Hacker News Reader

Comment by labster | Hacker News Reader

And yet most people in the USA know a victim of gun violence, yet we are unable to copy even a portion of the regulations used by a majority of our allies. There's also a point beyond which a problem is so endemic that people consider it the natural state of affairs.

View on HN

Is this true? Almost no one in my social circles knows a victim of gun violence, and I live in one of the most violent cities in the country. Even if you count suicides (and you really shouldn’t), I would be surprised if this were true.

I suspect most people in the country don’t know a victim or offender of gun violence, while they do know several law-abiding gun owners leading them to believe that inner city issues—not guns—are the real driver of gun violence.

This is how I perceive the debate; I’m not advocating for either side.

You may know someone, but not know it; I for example, have been, but I doubt many on Hacker News, or even many people I’m friends with, know this about me.

I’m really sorry that happened to you, Steve.

Thanks. It was a long time ago at this point.

Why would you arbitrarily exclude suicide from gun violence? Guns are a distinct problem because they make serious injury/death incredibly easy and simple. That's just as true for murder as it is for suicide, and in a world without guns both acts would have a far lower success rate.

That's just as true for murder as it is for suicide, and in a world without guns both acts would have a far lower success rate.

There are two logical mistakes in this reasoning: first, there's an implicit equation "prohibited guns"="no guns", and it's obviously not true, and explicit statement that less guns - less murders, and even less suicides, which is provably false. Right now, I live in a country where having just a knife in your pocket can land you in prison easily. Somehow, both murder, and suicide rates are still slightly above region's average. If you don't like my anonymous witnessing, you can arrange world countries by gun prohibition/severe restriction, then look at murder, and suicide rates - you'll find no correlation. Simple as that. And before tribal instinct pushes someone to downvote this, take into account: I'm not even a US citizen/resident, and have no stakes in your politics.

Yep. Also there are countries like Switzerland and Finland where the guns are present yet they are one of safest places on Earth. Interestingly Finland is #32 Switzerland is #61 and USA is #34 on the suicide rate list[1].

However gun ownership rates: USA #1, Finland #10, Switzerland #19 [2].

For me it just shows that there is no correlation between gun ownership rates and suicide rates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...

The phrase "a world without guns" was a rhetorical shortcut to describe a nation where obtaining a firearm is significantly more difficult than in the United States.

I was also not talking about rates of suicide or murder, but rather success rates based on the tool/method used.

rather success rates based on the tool/method used.

This interpretation doesn't lead us anywhere too. The most popular method to commit suicide world-wide (hanging) has near 100% effectiveness.

Wow, no, it does not. You're just making things up?

I think showing your knowledge would be better then this ad hominem.

It's pretty https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-...

well http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-letha...

documented https://jech.bmj.com/content/57/2/120

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18245314

I'm not sure why you get to declare a lie as a fact without evidence, and I'm the one who has to provide links to call that out?

No one of these links (at least in abstracts/conclusions) makes distinction between real suicide, and parasuicide e.g. a suicide attempt having being stopped/saved, or infliction of non-deadly self-harm as the main goal. One can't make a parasuicide attempt sending a bullet to one's head (although some people imitate jamming, or expect gun to be taken from their hands - but such incidents rarely registered in statistics), so gun is naturally an unusual choice for a parasuicidal person which easily explains e.g. that 7% difference in the last link. People serious about ending their lives with hanging take precautions against possibility of being discovered at the moment of the action, and suffocation is deadly (need a link to prove this?) There are cases when hanged can recover after significant time, but they are notably rare. And people serious about ending their lives usually follow culturally "normal", or easiest ways to commit suicide [1]. Which brings us to the beginning of the discussion: removing a tool of suicide doesn't affect number of deaths which is proved by absence of correlation between availability of guns, and suicide rates.

[1] Source: I was trained when volunteered in suicide prevention program.

In my state, they keep trying to ban 'assault style weapons' even though almost all gun crime and suicides are handguns... The last time they tried to define what an assault style weapon was, my Ruger 10/22 would have counted as one...

Even some 19th century rifles were banned in the Feinstein/Clinton ban of 1994-2004.

> "tried"

Lucky you're not in WA where a 10/22 IS an "assault rifle"

Because that’s what people mean by “gun violence” 99% of the time and the distinction is reflected in policy—you don’t ban large magazines and suppressors to reduce the suicide rate, after all.

Taking guns away from mentally healthy people who like them under the justification that you'll also be taking them away from suicidal people will never fly. If you don't like guns then the issue is whether you'd rather have one group of people who aren't you enjoying guns, or another group of people who aren't you being saved from themselves. If you do like guns, then you'd be guaranteed to not vote for any politician who was going to take away something you liked under the assumption that you might be a loony.

