5 ms·

It's also an interesting argument for stricter gun control - guns make it incredibly easy for suicidal people to follow through on that impulse. The amount of

It's also an interesting argument for stricter gun control - guns make it incredibly easy for suicidal people to follow through on that impulse. The amount of suicide deaths by gun in America is a testament to this.

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
Yeah, but that seems like it is one of many, many reasons for more reasonable gun control, yet the US does nothing. If a school full of slaughtered 1st graders or a parking lot full of murdered country music fans hasn't prompted us to do anything, I don't think arguing about people killed by their own hand will change anything, sadly.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  I'm not against gun control--I think there are a number of really "low hanging fruit"-type adjustments that could be made in regulation--but I feel that the amount of political energy liberals put toward it is low priority and loses us a lot of other battles. It's low-priority because guns are much scarier on the news than their actual death counts warrant. More people die in car accidents every year than have died in the entire history of the United States in mass shootings--yet mass shootings are disproportionately used as a talking point. Yearly motor deaths are an order of magnitude more frequent than gun deaths, and that's if you count the more than half of gun deaths which are suicides--if you want to protect yourself from guns, simply not owning a gun is an effective measure. If liberals took proportional action with regard to harm on car safety to how we act on gun safety, we'd be pushing for frequent re-testing for licenses, lower speed limits, easier loss-of-licenses for repeat bad drivers, stricter drunk driving laws, etc. But that's not what's happening. It loses us a lot of battles, because it alienates a lot of potential allies. True libertarians, for example, tend to be fairly pro-choice, but don't feel strongly about it, but very pro-gun, and feel very strongly about it. We'd have them on our side in votes relevant to abortion a lot more often if we didn't alienate them with regards to gun rights.
  - povertyworld 7y ago
    Everyone knows someone who was killed in a car accident, and many of us know someone who died of an opioid overdose, but do you know anyone who died of a gunshot? It feels like we do because of the way the news sensationalizes it. Imagine if the news did little vignettes about every person killed in a car accident the same way they do for mass shootings? I think the news "stands up" to the gun lobby not because they are strong but because they are weak. Standing up to the auto industry or big pharma might actually face serious pushback, possibly even from another branch of their own corporate structure.
    - lazyasciiart 7y ago
      Or even from their own lifestyle. Standing up against guns is easy because almost nobody needs to own a gun, and none of them work in the media.
      - povertyworld 7y ago
        People only need to own cars because our development was done carelessly. It could have been and can be done differently.
    - projektfu 7y ago
      I think in the US, yes, a similar number of people will know someone who has died of a gunshot, whether from suicide, homicide, or accidental death. When you reflect on it, you probably did know someone who was killed by a spouse or child, or who took their own life with a gun. In fact, it's so commonplace that, like with car deaths, you only hear about it when it is a particularly sensational story. A big difference is people are conditioned to think "gun deaths" means a criminal activity they or their neighbors don't partake in (until a suicide or an intra-family murder occurs).
  - projektfu 7y ago
    A quick review of the wikipedia pages puts those two figures in the mid 30,000s per year. Perhaps the methodology is off but it doesn't seem like the gun figure could be off by an order of magnitude or more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
ummonk 7y ago
Why should those of us who are non-suicidal have to give up our ability to defend ourselves because some suicidal people are gonna shoot themselves? (I don't own any guns but this screams nanny state to me)
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  A person and their family are 3x more likely to be shot if they have a gun in their house, so "defence" isn't a great reason to have a gun.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    That doesn't follow. I'm probably much more likely to be electrocuted because my house has electricity, but that doesn't mean electricity doesn't serve its purpose.
    - yongjik 7y ago
      On the other hand, nobody argues electricity is an essential human right because you need it to fight electrocution. Guns might serve some purposes in some situations. It's just an incredibly lousy tool for "defending ourselves", with negative utility on average.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
        > On the other hand, nobody argues electricity is an essential human right because you need it to fight electrocution. Sorry, I didn't know you required an absolutely perfect analogy to understand the point.
      - zepto 7y ago
        “With negative utility on average” - perhaps, but not based on anything stated here. If you have a source, it would help.
        7y ago
alexashka 7y ago
It's about as interesting as reducing the speed limit in regards to cars. Sure, we keep killing innocent people, but we have places to be and stuff. America was founded on genocide and cultured Europeans thought it was a good idea to kill entire populations who weren't Übermensch less than 100 years ago. Remember who you're living among :)

