[gillytech]

Speaking as an American, I can tell you that pictures of dead kids is not going to do anything to further the gun control agenda. Nobody but a madman supports murdering children. In fact, murder is illegal in this country, as is assault and brandishing firearms. These laws don't stop insane people from using weapons to murder people. Just like strict knife laws don't stop stabbing. The problem is society is degrading to a point where people are willing to take lives.

The more I see dead kids from a school shooting, the more I will advocate for armed guards at schools to help dissuade would-be shooters from attempting anything. I would also advocate for the abolition of "Gun-Free Zones" as they only advertise to criminals that nobody is likely to be armed in these areas.

Unfortunately history has shown us time and time again that oppressive leaders disarm their populations before subjecting them to horrific abuses of their power. We aren't falling for it again.

[baz00]

Um, fine over here in the UK. I mean our entire yearly list of shootings is a bad Saturday night in Chicago.

And before anyone says "what about the stabbings", our per capita stabbings are about half the US!

[paulddraper]

Could that be the result of different socioeconomic, racial, and cultural circumstances?

Or is just hardware?

[defrost]

Uniform regulation across an entire country makes a hell of a difference.

The EU has a uniform gun regulation zone, the UK has even enforcement, Australia didn't "ban guns" it simply made a few low population territories and states adopt the same regulations as other high population states had; 12 year olds can join gun clubs, every sale requires a registered seller and and a background check for the buyer, contractors can get semi automatics for feral pig culling, my neighbour here has an arsenal of weapons for shooting at all distances out to 5,000+ yards (yes, ULR five thousand yard shooting is a thing here).

The USofA isn't at all united wrt gun regulation.

Twue patriots seem to love moving weapons across state lines and arming conflict areas for profit, no real readily accessed central database, tip toeing around removing weapons from domestic violence offenders who can readily replace what, if anything, is taken.

Australia once held the world record for victims of a single mass shooter - we've had nothing remotely like that since uniform regulation and enforcement.

[foldr]

Pick your favorite race and check the stats for race-on-race shootings in the US. You'll surely find that it's more than the population-adjusted equivalent the ~30 gun killings we get per year in the UK. Race obviously isn't the key factor here. I do wonder why you would even bring it up.

I could also mention that London, which is comparably racially diverse to many major US cities, has far less gun violence than any of them.

[mr_toad]

There are millions stolen guns in the US and a lot of gun crime is committed with illegal weapons. Normally you’d only see so many black market firearms in a former war zone.

[RobertRoberts]

You can go to jail in the UK for a drunk tweet on X (twitter). That is not a free society at it's core.

Your other freedoms are breath away from being all gone.

[baz00]

Amazing that a US colleague of mine was fired for saying "fuck" to another US colleague. Really free country that with protected speech...

When people say freedom in the US it tends to be people free to be assholes to their fellow countrymen.

Edit: I have freedom from not being shot in the face in Costco too! That's my favourite freedom.

[RobertRoberts]

Freedom of speech is about liberty of life, not liberty of opportunity. Two totally different things.

[baz00]

What do you think I can't say here?

And why was my colleague fired? Surely his speech was protected?

[vdqtp3]

Why don't you just Google "uk man arrested for tweet" and you'll find plenty.

From the Verge[1]: Section 127 of the Communications Act makes it an offense to send public messages of a “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character,”

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offens...

[gillytech]

Sorry this really is a weak argument. First of all, "free speech" is not and shouldn't be considered absolute. Freedom to express your ideas, yes. Freedom to be obscene? No.

We are not granted rights by the Government. We have natural rights and they are not to be infringed by the Government. That's how our Constitution is supposed to work and that's why we left England in the first place.

[janalsncm]

Sure, some speech isn’t protected. You can’t threaten the President for example.

But the fact is, the question of whether speech is or is not allowed is far too often a matter of commercial viability rather than objective political value. Look no further than Kanye West being “cancelled” only after a long history of racism and idiotic remarks. The profitability of his Yeezy shoes bought him a lot more free speech than you or I would ever be granted.