It's interesting how this falls in to the typically conservative "legislate the vice away" approach to social ills. Conservatives often want to take something that is causing harm to some people, and ban everyone from having it (drugs, alcohol prohibition, free love), under the argument that the light enjoyment of the many is not worth a few people having their lives ruined through lack of self-control. However because by a pure accident of history it's the rural voting block that is conservative and likes guns, it's typically-liberal people who want to legislate the vice away, arguing that the fun that a subculture is having is not worth the suicide deaths.

I think this is because people only apply the utility calculation to other people, but treat themselves like they have free will. Everyone thinks that they should be treated as if they can be responsible, but nobody wants to treat other people like they can be responsible.

I'm not sure, it could be true. I'm two degrees away from gun violence although I never met the victim (friend of a friend was accidentally shot in the ankle by a cop during a broad daylight robbery of a store he was in. The robber was unarmed but apparently very bold), one degree from knife violence (nobody has ever threatened me with a gun, but I've been threatened with knives more times than I can even remember.)

I don't know anyone but in my first year living in the US someone got shot in my street and I could see the blood stain on the sidewalk. Chicago, uptown, near the L.

I have a friend who got a gun pointed at them too in Chicago (by a fake landlord).

I've also overheard people bragging that they were carrying guns in the L. I was freaking out. I will never visit any state with open carry.

Small world! That stop is only a few blocks away from me. There are shootings in uptown, but it’s almost always gang-related.

Carrying guns on the L is already illegal, so I don’t see any reason to be more afraid of states with more lax laws. Famously Chicago has high gun crime rates despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the country, so strictness of gun laws are probably not the best indicator of personal safety (I think this is a pretty uncontroversial argument, whatever your views on gun control).

if you can go to another state and buy a gun, I don't see the point of these laws.

Open carry seems less scary to me than concealed carry.

If you're advertising the fact you have a weapon you almost certainly aren't going to need to use it, whereas who knows which person might have a concealed weapon, and for what purpose?

I guess that's what growing up in Europe (where you don't really see guns) did to me. If I would see someone carrying a gun in a grocery store I would run the hell out of there. I'm not risking my life.

What is so scary with open carry? We have policemen that open carry in every country, are they not scary? We are talking about humans with guns, not about Batmans and Jokers.

> We have policemen that open carry in every country, are they not scary?

Yes they are scary and no, policemen do not open carry in every country (China, England, India, etc.). Also, policemen are professionally trained to handle them, have a clear purpose for carrying them and are less likely to be criminals.

> Also, policemen are professionally trained to handle them

I've gone shooting with plenty of cops. There's nothing special about police academy that qualifies you to handle a handgun. If anything, frequent recreational shooters are probably better than your average cop, who shoots once or twice a year to qualify.

People with guns are significantly more likely and capable to commit crimes. Open carry in many social circles is like walking around in prison tattoos.

Source: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_owner... As this study points out no database of US gun ownership exists, which makes these studies harder to carry out.

PS: Police are also a surprisingly violent group. Still unlikely to randomly shoot someone, but as a rational risk assessment they rate much higher than many groups like young kids.

  People with guns are significantly *more likely* and capable to commit crimes

That is not at all what that paper actually says.

“The results of this study suggest that a decrease in prevalence of firearms has the potential to decrease violent crime in the United States.” and it’s including quotes like that the common saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” should be amended to “guns don’t kill people, they just make it real easy.”

Also, “In 2008, 67% of all homicides involved the use of a handgun, shotgun, rifle, and other firearms (Vito & Maahs, 2012).” Which is much higher than their normal prevalence among the general population. “Azrael, barnett, and Miller (2004) estimated that about 40% of households in the United States own at least one firearm.” With 67% being much larger than 40%.

In what what does that disagree with what I said?

None of it agrees with what you claimed. These are all different metrics you are trying to conflate into what you want them to say. Homicide is a tiny percentage of overall crime.

People who are legally eligible to own guns are far less likely to commit crimes because by definition felons, those illegally present, etc. are automatically excluded from that population.

People with penis are significantly more likely and capable of committing rape. They are everywhere!!!

This is how your argument reads to me. Disclaimer: I live in a country with very strict gun control laws (East European, former Communist block. This is how they implemented it.)

I am talking about why people might be uncomfortable not nessisarily about changing the law.

I got plenty of negative responses as a tall and very strong young man. That bothered me even if I understood the reasons for it.

People react negatively to guns and physical fitness for rational reasons. I might like shooting and being physically strong, but that’s no reason to discount reality.

Your sentence is just so surreal to read for a non-American. I think you got used to a different state of security, and your normal is dangerous to me.

To be honest, even as an American who grew up around lots of adults that carried: yes policemen (and anyone else) open carrying is scary and I personally dislike it.

