Hacker News Reader

Comment by ubernostrum | Hacker News Reader

And here you buy into the false dichotomy; turns out there is middle ground between "no gun control at all" and "no guns at all".

The fact that a comment like yours always appears is a large part of why we can't ever have discussions about reasonable regulations.

Hell, where I live there are people who literally argue that property owners should not be able to decide whether to permit what are essentially armed trespassers, since that might infringe on someone's "right" to be armed on your property.

View on HN

Except for that "reasonable restrictions" are rather like abortion regulations; they're obviously driven by ideologues with no technical expertise, specifically to make the exercise of a right more burdensome, like "waiting periods" for existing gun owners, restricting or permitting models by name, or regulating cosmetic features (oh no, a scary telescoping stock!). If they can be intentionally unclear, so much the better (for instance, what is a "secure container" for the purposes of firearms transport? Is a magazine that fits 10 of one caliber and 11 of another forbidden? Is a magazine "fixed" if it requires a tool to detach, but can be detached in under 5 seconds? What does it mean to be "ballistically similar" to a banned model of bullet?). The lack of good faith by restrictionists and their explicit attempts to de-normalize lawful firearm ownership understandably makes some reluctant to engage with them.

I sort of agree with you but I think you're overdoing it. There are reasonable restrictionists, and reasonable restrictions. Like even most gun fans agree fully automatic weapons and RPGs shouldn't be privately owned. High-capacity magazines are more debatable and there's no clear line--but 50 or 100-round magazines, I think there's a reasonable argument for banning them.

Focusing on cosmetics is silly, and some advocates of restrictions would just as soon see all guns gone, but I think most people just want to see common sense applied.

> "Like even most gun fans agree fully automatic weapons and RPGs shouldn't be privately owned."

I think you have not talked to many gun fans. Exceptionally few crimes have been committed with legally and privately owned fully automatic weapons, so I see absolutely no reason why those laws should be revised. Your issue is with the illegally owned guns, and I think that few gun fans would object to enforcement of those laws.

I cannot think of any crimes committed with a legally owned RPG. Clearly the regulation for RPGs that is already in place is sufficient.

We're already in that middle ground.

Today, you can purchase an SKS from a federally-licensesd dealer after a NCIC background check. You can then take that gun home and replace the magazine with one made in the United States, and no law is broken. Replace it with an identical magazine made in Poland, though, and you've committed a felony under 18 USC § 922(r), and if convicted face up to 10 years in prison.

The laws surrounding the ownership of arms in the United States are onerous and Byzantine. I've spent a great deal of effort doing my best to comply with those laws in order to exercise a right that's protected under the federal constitution.

Forgive me if I no longer treat "But we can compromise!" as a valid argument.

I live in Australia - hence why the gun situation in the US seems crazy to me

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

Greetings from Melbourne - from an Australian who'd be perfectly happy with open carry being legal over here.

Why? Are we under threat?

Not any more than folks in any other Western country. I don't think there's any particularly pressing need (like there would be in, say, Nigeria) but at the same time I'd be totally okay with it.

I worry when Governments go out of their way to disarm their citizens; even if they're benevolent at the time, they often don't stay that way. Look up the history of disarmament in pre-WWII Germany and Russia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com