HN Explorer

Ask HN: Were you against gun ownership? Opinions changed lately?

14 points by johng ↗ HN
I'm a gun owner. Have been for many years. And it always pains me when I see people telling me that I _should not_ have the right to own a gun. I see it as short sighted. Now that it is clear the government is spying on pretty much everyone, without permission. I'm curious: Those of you who didn't believe in gun ownership... has your opinion changed at all? Knowing that things aren't always what they seem and that maybe we aren't that far off from other countries where we may need to overthrow the government some day.... would you feel better if you had access to (and it is your constitution given right) firearms?

13 comments

[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 28.2 ms ] thread
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
jonsherrard
I would rather argue for infinity, than injure or kill another human being.
staunch
Would you rather die than kill? Would you rather let someone else die than kill?

I know good people who would answer yes to both, so I'm not judging - just asking.

ChrisClark
I would want to say yes to both, and I might, right up until the moment comes. At that point I don't see myself saying yes any more, especially if it involved family.

So though I say yes, I also know it is most likely a lie, or just wishful thinking.

jgeorge
So would I. However, humanbeings kill each other all the time. Given the choice between killing another human being, or having another human being kill me, I know which choice I would make.
lifeguard
I continue to believe firearms are toys for their owners. Useless other than conveying a false sense of personal power to certain personalities.
smartician
In my humble opinion (and I'm stressing that, I'm not a historian and I haven't studied the subject), successful revolutions that create a lasting, peaceful and prosperous society are mostly the ones that are not won with weapons. Examples include India (Gandhi as the quintessential peaceful revolutionary), the whole Eastern block (East Germany, Romania etc.), South Africa.

On the other hand, revolutions fought with weapons tend to lead to long simmering civil wars (Afghanistan, many African nations), or oppressive governments (Cuba, Libya, Iran).

Sure, there are counterexamples, the US being the main one, but I think that is a somewhat unique setting (emigrant colonists).

beat
Gun ownership has fuck all to do with the "need to overthrow the government some day". That's idiocy, that's lunacy. Go ask the Weather Underground or the Branch Davidians what happens when you have guns and think you can challenge the government.

If you can't defend your desire to possess guns EXCEPT by threatening the rule of law, you have a shoddy argument. The same goes for "home defense". The purpose of rights is not defense against tyranny. If it is, then you're implicitly arguing that it would be okay to take your rights away, as long as there is no danger of tyranny.

beat
ps: I'm totally pro-gun. I think gun control arguments are flawed as well. But the pro-gun arguments made, including this one, are usually awful.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
scrum
Violent revolution puts violent people in charge. You're going to just shoot the government with your gun? I think not. Especially not the American government - you'll be blown to bits by a robot. A proper revolution has the military on the side of the people. Join the military if you want to protect your people from oppressive government - that's what it's for. Non-violent revolution is also possible - why is that never considered by National Assault Rifle Association members?

Take a look at Yemen's attempt at non-violent revolution during the "Arab Spring". Yemen is the only country that has more guns per capita than us. What you saw were government loyalists sniping peaceful protestors from rooftops. The same in Bahrain. I worry about National Assault Rifle Association members on rooftops sniping me when it comes time for revolution.

Beat your swords into plowshares.

McPants
I am not exactly pro-gun or anti-gun. America is obviously founded to protect freedom of the individual and I believe everyone has the right to at least go to a local gun range and have fun shooting things, it's fun as fuck. At the same time I believe every gun that is sold should have background checks done and the owner to go through psychological tests as well as extensive safety courses.

Everything in moderation.

rprospero
It's interesting that you've asked this question, because I've seen an odd parallel between privacy laws and gun control laws:

There's a segment of the population that feels an inherent human right to knowledge/guns. Another segment of the population is worried about threats to their privacy/safety. Only a rare fringe argue that knowledge/guns are inherently evil, but it's also a rare fringe that admits that knowledge/guns can't be used for evil. For instance, I could use (data mining)/guns to (find southpaws to kill)/(kill southpaws I find). Those in favor of knowledge/guns tend to argue that the threats posed by knowledge/guns can really only be combated by more knowledge/guns. For instance, knowledge/gun advocates argue that the only real security comes from using knowledge/guns to (locate threats)/(shoot threats). Privacy/(Gun control) laws fundamentally restrict our ability to gather knowledge/guns.

Now, I'm not arguing that what the NSA did was right. I'm pissed that the NSA spent my tax dollars collecting this beautiful data sent and won't even let me read it. I want to start data mining every e-mail you've sent, every website you've visited, and every location your cell phone has been. If the thought of me doing that makes you uncomfortable, you now know how I feel about your guns.

Of course, I don't begrudge you your guns. Just because they make me feel uncomfortable doesn't mean that you lose your rights to own them. In the same way, I hope that you respect my right to gather your personal information, even if it makes you uncomfortable.