Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ceejayoz 1798 days ago
Very possibly. Even in Texas, a bunch of kids on a youth camping retreat probably aren't heavily armed and ready to do battle. The element of surprise helps, too.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland_Springs_church_shoo...

(it is probably a safe assumption that a Baptist church in a small town in Texas had at least a couple armed congregants)
1 comments
foolinaround 1798 days ago
The logical statement is that more the good guys have guns, the lesser chance the bad guys have to inflict damage.

It would be great to have no bad guys, but they will always exist, and will not follow the laws no matter what.

Laws should be written to enable good guys to protect themselves.

link
ceejayoz 1798 days ago
> The logical statement is that more the good guys have guns, the lesser chance the bad guys have to inflict damage.

I don't find this as logical as you do, I think.

link
sofixa 1798 days ago
> The logical statement is that more the good guys have guns, the lesser chance the bad guys have to inflict damage.

That's some crazy logic. A "good guy" doesn't mean a person capable of making the right decisions in front of a bad guy. Would they be able to deescalate? Would they shoot an innocent bystander? Would they shoot another good guy mistaking them for a bad guy?

The correct path forward is to educate and reduce the amount of guns, not give more out on the off chance a good guy happens to be there where something bad happens, while simultaneously increasing the risk a heated exchange/rage fit/whatever escalates to a gunfight.

link
foolinaround 1795 days ago
in todays society, i look as guns not as a good, but as a necessary evil, needed to protect the weak from the strong, and level the playing field in a physical situation ( not ideal, but can't be wished away either)

For this reason, the gun ownership needs to increase among the traditionally weaker classes ( women, minorities ) who currently are at threat.

link