Couple that with the fact that healthcare is usually at the mercy of your employer, and very few people in the U.S. truly have the liberty to say what they really think. And before you say there’s nothing worth saying which you would be fired for, ask yourself how long you could maintain good graces if you were known to be promoting unionization.

[anon291]

Actually, you can threaten the president. Several celebrities posted images of Trump beheaded and were not arrested, and were indeed met with wide acclaim.

[vdqtp3]

You get that there's a difference between the men with guns coming to put you in a cage, and your employer deciding they don't like you anymore, right?

[foldr]

I think most people in the UK are more worried about getting fired than they are worried about going to jail for a tweet, FWIW. (Although of course, in the UK your employer can’t fire you just because they decide that they “don’t like you anymore”.)

[carlosjobim]

> Amazing that a US colleague of mine was fired for saying "fuck" to another US colleague. Really free country that with protected speech...

Well did he sue? That's the only way he can get the government involved and see if his speech is protected or not.

Edit: Do the down voters have problems understanding basic logic? The government can't protect anybody's free speech if they haven't been informed about a potential violation. I know most hackers think that the government is God, but they are neither all-seeing nor all-knowing. If you get fired in a way that violates your freedom of speech or violates labour rights, you have to sue and at least get the government involved before you complain about not having any rights.

So did he or she sue?

[manuelabeledo]

> You can go to jail in the UK for a drunk tweet on X (twitter). That is not a free society at it's core.

You could go to jail in the US for a myriad of things that aren't even crimes in the UK. Public urination, for instance. And the US incarceration rate is 4x that of the UK.

Not sure which country is more "free".

[LAC-Tech]

While that's true - in fact you are if anything downplaying the UKs lack of free speech, as people are convicted for far less - it's not very germane to the UK having lower homicide rates.

I feel like most of us want to live in societies with freedom of speech and low homicide rates, and don't feel it has to be one or the other.

[fzeroracer]

Have you had many interactions with the police? Like been pulled over, contacted or harassed?

Because for quite a few people in the US they don't have as much freedom as you might think.

[manuelabeledo]

Assuming that most people who truly believe that the US is a beacon of freedom to the world, are, at the very least, mildly informed about current events, it is astonishing how they bend reality to fit these beliefs.

The US has one of the highest prison population per capita in the world. It also arguably has some of the most heavily armed, most unchecked, police forces in the western hemisphere. And here we are, with some arguing that saying nazi shit on Twitter is "proof of freedom".

[gusgus01]

You can in the US too. Although I'm not sure if he was drunk.

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/oklahomacity/press-release...

[indigochill]

> Unfortunately history has shown us time and time again that oppressive leaders disarm their populations before subjecting them to horrific abuses of their power. We aren't falling for it again.

You've (collectively) already fallen for it by allowing the government to develop a standing army (and not just any standing army, but possibly the most capable in the world of crushing any dissent even if it happens halfway across the globe).

As James Madison put it in 1787, "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty." Or Samuel Adams called it, "always dangerous to the Liberties of the People."

https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/...

[SheepSlapper]

> You've (collectively) already fallen for it by allowing the government to develop a standing army (and not just any standing army, but possibly the most capable in the world of crushing any dissent even if it happens halfway across the globe).

The military is a non-factor in this, for a lot of reasons. Here are a few:

- What percentage of our armed forces will take their oath to the constitution (not the government) seriously, and will desert/change sides when asked to murder their own people? I expect a lot, but even if zero of them bailed, that's the least of the issues with trying to fight your own citizens...

- What good is all of that military hardware against yourself? Tanks, jets, drones, missiles... sure, you can turn major cities to glass but then what the hell do you even rule over? The US military is great at crushing dissent across the globe because the collateral damage has been deemed acceptable (by us, because we're not THERE). If you start doing any of that shit here, public sentiment will turn on you fast and you'll make millions of domestic enemies instantly.

