23 ms·
You Know Less Than You Think About Guns
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- nether 11y agoAbsence of gun control has made Somalia the safest country in the world!
- mtimjones 11y agoTo seek out the highest rate of gun violence, look no further than gun-free zones in America.
- TheBiv 11y agoThose gun-free zones would also be the highest populated. However, without a source, it's difficult to have an intelligent discussion.
- meric 11y agoNevertheless, I don't think gun laws work unless you also confiscate and ban every single gun in the country at the same time, otherwise you'll end up with the law-abiding people having no guns, and the non-law-abiding people with all the guns, and that will increase violent crime, rather than decrease it. And since confiscating every gun is not a practical solution, the practical solution should be to enable the freedom for every woman, man and child to carry a gun at all times.
- zardo 11y ago>Nevertheless, I don't think gun laws work unless you also confiscate and ban every single gun in the country at the same time. You're setting up a false dichotomy. Outlawing guns, and complete unlimited rights to fire arms aren't the only choices available. To say their is a spectrum of possible choices is simplifying it, there is a high dimensional landscape of possible policies and they lead to many outcomes.
- meric 11y agoBesides the two choices that can work, my point was, one of the many outcomes of the remaining choices will lead to non-law-abiding people possessing guns, and law-abiding people following the gun laws, possessing no guns, and this situation will be a lot less desirable than either no one have guns, or every body have guns. It is precisely because doing something that's complicated is going to lead to a high dimensional landscape of possible policies and many unknown outcomes, I think it's wise to stick to more simple, predictable solutions, because otherwise you're doing something you don't know what the consequences are. And it is because politicians and the electorate have the tendency to be doing that in the U.S., why U.S. has mass shootings every other day, and why that isn't true for a country like Australia, which undertook option 1, because it was feasible for a relatively centralised, unified island country, as compared to the U.S.
- splitrocket 11y agoWhich is why, if you believe guns reduce violence, we should saturate such areas with guns. I highly doubt you'd be in favor of such a policy.
- madengr 11y agoI am.
- 13thLetter 11y agoWhy do you doubt that? As a counter data point, the police chief of Detroit recently advised the city's residents to carry guns for their protection. The reaction on right-wing blogs which covered this was applause.
- smsm42 11y agoWhy you doubt it? In fact, that is exactly what is done when one wants to make absolutely sure nothing bad happens - a lot of people with guns come and saturate the area. Look what was done in New York on New Year's even or what happens when the President or other VIP like that visits some place. Lots of people with guns are always around. So apparently if you look at evens through the lens of "how many guns are around", "more guns" is the common standard solution for "more security".
- asmithmd1 11y agoExactly! Look at my home state of Massachusetts where you need a license to own a gun and a permit to buy a gun...well, now that I look into it... actually you are 3X less likely to die from a gun in MA than the US average and 6X safer from gun violence than the worst states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_Uni...
- Empact 11y agoLate last year in response to IMO misleading charts showing a clear correlation between "gun deaths" vs gun freedoms, I charted murder vs gun rights from a city and state perspective, which illustrate some of the points made in the article. Helpful to visualize, e.g. the point made about Louisiana as an outlier: https://hackpad.com/Gun-Rights-Statistics-UBI1bkaNgG6#:h=No-clear-correlation-between-g https://hackpad.com/Gun-Rights-Statistics-UBI1bkaNgG6#:h=No-... Raw data and interactive charts here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N5JsB-_kTxFSW-14f7BvRkiq4FHaC6tR5aaUmh1uPTk/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N5JsB-_kTxFSW-14f7Bv...
- douche 11y agoVery cool, thanks for sharing. I think it is interesting that, with the exception of Hawaii, all of the lowest murder-rate states are northern, mostly rural, and overwhelmingly white. I don't know what conclusions to draw from that, aside from the general trend that these aren't states where there is a lot of ethnic gang violence.
- Empact 11y agoMurder is highly correlated with urban and minority populations - the murder rate for blacks is about 8x that of whites.[1] The root of this is clearly socioeconomic, and I believe rooted in the drug war[2], which drives black market violence both by creating a lucrative ungoverned market and by removing constructive inter-generational alternatives through mass incarceration - i.e. if your father is in prison for a non-violent drug crime, you as a child lose both a role model and a bread-winner, which makes you more likely to fall into gangs for social and economic reasons. If that's accurate, it's a vicious, massively destructive cycle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_S... [2] e.g. outlier city "Baltimore’s City Police Commissioner Anthony Batts says that 80 percent are drug-related." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/01/the-year-in-murder-2013-marks-a-historic-low-for-many-cities.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/01/the-year-in... "Eighty percent of the homicides were gang-related, [Chicago Police Commissioner Garry McCarthy] said" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/29/chicago-homicide-rate-new-york_n_2378073.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/29/chicago-homicide-ra... New Orleans Police Department: "29% of all murders in #NOLA this year involved a gang member. That's down from 42% this same time last year." https://twitter.com/nopdnews/status/618864980364898305 https://twitter.com/nopdnews/status/618864980364898305 And in some California cities "gang homicides only accounted for 29 percent of the total for the period under consideration (2003-2008)" I question the use of "only" here. :P http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-g... On the other hand, The National Gang Center says (based on survey data): "These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually." https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring...
