Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeffbee | Hacker News Reader

Sure but that's always been the case. People with guns at home shoot themselves, their spouses, or are shot with their own gun by burglars, at a rate obviously greater than that of people without guns at home. People with guns at home kill themselves at triple the rate of normal people.

View on HN

CDC report under Obama demonstrated those with guns at home have much less physical injury during home invasion than those without guns.

>People with guns at home kill themselves at triple the rate of normal people.

Those studies are widely known to have serious statistical problems since those with suicidal tendencies also may purchase a gun, completely breaking the independent variable requirement to make such a claim. [1] for example at least addresses that these are real issues.

Also, Japan's suicide rate, without guns, is larger than the US suicide and homicide rates combined.

I think you're pushing as true things that are not demonstrated, and may well be untrue.

[1] https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/fir...

got a link to that cdc report?

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3

> Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319.

It's important to remember, in the context of this obviously intentionally vague language, that until 2018 the CDC was explicitly prohibited from conducting research into the statistics of gun violence by the Dickey Amendment, and has only published cursory data in the few years since that research ban was abolished. But -- that language still remains in legislative force: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/03/22/...

> Language in the report accompanying the bill clarifying that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can, in fact, conduct research into gun violence. A long-standing rider known as the Dickey Amendment, which states that no CDC funds “may be used to advocate or promote gun control,” has been interpreted in the past to bar such research. The amendment itself remains.

>For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use

This study is quote controversial, not reproducible, and Kellerman would never release his dataset for others to check. This lack of credible scientific behavior is what led to the Dickey Amendment. The summary in the 2013 report is being quite kind to Kellerman (who was on the report committee - knowing his research and history I suspect he was livid about this conclusion dismissing his most famous work).

>that until 2018 the CDC was explicitly prohibited from conducting research into the statistics

This is false, which is why Obama called them on it and had them do a study, even though no law was changed. Also during the years 1999-2018 there are CDC sponsored studies on gun violence, which show up on their site and can be found via Google scholar.

The CDC self-imposed the ban. Even after the above, CDC still self-banned https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/...

Also there are many other national and private sources of funding to do the same research, from NIH (with 10x the budget of the CDC), to Bureau of Prisons to DoJ funding, to many private foundations.

Huh! I would seem like with the rest of the thoroughness of your post, you would cite some of these other studies. Ah, well, nevertheless.

You've chosen to focus on suicide in the GP's post, and are phrasing your post:

> I think you're pushing as true things that are not demonstrated, and may well be untrue.

As if this refutes their entire thesis, which it does not. Can you provide some sources on your non-suicide gun violence assertions?

“Normal people”? Your bias is showing. 42% of US households have at least one gun.

25 percent of California adults live in households with firearms.

Women have abortions at a much higher rate than men. That is the logic you just used.

You're being downvoted (or were when I commented) but that last part is absolutely what the data say, and I've seen data that say the rates are much higher than triple vs non-gun owners. Lots of suicides are in the heat of the moment and when there isn't an easy, painless way to kill yourself, you don't (e.g. if you take a lot of pills, you have a window where you can realize you don't want to die and call 911). Of course there will be people who plan it out and go through with it in other ways.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com