5 ms·

Gun violence, the United States is an outlier

17 points by srameshc 3y ago

knorker 3y ago
I'm shocked that it turns out that yes, actually, guns do kill people. But there's no way to prevent it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_Says_Only_Nation_Where_This_Regularly_Happens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_...
bluish29 3y ago
> Firearm injuries tend to be more frequent in places where people have easy access to firearms Which I think the US would be an outlier in that too.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jakogut 3y ago
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-...
babelthuap 3y ago
[dead]
seanw444 3y ago
> Age-adjusted rates of firearm homicide are highest in Washington, DC and lowest in New Hampshire. Washington DC having some of the strictest (if not the most strict) gun laws in the nation, and New Hampshire being a gun rights haven smack dab in the middle of a bunch of states with harsh gun laws. With permitless carry. Almost like the denser the population, the less regard people have for each others' lives. Also, I will never understand the argument of "people meet unfortunate demises, thus the rest of us forfeit our right to defend ourselves with the most effective means." It's not something that's debatable to me. Death is an unfortunate reality, and it will never be fixed, no matter how many layers of authoritarian bloat you pile onto it. Let's work on fixing our moral decay instead.
- nullindividual 3y ago
  I would assume, hopefully correctly, that the gun laws in DC were put in place as a reactionary measure to gun violence and not as a preventative one. This either means reactionary measures are ineffective, or they're being policed ineffectively, or there is some other societal/cultural issue at play that doesn't exist in NH. > Almost like the denser the population, the less regard people have for each others' lives. This is why as a socialist I live in the middle of (R)edneck country.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Ancapistani 3y ago
    > I would assume, hopefully correctly, that the gun laws in DC were put in place as a reactionary measure to gun violence and not as a preventative one. It sounds like I'm on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you. That's fine, I'm just giving context :P I think the causal arrow goes the other way. People raised in rural areas encounter firearms far more often - and in different contexts - than people raised in urban areas. When the only times you see firearms are on the hips of law enforcement or in the hands of criminals, it's reasonable that you will develop a very different view of them. In other words, I believe that on a statistical level support for gun control is proportional to the population density where people spend their early lives. I also believe that the lack of firearms in the hands of everyday citizens encourages violent criminals to see them as a viable and relatively effective means of coercion. > This is why as a socialist I live in the middle of (R)edneck country. I spent about a decade as an Anarcho-Capitalist in socialist country. It was... an experience, that's for sure. It reinforced my belief that the people are far more apt to compromise and understand opposing views when they spend time face-to-face with people who disagree with them.
    - timeon 3y ago
      > I also believe that the lack of firearms in the hands of everyday citizens encourages violent criminals to see them as a viable and relatively effective means of coercion. On the other hand, the fact that almost anyone can have gun encourages police brutality. Because they need to expect anyone could be armed so they act accordingly. Also it is far easier to obtain gun illegally for violent criminals, when occurrence of guns in population is high.
ajuc 3y ago
USA and gun control is a "nail in head" situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg
eyelidlessness 3y ago
Since this is a topic that will surely be contentious, I’ll offer a change of mind perspective. For many years, I was a staunch advocate for gun rights—more specifically, for the principle that the state shouldn’t have a monopoly on violence or the tools thereof. My principles are largely unchanged, but my view on guns is very different now, because: 1. I allowed myself, through honest reflection, to be persuaded by clear evidence of harm reduction associated with limiting access to guns. Any theoretical objection I had to that evidence was motivated by bias, however rooted in principle. 2. On similar reflection, I accepted the fact that such principle has little practical impact in the face of a modern, highly organized functioning state. Even the most heavily armed populace stands no chance at out-gunning its governing state, no matter how unjust its governance, barring other failure modes of that state which would be just as applicable regardless of how well armed the populace is. 3. Observing that my supposed fellow advocates for gun rights, by and large, are far less principled on the matter… and far more likely to defend—up to and including their own armed violence—such state injustice. These gun rights in practice are effectively a tool of oppression, rather than a bulwark against it.
- shapenamer 3y ago
  [dead]
- tivert 3y ago
  And there's tons of evidence to support your point #2: the blossoming liberal democracy currently in Afghanistan that was created by post-9/11 US military force, the crushing of the pro-democracy rebellion in Myanmar by the military junta, etc. And I have no idea how a Second Amendment advocate could imagine they could fight and win against a nuke-wielding government, they'd literally get vaporized by an ICBM before they could fire a shot.
  - xscott 3y ago
    I'm not accusing you in particular, but a lot of people will say that a "second amendment advocate" couldn't hope to fight against the government out one side of their mouth, and then say that the January 6th nonsense was a legitimate threat to the government out of the other side... They can't both be true.