- jerf 11y agoDespite the politically-charged nature of the central topic, in a way this fits better into the HN gestalt's continued fascination with the inability to replicate science than the specific topic.
- alberte 11y agoAustralian here, we had a mass shooting in Australia some years ago. As a result of this Assault rifles were banned (Edit: without a demonstrable need), licenses were required for rifles and hand guns. Any guns could be traded in to the govt for money in the cut over period. We haven't had a mass shooting since as far as I can recall. The occasional knifing or someone with a hand gun argument occurs still. Guns are a lot harder to come by here, so if you're a loony who wants to kill everyone for looking at you funny then you're out of luck.
- Gustomaximus 11y agoAlso worth pointing out is Australians still have access to firearms, to many peoples misconception. Hunting type weapons (bolt actions and shotguns) only require a simple firearm safety test plus the requirement firearms must be kept in a safe. Handguns are available but you must be a regular shooter (6 times a year I believe), plus member of a club and you cant take a handgun home for the first year of your licence/club membership. Semi-autos are available if you have a professional need for them such as a farmer who has problems with feral animals, or a farmer hire you as someone that supports their pest eradication. None of this difficult if you want a gun, but it seems to do the trick in keeping firearms out of the hands of crazies thus far.
- alberte 11y ago> but it seems to do the trick in keeping firearms out of the hands of crazies thus far. Yes you wouldn't think this change would be enough - because if you want to get a gun you can but for some reason it has.
- CamperBob2 11y agoIt's almost as if you can't infer valid statistical models from the occurrence or absence of extremely rare events.
- alberte 11y ago
- Gustomaximus 11y agoI support strict gun control, however I feel it's wrong for the politicians to be meddling in gun control how they are. The US constitution is fairly clear (I accept people will always argue specific) that citizens to have access to firearms. From this I find it dangerous that any politician would seek to override or 'reinterpret' the constitution without the peoples mandate to do so. This seems ot be happening at an increasingly accelerated rate e.g. government eavesdropping and civil forfeiture. Firearm ownership should be taken to the vote. If the nations decides to leave firearm availability as a citizen right that's democracy and the inevitable shooting are the price. Potentially more dangerous is a government that feels they can bend a nations constitution away from its spirit to their personal agenda.
- koenigdavidmj 11y agoShould freedom of unpopular speech and the right to be free of unreasonable searches be decided by popular vote? Or is it understood that constitutional rights all have the risk of making us less safe and making the government's job harder, and that removing them is hard for a reason?
- jedmeyers 11y agoI believe he means that constitutional issues should be decided by a "constitutional convention" which is kind of a "majority" vote in such cases. And of course why wouldn't constitutional convention be able to decide on freedom of unpopular speech?
- Anon1096 11y agoThe process to amend the Constitution requires 3/4 of the states to agree on the amendment. It is not a majority vote situation, for the very good reason that the Constitution protects the basic freedoms of US citizens, including free speech (and yes, that means hate or unpopular speech as well) and right to bear arms. The founders anticipated future generations that would attempt to take away rights, and thus made it extremely difficult for any such process to be done.
- 11y ago
- jbclements 11y agoMain-line lefty here: I'm immensely frustrating to me to read articles that point out that there's no solid research on guns & gun violence when--to the best of my knowledge--congress has been blocking funding for this research for quite some time.
- jakeogh 11y agoShould we tax people to fund studies to see if less free speech could reduce violence? You are talking about things that are not granted by government[1], that's why we call them inalienable (or natural[2]) rights. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9847269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9847269 [2] http://www.mcrkba.org/w0.html http://www.mcrkba.org/w0.html
- DamnYuppie 11y agoSince when does someone need the permission of congress to do this type of research? There are MANY anti-gun lobbies out there with deep pockets who could easily commission such a study. Most likely they have numerous times and buried the results as it would not aline well with their agenda.
- FireBeyond 11y ago"Most likely they have numerous times and buried the results as it would not aline well with their agenda." That's fatuous and shows your bias. For one simple reason: if so, the pro-gun lobbies with deep pockets would be screaming the same findings from the rooftops.
- DamnYuppie 11y agoI am biased and it is based in reality. The pro gun lobby does scream it from the roof tops but most major media outlets are not pro gun so they don't carry them or follow them. They in fact attempt to demonize and demean anyone who doesn't agree with them. The fact that this isn't know to you speaks volumes about how ill informed you on on this topic.
- jakeogh 11y agoAnyone with an appropriate machine such as a (very expensive) DMLS or a (much less expensive) CNC can make gun parts. The price will continue to drop and the materials and designs will continue to improve. Are the places where defending yourself and others with effective tools is criminalized going to mandate DRM'ed machines? Will the criminals (conveniently equated with hackers) follow the law?
- DamnYuppie 11y agoThe hardest part to manufacture for a rifle is the barrel. All other parts could be easily machined in a High school shop class.