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago

Yeah, but that seems like it is one of many, many reasons for more reasonable gun control, yet the US does nothing. If a school full of slaughtered 1st graders or a parking lot full of murdered country music fans hasn't prompted us to do anything, I don't think arguing about people killed by their own hand will change anything, sadly.

kerkeslager 7y ago
I'm not against gun control--I think there are a number of really "low hanging fruit"-type adjustments that could be made in regulation--but I feel that the amount of political energy liberals put toward it is low priority and loses us a lot of other battles. It's low-priority because guns are much scarier on the news than their actual death counts warrant. More people die in car accidents every year than have died in the entire history of the United States in mass shootings--yet mass shootings are disproportionately used as a talking point. Yearly motor deaths are an order of magnitude more frequent than gun deaths, and that's if you count the more than half of gun deaths which are suicides--if you want to protect yourself from guns, simply not owning a gun is an effective measure. If liberals took proportional action with regard to harm on car safety to how we act on gun safety, we'd be pushing for frequent re-testing for licenses, lower speed limits, easier loss-of-licenses for repeat bad drivers, stricter drunk driving laws, etc. But that's not what's happening. It loses us a lot of battles, because it alienates a lot of potential allies. True libertarians, for example, tend to be fairly pro-choice, but don't feel strongly about it, but very pro-gun, and feel very strongly about it. We'd have them on our side in votes relevant to abortion a lot more often if we didn't alienate them with regards to gun rights.
- povertyworld 7y ago
  Everyone knows someone who was killed in a car accident, and many of us know someone who died of an opioid overdose, but do you know anyone who died of a gunshot? It feels like we do because of the way the news sensationalizes it. Imagine if the news did little vignettes about every person killed in a car accident the same way they do for mass shootings? I think the news "stands up" to the gun lobby not because they are strong but because they are weak. Standing up to the auto industry or big pharma might actually face serious pushback, possibly even from another branch of their own corporate structure.
  - lazyasciiart 7y ago
    Or even from their own lifestyle. Standing up against guns is easy because almost nobody needs to own a gun, and none of them work in the media.
    - povertyworld 7y ago
      People only need to own cars because our development was done carelessly. It could have been and can be done differently.
  - projektfu 7y ago
    I think in the US, yes, a similar number of people will know someone who has died of a gunshot, whether from suicide, homicide, or accidental death. When you reflect on it, you probably did know someone who was killed by a spouse or child, or who took their own life with a gun. In fact, it's so commonplace that, like with car deaths, you only hear about it when it is a particularly sensational story. A big difference is people are conditioned to think "gun deaths" means a criminal activity they or their neighbors don't partake in (until a suicide or an intra-family murder occurs).
- projektfu 7y ago
  A quick review of the wikipedia pages puts those two figures in the mid 30,000s per year. Perhaps the methodology is off but it doesn't seem like the gun figure could be off by an order of magnitude or more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

ummonk 7y ago

Why should those of us who are non-suicidal have to give up our ability to defend ourselves because some suicidal people are gonna shoot themselves? (I don't own any guns but this screams nanny state to me)

tomlockwood 7y ago
A person and their family are 3x more likely to be shot if they have a gun in their house, so "defence" isn't a great reason to have a gun.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  That doesn't follow. I'm probably much more likely to be electrocuted because my house has electricity, but that doesn't mean electricity doesn't serve its purpose.
  - yongjik 7y ago
    On the other hand, nobody argues electricity is an essential human right because you need it to fight electrocution. Guns might serve some purposes in some situations. It's just an incredibly lousy tool for "defending ourselves", with negative utility on average.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      > On the other hand, nobody argues electricity is an essential human right because you need it to fight electrocution. Sorry, I didn't know you required an absolutely perfect analogy to understand the point.
    - zepto 7y ago
      “With negative utility on average” - perhaps, but not based on anything stated here. If you have a source, it would help.
      - 7y ago

alexashka 7y ago

It's about as interesting as reducing the speed limit in regards to cars. Sure, we keep killing innocent people, but we have places to be and stuff. America was founded on genocide and cultured Europeans thought it was a good idea to kill entire populations who weren't Übermensch less than 100 years ago. Remember who you're living among :)