5 ms·

You take guns away and they use knives and cleavers. Look to London for what would happen with guns being banned. The solution is to not ban an object but provi

You take guns away and they use knives and cleavers. Look to London for what would happen with guns being banned. The solution is to not ban an object but provide opportunities for people. Jobs, education, paths that pave roads to a career. Nothing drives more people to crime than feeling like they are in a hopeless situation.

busymom0 5y ago
> knives and cleavers or vans here in Canada. According to the FBI homicide stats for US, 297 people were murdered by a rifle in 2018 in the US. 1,515 on the other hand murdered with knives, 443 from blunt hammers, 672 with hands, feet: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-... EDIT: I specifically stated "rifle" not all guns. Because saying we need to take away all guns is pie in the sky thinking. Dems run on "taking away AR-15" but the stats show that isn't going to achieve anything. In 2008, there were 800k-3 million defensive uses of guns. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101364
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  2/3 of murders were with guns. Would people still kill each if they didn't have guns? obviously. Would they do it less? Hard to say since research into gun violence is banned by the government.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > Hard to say since research into gun violence is banned by the government. It's not banned. The government isn't going to fund it, but you've jumped the shark if you think that means it is banned. And part of the reason it's not being funded is that this is political in nature. How do you look at the hundreds of thousands of assaults that were thwarted with guns used in self-defense? Guns are primarily used for self-defense. How do you measure the lives saved? And when an attacker is shot and killed, is that a life saved or a life lost? This is a political debate not a scientific debate. Once you accept that the rapist shot to death and the person who commits suicide as being the same as some random person shot to death, then you've already politicized the work. It's also far outside the purview of the CDC, which is what this "banned" canard is about - the left wanted the CDC to treat "gun violence" as a thing -- like "fist violence" -- or "knife violence" -- why do they always want to classify disagreement as a "disease"? Everything is a "safety" or "health" issue with them, amenable to handing our public policies over to some bureaucrat. Fortunately there was sufficient pushback to block funding of that. That is what your outrage is about. But don't worry, there is a push to classify racism as a disease and have the CDC lab coats study it, so you will get some politicized "public health" research to tide you over. In the meantime, you are welcome to donate to one of the many think-tanks that do these studies on guns, violence, and criminality - of all political persuasions. There are lots of studies even without bringing the public health bureaucracies into the mix.
    - DanBC 5y ago
      > It's also far outside the purview of the CDC What? no it isn't. CDC report on a wide range of harm. It's baffling to think the CDC can be funded to research on road traffic deaths but not gun deaths. Or, to use your examples, that they could be funded to research knife deaths but not gun deaths.
  - busymom0 5y ago
    > Hard to say since research into gun violence is banned by the government. That's plain false. The reason they stopped studying because it didn't fit the narrative. In 2008, there were 800k-3 million defensive uses of guns: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101364
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  The bit you missed out from that link was: Total firearms: 10,265
  - busymom0 5y ago
    I stated "rifle" not all guns. Because saying we need to take away all guns is pie in the sky thinking. Dems run on "taking away AR-15" but the stats show that isn't going to achieve anything. In 2008, there were 800k-3 million defensive uses of guns. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101364
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      No, here's what the link you give actually says: > Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
    - dang 5y ago
      Please don't copy-paste comments on HN. It lowers the signal/noise ratio. If you want to refer to what you said elsewhere (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101591), that's fine, but please use a link and explain why it's relevant.
- sharkmerry 5y ago
  >> According to the FBI homicide stats for US, 297 people were murdered by a rifle in 2018 in the US. Holy misleading data excerpts batman... there were 10k homicides by gun, but you choose 1 type of gun and not the most common. 2014 - 2018 knives 1545 -> 1515 Blunt objects 431->443 Hands, feet 668->672 Guns 7803->10265
  - busymom0 5y ago
    I stated "rifle" not all guns. Because saying we need to take away all guns is pie in the sky thinking. Dems run on "taking away AR-15" but the stats show that isn't going to achieve anything. In 2008, there were 800k-3 million defensive uses of guns. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101364
colinmhayes 5y ago
> Nothing drives more people to crime than feeling like they are in a hopeless situation. Couldn't agree more, which is why eliminating poverty was the first solution I said. We're doing that. Unfortunately it takes decades to work because of the shit family dynamics that exist. Should we just let gun violence run rampant until then?
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Are you seriously suggesting we compare the deaths (you can include injuries if you like) from guns in the US with those caused by knives in the UK? Do you understand how this comparison is going to come out?
- sjg007 5y ago
  They don’t understand it and always present false equivalences as fact.