- masonic 11y agoAnd barrels aren't generally restricted, tracked, or serialized.
- DamnYuppie 11y agoCorrect, it is generally the actions that are serialized and stamped.
- salgernon 11y agoWhenever I read this or similar, i end up wondering how many gun aficionados will have stumps for hands in the near future? Unwanted opinion time: slap ammunition with a $250/ round tariff. Track sales more tightly than we currently do for sudafed. Let people load their own - and go back to my original point, but more likely blindness. (Of course there are competent home gunsmiths for whom neither would apply.
- masonic 11y agoTrack sales more tightly than we currently do for sudafed Ammunition purchase registration was in fact the law of the land from 1968-1986, when it was repealed because it was useless in solving crime. To quote the BATF Director: "The Bureau [of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] and the Department [of the Treasury] have recognized that the current recordkeeping requirements for ammunition have no substantial law enforcement value."
- j2kun 11y ago> Yet during that same period, per-capita gun murders have been cut almost in half. So has all violent crime [1]. I don't want to see a chart of per-capita gun murders, but per-capita gun violence as a fraction of all violent crime. Even if crime is decreasing, if those who do commit violent crimes increasingly turn to guns in places where there is more access to guns, then this is evidence in favor of gun control. The hypothesis here (which would need further study) is that the decrease in violent crime would be sharper with gun control laws than without them. [1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/violent-crime-cities_b_4760996.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/violent-crime-cit...
- alricb 11y agoIsn't that lack of knowledge caused in part by the CDC funding ban [1]? Studying gun control in the US also requires some care: because of the population configuration, you need to take into account the fact that people can bring guns from one jurisdiction to the next, especially in some Eastern cities, like Washington, DC (right next to Virginia) or Baltimore (~50 miles from Virginia). Violent crime and homicides have been going down all over the richer countries, but the US rate is still much higher than that of say, Canada or the UK. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- rdl 11y agoI'm curious what could be done to reduce firearms suicides (and even better reduce overall successful suicides, and ideally suicide attempts.)
- ryan-allen 11y agoBetter social services? Suicide, mental health and poverty all go together I think. If you want to improve suicide rates I would probably start there, though I'm no expert so I could be wrong.
- FireBeyond 11y agoFunnily enough, there's definitely a correlation between the political ideologies that are heavily against firearm regulation and those who think that we spend too much, already on mental health and poverty. And then they throw their arms up and say "what more could we do?!?"
- masonic 11y agoWhy the concern only about gun homicide? Does suicide get somehow worse when done with a gun as opposed to stepping in front of an Amtrak train?
- rdl 11y agoMainly it's that firearms suicides tend to be much more effective. It's a generally effective technique and can be done "privately" (unlike, say, jumping off a tall building or waiting for an inevitably-delayed Amtrak train) I don't think it is always a bad decision, either -- if someone is 55 and finds out there's a solid diagnosis of a painful fatal illness, there might be a point where it's a reasonable choice (I'd personally Alcor, but...). And I'd certainly prefer if spree killers just killed themselves privately.
- rat87 11y agoI think some research suggests that lack of easy immediate access to effective methods of suicide like guns can decrease suicide rates. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/struck-living/201012/can-obstacle-prevent-suicide https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/struck-living/201012/ca... Edit: If a lot of people are committing suicide by train guard rails and similar measures might help.
- tracker1 11y agoI'm just curious what the murder rates are relative to violent crime, relative to population in countries with stricter gun control. Also, given the number of guns, how does that relate to say cars, and car deaths. Nobody is suggesting banning cars, or heavily restricting licensing. What this comes down to is a fundamental, natural right... Yes, it means that people can do bad things, and can be dangerous... people are/were dangerous and did bad things before guns, and still do. In a free society bad things will happen. I find the entire discussion fairly irritating because most people seem to be in favor of some polar extremes... And though, I'd lean towards freedom, I can understand the idea of registration. For that matter, you were once supposed to register for and train with your local militia, and provide your own firearm as a matter of law in this country.
- Marcomasino 11y ago"This simple point — that America is awash with more guns than ever before, yet we are killing each other with guns at a far lower rate than when we had far fewer guns — undermines the narrative that there is a straightforward, causal relationship between increased gun prevalence and gun homicide." According to Table 1, firearm homicides dropped to 10,828 in 1999 and have actually gone up since. Which demonstrates that you can get statistics to say what ever you want. I have another simple point, that it is harder to kill someone with your bare hands that with a gun.
- csours 11y agoI feel like I know even less after reading this piece. It has an obvious bias - it purports to talk about gun violence, but then only talks about murders. When talking about the dangers of having a gun in the home it does not attempt to tally injuries - which would be a sentinel event indicating imminent risk of death. > Public health scholars have continued to research from a place of hostility to firearms. Public health scholars are also hostile to viruses and bacteria. Public health scholars are also interested in promoting health of prostitutes and prison inmates. Guns don't make people healthier To be clear, I don't think guns can be outlawed in America, so I don't think working towards that is a good use of political capital.