Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

People in Minneapolis are throwing rocks and setting buildings on fire. That seems a lot more worse than people holding (but not threatening to use) weapons.



Who are you more afraid of - a dude holding a rock they might throw or a dude holding a gun that he could possibly fire?

Yeah, the gun. It is more likely to hurt you. It doesn't matter if folks are threatening to use it or not. The gun can, in general, do more bodily harm. Just because folks didn't use them doesn't mean it isn't a threat. Rocks at least have more purpose than to put holes in things - guns are there to kill other things even when used responsibly. Gun ranges are simply training for this.


I don't believe it is that rational. It's an ideological assessment, not a risk assessment.

If you agree with the people holding the guns, you feel safer with them. If you agree with the people holding the rock, you feel safer with them. It doesn't matter what they are holding.


Broken_Hippo says>"Rocks at least have more purpose than to put holes in things - guns are there to kill other things even when used responsibly. "

- Broken Hippo apparently hasn't been hit by a rock recently!8-) I joke, but...

We're speaking of men holding rocks. You underestimate the effectiveness of rocks as weapons. Every man knows how to use a rock as a weapon and almost everyone has thrown a rock or pounded something with a rock. You needn't throw a rock to kill/harm someone; it's likely faster and easier if you keep the rock in your hand.

Rocks have been used as weapons since before prehistoric times. Rocks have possibly been instruments of death for more of our ancestors than have bullets.


I mean, I'm more afraid of the dudes who are throwing rocks, not merely holding them.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: