Hacker News Reader

Comment by viggity | Hacker News Reader

being burgled in the middle of the night or when they don't expect you to be home is certainly one scenario. But some people break into your house to hurt you. There is no magic insurance policy that can un-rape my wife. So if some mother fucker comes in my house in the middle of the night, I'm not going to confront him, but you can bet your ass he's going to get a face full of lead the moment he heads up my stairs.

As far as the "age of the country"... I'm calling BS. Unless your country was formed within the last generation, the matter is irrelevant how long people have been living in a certain territory. And if you want to get technical, the US Constitution is the oldest, surviving charter of government in existence. I resent the fact that Europeans have the gall to suggest that we're the immature ones when it comes to government.

View on HN

> And if you want to get technical, the US Constitution is the oldest, surviving charter of government in existence.

No, even if that was relevant, if you want to get technical that of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is older, whether you date from writing or adoption.

> I resent the fact that Europeans have the gall to suggest that we're the immature ones when it comes to government.

We are, and those of us who are quick to resent it being pointed out do nothing to diminish the truth of that. We're old enough that the (second, actually) system set up when we founded the country is dated, and young enough that we still imagine that our founders' innovations are somehow the end of history so we don't even consider dealing with it. The latter is immaturity and arrogance.

Or, you know, it could be that different people want different things?

Did not know this about the US Constitution - that is good stuff!

Ref: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/sep/22/bo...

Do you have an insurance policy that will unshoot someone you didn't intend to shoot? Because odds are that if you're intending to use your gun for home defense, you are more likely to kill a friend or family member, then you are a robber.

Citation needed from a primary source.

Don't worry he won't find it. Publications pertaining to firearms from a public health and safety standpoint are my bread and butter: I am unaware of any single piece of literature out there that makes this claim.

In fact the CDC report commissioned by Obama after Sandy Hook showed that there is in fact a protective effect (obviously) from firearms possession.

Sources:

[1] - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-s...

[2] - https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to...

Could you go to https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1 and deep link the section you are referencing?

It's a long report and sounds like an interesting finding.

No problem. See below link to proper page, section: "Impact of Having a Firearm at Home"

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#40

I don't see where it shows there is an obvious overall protective effect from firearm possession.

Additional research is needed to weigh the competing risks and protective benefits that may accompany gun ownership in different communities. doesn't exactly sound conclusive.

Except where it says:

"However, other studies conclude that gun ownership protects against serious injury when guns are used defensively (Kleck and Gertz, 1995; Tark and Kleck, 2004)."

And the sentence before that is Despite gun owners’ increased perception of safety, research by Kellermann et al. (1992, 1993, 1995) describes higher rates of suicide, homicide, and the use of weapons involved in home invasion in the homes of gun owners.

I suppose the problem is that I read In fact the CDC report commissioned by Obama after Sandy Hook showed that there is in fact a protective effect (obviously) from firearms possession. and expected evidence showing that the benefits were greater than the risks, rather than a simple citation of research claiming there is a benefit.

Fair enough. I'll concede that - I could have phrased it more neutrally vs. cherry picking.

Accidents and domestic violence can be attributed to ~6% of gun deaths. Looking at just the former, there are at least 500 fatal accidents/year.[1] These are just clear accidents - there are also accidents which are prosecuted, and convicted as homicides - and accidents which are categorized as homicides, but are not prosecuted.

The number of justifiable gun homicides (Self-defense) is closer to ~250/year. [2]

So, your gun is indeed twice as likely to kill someone in an accident, then a bad guy in self-defense. (Never mind that not all of those justifiable homicides prevented violence against your physical person. Killing a burglar who wanted your stereo is lumped in the same category as killing someone who wanted to murder you.)

I don't have much of a horse in the legislature of gun control, but for most people, planning on using their gun for self-defense is a bit like becoming an alcoholic to reduce your risk of heart disease.

[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/

[2] http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

> but for most people, planning on using their gun for self-defense is a bit like becoming an alcoholic to reduce your risk of heart disease.

This is a ridiculous conclusion. Sorry, you can't just take numbers from one study, and divide by another to approximate relative risk or odds ratio. That isn't how public health statistics and policy works.

That sounds like it might be a derivative of the oft-quoted statistic that gun owners in the US are more likely to be harmed by their own gun than to use it successfully in self-defense. The problem with that statistic is that it includes suicides as instances self-harm. Of course they are, but that is clearly a deceptive use of the statistic because after suicide cases are removed, it shows that gun owners are much more likely to use their own guns in self-defense rather than be harmed by them. One might be able to make the case that suicides should be included if those gun owners considering suicide would give it up if they had no gun rather than simply choose another method, but that has not been established.

The odds are for your average moron, not for me (I am very smart). So they are not convincing. This is similar issue as with motorcycle statistics.

You’re also arguing to the wrong side of the brain. In face of danger, I will never ever choose to remain helpless. It goes against every single instinct a man has.

> (I am very smart)

Citation needed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/

Amen. It's not worth arguing with them. They use "age of a country" to talk down to Americans, but Americans broke off of them to start our own country.

They'll never understand true freedom, and considering their land is under siege its not surprise the level of doublethink they have to do to still agree with their backwards way of life.

You know, we had them all- the rebellions, the true freedom (usually lived out in one big feast after some other people have been robbed and murdered). And we have them around, all those high hopes, and faile dreams, castle on this rock, castle on that rock, robber barons who decided they where worthy to take arms. Peasants, who where decided for to bear arms when it was time for slaugther (war).

I detest every fearsome second a cop has to live in America, every time he walks up to a car or a flats door. To be honest, in such a country, i can very well understand somebody who wants to return home in the evening- and thus shoots first.

> They'll never understand true freedom

That's cute, as if you've ever had actual freedom in the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com