For personal curiosity (that killed the cat): why is it scary? Growing up in a rural area with lots of bears and boars, having to go anywhere without any weapon (guns are banned) is very scary. A gun, a hunting knife or an ax are just tools to me, same as a screwdriver, a vacuum cleaner or a lighter.

If you are genuinely concerned about bears a hunting knife is almost worthless vs a can of bear mace. Hand guns fit between them, but are vastly less useful than most assume. https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jwm...

As to why people might be cautious, I would say it’s completely rational behavior. A linebacker is more physically dangerous than a baby and people react to them differently.

Becoming desensitized is just a normal response to exposure, not a more or less rational behavior.

I never suggested that a hunting knife or an ax is of any use in a bear encounter, not even a handgun is of any value in a boar encounter, I just enumerated some things that are tools, are commonly open carried in the woods and are scary for some people.

Uhh, what did you mean by “having to go anywhere without any weapon (guns are banned) is very scary” ?

Context is important. Someone carrying a hunting rifle in a rural area isn't that scary. Someone walking into a McDonald with a hand gun is.

A gun is a tool to kill people I guess.

Hmm.. Let's do some back of the napkin math, and see.

1. In 2013 (most recent data point I could find) in the US, 107,141 were injured or killed by a gunshot wound. [1]

2. There are currently 327 Million people living in the U.S. (0.033% of Americans are killed or injured by guns every year).

3. The median age of the U.S. population is 38.1. 38.1 * 107,141 = 4,082,072.1, or ~ 1.25% of the population.

My statistic-fu is pretty weak these days, but given this, I think it's fair to say most Americans do know someone who's been shot.

Just for more anecdata: I'm hardly that popular, and I know at least 4 people who have been shot (that I know of).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...

You're assuming that the distribution is uniform, but I think it's likely that the majority of Americans do not know anybody who was shot, while a (still decent-sized) minority know several.

As far as I can tell, you’re including suicides and attempted suicides, and you’re assuming that gun violence is evenly distributed across the population. If you live in rural America, you probably don’t know anyone who has been the victim of gun violence. If you live in an inner city, you likely know several.

You don’t know anyone who’s ever been robbed at gunpoint or something like that? I think it might depend on who you define as a victim, but if you include suicides and robberies that didn’t result in a homicide this claim doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.

I guess one thing is that it may be generational, as violent crime was far higher 20-50 years ago. Since the mid 1990s violent crime including gun crime has dropped dramatically so Gen Z and younger millennials would be less likely to have experienced it.

> You don’t know anyone who’s ever been robbed at gunpoint

Uhhh, no? Is that a question you would expect people to answer Yes to?

> You don’t know anyone who’s ever been robbed at gunpoint

If you live in the US, then yes, I think it wouldn't be too uncommon. In fact if you listen to 2A advocates, crime is rampant and they love telling stories about how having a gun saved their bacon.

Two different kids in my high school that I personally knew, in the suburbs west of Chicago, killed themselves with guns (separate incidents), early 1980s. I'm sure there have since been other suicides, but I'm out of touch with my HS classmates.

Sunnyvale, 1986: I was in a 7-11 waiting to turn onto a street, but I had to cross lanes quickly to get to into turn position. Traffic started moving but I was unable to cross. The guy in the car behind me got irate that he was stuck behind me, pulled his car next to mine, and waved a gun in my direction. I pulled into traffic even though it lead me in a direction I didn't want to go to. The guy followed me, pulled up in parallel, rolled down his window and was shouting at me, spitting mad, to pull over ... I guess he wanted to fight. Fat chance. Although the trigger wasn't pulled, it sure felt like an assault.

Mid 1990s -- a good friend was robbed at gunpoint at an ATM in downtown Palo Alto at about 7pm.

About 2011 -- my sleepy neighborhood in Austin got the news that a murder had been committed and the killer was on the loose. The house was about one block away. It was a nerve-wracking 24+ hours until they caught the guy. It turns out he and his girlfriend were visiting friends for the 4th of july weekend, and after a night of drinking, he shot her and fled.

I've always lived in low crime areas, and yet I can think of the above situations. I'm sure I know others who have experienced gun violence but I simply don't know about it.

Good point. I wasn’t thinking of threats of violence or suicides. If you define the term more broadly to make the “most people know a victim...” statement true (even with the broader definition, I’m not sure it would be true), then we shouldn’t be surprised that support for 2A isn’t weaker.

This isn't true. Unless you live in an extraordinarily high crime area or are a cop or into crime yourself you probably don't know a victim of gun violence. Mass shootings of unrelated civilians whether random or ideologically motivated grab headlines but are statistically rare and do not rank as a significant cause of death.

The gun violence problem would have to get at least a few orders of magnitude worse to approach the opiate problem. To kill as many people would take many mass shootings per day.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com