- The US has 400 million people (ish) and just as many guns (again, ish). The US military is like 2 million, including reserves. Say 90% of people refuse to fight, well that still makes it 40 million vs 2 million. Those odds SUCK. And that's without anyone refusing orders and bailing to the other side (bring some of the hardware with ya!).

- This wouldn't be a traditional war, it would look like all the wars (ahem, military actions) that the US lost and continues to lose. Vietnam. Afghanistan. Our military keeps taking an L to dudes with 40 year old surplus rifles and busted Toyota trucks. Because that style of warfare is asymmetric and HARD to do without creating new enemies at every turn.

There is no version of a civil war that ends well for an established US government trying to subjugate its people BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment. Either rule over piles of glowing, radioactive rubble, or face the reality that it's open season on anything in a uniform and you're outnumbered 200:1 BUT you don't even know who you're fighting until you're already getting shot at. That's the intent of the 2nd, the US military doesn't actually pose a threat to its people because it simply can't win.

That being said... the US government knows all of this, and is just boiling the frog instead. Small oversteps over a long period of time add up to some real nonsense, and I'm not sure your average American has the balls to stand up, say "enough is enough", and push back. Old us threw the damn tea into the ocean (in front of the bastards!), current us will go on an angry rant on X while ordering Doordash. There will be more governmental overreach, there will be more boiling the frog, and who knows how it'll end. But the US military isn't remotely a factor.

[manuelabeledo]

> Unfortunately history has shown us time and time again that oppressive leaders disarm their populations before subjecting them to horrific abuses of their power. We aren't falling for it again.

Oppressive leaders have historically used armed paramilitary guerrillas in order to topple legitimate governments and establish brutal dictatorships, so what is your point here?

Also, various US governments, at several levels, have demonstrated over and over again that they don't fear armed civilians at all, e.g. the 1985 MOVE bombing [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing

[highwind]

oppressive leaders -> disarm their populations

doesn't imply

disarm their populations -> oppressive leaders

I can think of 2 oppressive leaders who tried to disarm but I know of dozens of democratic countries that disarmed their population without any abuse.

[Loughla]

You do understand you are a literal example of what OP was talking about, right?

The Politics in this one are just too strong to sway anyone at all, regardless of what the argument is. You prove their point entirely.

[theonething]

I didn't read the GP comment as political, but using logic and referencing facts to support their point.

e.g.

> I will advocate for armed guards at schools to help dissuade would-be shooters from attempting anything. I would also advocate for the abolition of "Gun-Free Zones" as they only advertise to criminals that nobody is likely to be armed in these areas.

That seems logical to me. Who will adhere to Gun-Free Zones? Only law abiding citizens. The murderers will walk in there with a gun or a machete and do their thing knowing there won't be anyone equipped to effectively stop them.

Yes, the population at large will politicize these issues, but in the context of this discussion here on HN, why not try to be better and avoid politics as much as possible. Instead, discuss on the basis of logic and facts. I think HN in general, does this better than other online forums (e.g. Reddit). Not perfect of course, but better.

That you right off the bat accuse the GP of being political for expressing a viewpoint and supporting their arguments with logic and facts inhibits open discussion and ironically is a catalyst for politicization of the issue.

[eckesicle]

Proponents of firearms always seem to fall back on the same argument against a ban: “Take the guns away and the bad guys will be the only people armed”.

This isn’t true though. Guns are used to shoot people because they are available, not because they are legal.

In the UK it is still possible to acquire guns illegally, but they are rare and difficult to come by. There were only 28 homicides from shootings last year.

If you just make it a lot more difficult to acquire a weapon the shootings disappear.

[theonething]

> Guns are used to shoot people because they are available, not because they are legal.

It's fairly easy for Italian citizens to obtain a gun (they need permits just like US), yet their mean death rate from mass shootings is one of the lowest, (lower than UK's) [1]

The problem with changing US gun culture is, right or wrong, the Second Amendment has been literally foundational to our history and culture.

