not an answer.

Nukes and tanks are useless in a guerrilla war.

That is the answer.

Ask the Koreans who had to defend their property from looting when the police didn't respond during the LA riots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Riots_an...

A lot of people don't understand why people would want to be ready for situations without the rule of law, but we've seen that it can happen from a natural disaster just as easily as loss of utilities. In a free society, people should be able to choose to do so, and other's judgements and opinions shouldn't be a justification to stop them.

Quick correction, fully automatic machine guns have effectively been banned for far longer than that. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was the first stab at gun control, on the heels of Prohibition.

Otherwise, completely correct.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com