busymom0 5y ago

> knives and cleavers or vans here in Canada. According to the FBI homicide stats for US, 297 people were murdered by a rifle in 2018 in the US. 1,515 on the other hand murdered with knives, 443 from blunt hammers, 672 with hands, feet: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-... EDIT: I specifically stated "rifle" not all guns. Because saying we need to take away all guns is pie in the sky thinking. Dems run on "taking away AR-15" but the stats show that isn't going to achieve anything. In 2008, there were 800k-3 million defensive uses of guns. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101364

colinmhayes 5y ago
2/3 of murders were with guns. Would people still kill each if they didn't have guns? obviously. Would they do it less? Hard to say since research into gun violence is banned by the government.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  > Hard to say since research into gun violence is banned by the government. It's not banned. The government isn't going to fund it, but you've jumped the shark if you think that means it is banned. And part of the reason it's not being funded is that this is political in nature. How do you look at the hundreds of thousands of assaults that were thwarted with guns used in self-defense? Guns are primarily used for self-defense. How do you measure the lives saved? And when an attacker is shot and killed, is that a life saved or a life lost? This is a political debate not a scientific debate. Once you accept that the rapist shot to death and the person who commits suicide as being the same as some random person shot to death, then you've already politicized the work. It's also far outside the purview of the CDC, which is what this "banned" canard is about - the left wanted the CDC to treat "gun violence" as a thing -- like "fist violence" -- or "knife violence" -- why do they always want to classify disagreement as a "disease"? Everything is a "safety" or "health" issue with them, amenable to handing our public policies over to some bureaucrat. Fortunately there was sufficient pushback to block funding of that. That is what your outrage is about. But don't worry, there is a push to classify racism as a disease and have the CDC lab coats study it, so you will get some politicized "public health" research to tide you over. In the meantime, you are welcome to donate to one of the many think-tanks that do these studies on guns, violence, and criminality - of all political persuasions. There are lots of studies even without bringing the public health bureaucracies into the mix.
  - DanBC 5y ago
    > It's also far outside the purview of the CDC What? no it isn't. CDC report on a wide range of harm. It's baffling to think the CDC can be funded to research on road traffic deaths but not gun deaths. Or, to use your examples, that they could be funded to research knife deaths but not gun deaths.
- busymom0 5y ago
  > Hard to say since research into gun violence is banned by the government. That's plain false. The reason they stopped studying because it didn't fit the narrative. In 2008, there were 800k-3 million defensive uses of guns: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101364
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
The bit you missed out from that link was: Total firearms: 10,265
- busymom0 5y ago
  I stated "rifle" not all guns. Because saying we need to take away all guns is pie in the sky thinking. Dems run on "taking away AR-15" but the stats show that isn't going to achieve anything. In 2008, there were 800k-3 million defensive uses of guns. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101364
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    No, here's what the link you give actually says: > Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
  - dang 5y ago
    Please don't copy-paste comments on HN. It lowers the signal/noise ratio. If you want to refer to what you said elsewhere (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101591), that's fine, but please use a link and explain why it's relevant.
sharkmerry 5y ago
>> According to the FBI homicide stats for US, 297 people were murdered by a rifle in 2018 in the US. Holy misleading data excerpts batman... there were 10k homicides by gun, but you choose 1 type of gun and not the most common. 2014 - 2018 knives 1545 -> 1515 Blunt objects 431->443 Hands, feet 668->672 Guns 7803->10265
- busymom0 5y ago
  I stated "rifle" not all guns. Because saying we need to take away all guns is pie in the sky thinking. Dems run on "taking away AR-15" but the stats show that isn't going to achieve anything. In 2008, there were 800k-3 million defensive uses of guns. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29101364

colinmhayes 5y ago

> Nothing drives more people to crime than feeling like they are in a hopeless situation. Couldn't agree more, which is why eliminating poverty was the first solution I said. We're doing that. Unfortunately it takes decades to work because of the shit family dynamics that exist. Should we just let gun violence run rampant until then?

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

Are you seriously suggesting we compare the deaths (you can include injuries if you like) from guns in the US with those caused by knives in the UK? Do you understand how this comparison is going to come out?

sjg007 5y ago
They don’t understand it and always present false equivalences as fact.