If people disagree with the second Amendment, then it needs to revoked or changed. Until then, it's the law of the land. Changing the second Amendment won't happen. There isn't enough support for that in this country. A half-solution of restricting guns ties the hands of the good guys and empowers the bad guys.

[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shoo...

[kubectl_h]

> If people disagree with the second Amendment, then it needs to revoked or changed. Until then, it's the law of the land.

I own eight firearms, including a semi-auto centerfire rifle and autoloading shotgun. None of them would be banned under the original terms of the FAWB. My Second Amendment rights would perfectly intact if we brought it back, even if we omitted the grandfather clause.

I guess there's always a world where we bring it back and criminals 3D print high capacity mags for Model 740s but we have to start somewhere.

[Loughla]

It's literally an argument about guns. The poster literally said pictures of dead kids wouldn't change their minds, and then made pro-gun comments.

On a thread that was supposed to be about how guns are so political that no one will ever change their minds.

That was my point. I don't care if they argued with logic.

They were making the point for op by just entirely skipping past the original argument (gun is political and no one is changing their minds) to talk about their stance on guns.

That was my point. I think maybe you missed it?

[theonething]

To me, politically encamped means that you have decided upon a viewpoint without much thought. You sway one way because it's the position of your "camp" or tribe. And because of that you won't change your mind.

"pictures of dead kids wouldn't change their minds" does not necessarily fit the definition of political encampment. If they won't change their mind because it would go against their party's line then they are being political. If they won't change their mind because they believe their stance is correct (based on logic, facts, morality, etc) and/or the other alternatives are wrong (based on logic, facts, morality, etc) then that is not political.

I guess your saw encampment in the GP's comment? I didn't.

[s1artibartfast]

I think they were agreeing.

[InSteady]

It sounds like you've been reading NRA / gun lobby talking points quite carefully as you're hitting all the major bullet points.

>In fact, murder is illegal in this country, as is assault and brandishing firearms. These laws don't stop insane people from using weapons to murder people.

This is exactly the point. Ease of access to firearms for people who are unhinged is a problem. We aren't typically talking about criminals btw. We are talking about mass murderers. It is a very meaningful distinction.

Armed guards at elementary schools is insane. What about churches? Grocery stores? Music venues? Do we need heavily armed guards in every public place in society? This will heal our increasingly fractured society? Are militarized police forces (that are still scared to go in after active shooters) not enough for you?

>Researchers at JAMA Network Open found that of 133 incidents of K-12 school shootings from 1980 to 2019, 1 in 4 had an armed guard on scene. Moreover, researchers found the presence of armed guards failed to result in fewer casualties, instead noting a death rate 2.83 times greater in school shootings with armed personnel...

>the data suggest no association between having an armed officer and deterrence of violence in these cases. An armed officer on the scene was the number one factor associated with increased casualties after the perpetrators’ use of assault rifles or submachine guns. [1]

[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

[theGnuMe]

Your gun isn't going to protect you from the government.

[gorbachev]

100%

If the Government decides you are a threat, they will take you down. Some overweight Sunday warrior with an assault rifle is not going to save us from tyranny. The way you protect the country against that is to promote democracy and vote for people who aren't trying to overthrow the Government if they lose an election.

[HDThoreaun]

I would agree, but the evidence is that this isn't really true. Waco and Ruby ridge are examples of the government deciding someone was a threat and their guns allowed them to have considerable political impact. Yes, they were taken down, but their actions drastically weakened gun control in this country.

[AngryData]

Individually? No. Collectively? Then I would say it does. Will it cost tons of lives? Yeah of course. But the US cannot bomb its own civilians into a functioning economy or obedient populous. The only force even remotely in a position the challenge the US military is the US population.

[wharvle]

> Unfortunately history has shown us time and time again that oppressive leaders disarm their populations before subjecting them to horrific abuses of their power. We aren't falling for it again.

I would (no sarcasm) love a link to any resources you know of that catalogue or chronicle the role of private arms in preserving liberal democracy. Big bonus if the resources are, or lean, academic.

[paulddraper]

"But think of the children!"