17 points by srameshc 3y ago

I'm shocked that it turns out that yes, actually, guns do kill people. But there's no way to prevent it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_Says_Only_Nation_Where_This_Regularly_Happens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_...

bluish29 3y ago

> Firearm injuries tend to be more frequent in places where people have easy access to firearms Which I think the US would be an outlier in that too.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jakogut 3y ago

https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-...

babelthuap 3y ago

[dead]

seanw444 3y ago

> Age-adjusted rates of firearm homicide are highest in Washington, DC and lowest in New Hampshire. Washington DC having some of the strictest (if not the most strict) gun laws in the nation, and New Hampshire being a gun rights haven smack dab in the middle of a bunch of states with harsh gun laws. With permitless carry. Almost like the denser the population, the less regard people have for each others' lives. Also, I will never understand the argument of "people meet unfortunate demises, thus the rest of us forfeit our right to defend ourselves with the most effective means." It's not something that's debatable to me. Death is an unfortunate reality, and it will never be fixed, no matter how many layers of authoritarian bloat you pile onto it. Let's work on fixing our moral decay instead.

nullindividual 3y ago
I would assume, hopefully correctly, that the gun laws in DC were put in place as a reactionary measure to gun violence and not as a preventative one. This either means reactionary measures are ineffective, or they're being policed ineffectively, or there is some other societal/cultural issue at play that doesn't exist in NH. > Almost like the denser the population, the less regard people have for each others' lives. This is why as a socialist I live in the middle of (R)edneck country.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Ancapistani 3y ago
  > I would assume, hopefully correctly, that the gun laws in DC were put in place as a reactionary measure to gun violence and not as a preventative one. It sounds like I'm on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you. That's fine, I'm just giving context :P I think the causal arrow goes the other way. People raised in rural areas encounter firearms far more often - and in different contexts - than people raised in urban areas. When the only times you see firearms are on the hips of law enforcement or in the hands of criminals, it's reasonable that you will develop a very different view of them. In other words, I believe that on a statistical level support for gun control is proportional to the population density where people spend their early lives. I also believe that the lack of firearms in the hands of everyday citizens encourages violent criminals to see them as a viable and relatively effective means of coercion. > This is why as a socialist I live in the middle of (R)edneck country. I spent about a decade as an Anarcho-Capitalist in socialist country. It was... an experience, that's for sure. It reinforced my belief that the people are far more apt to compromise and understand opposing views when they spend time face-to-face with people who disagree with them.
  - timeon 3y ago
    > I also believe that the lack of firearms in the hands of everyday citizens encourages violent criminals to see them as a viable and relatively effective means of coercion. On the other hand, the fact that almost anyone can have gun encourages police brutality. Because they need to expect anyone could be armed so they act accordingly. Also it is far easier to obtain gun illegally for violent criminals, when occurrence of guns in population is high.

ajuc 3y ago

USA and gun control is a "nail in head" situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg

eyelidlessness 3y ago

Since this is a topic that will surely be contentious, I’ll offer a change of mind perspective. For many years, I was a staunch advocate for gun rights—more specifically, for the principle that the state shouldn’t have a monopoly on violence or the tools thereof. My principles are largely unchanged, but my view on guns is very different now, because: 1. I allowed myself, through honest reflection, to be persuaded by clear evidence of harm reduction associated with limiting access to guns. Any theoretical objection I had to that evidence was motivated by bias, however rooted in principle. 2. On similar reflection, I accepted the fact that such principle has little practical impact in the face of a modern, highly organized functioning state. Even the most heavily armed populace stands no chance at out-gunning its governing state, no matter how unjust its governance, barring other failure modes of that state which would be just as applicable regardless of how well armed the populace is. 3. Observing that my supposed fellow advocates for gun rights, by and large, are far less principled on the matter… and far more likely to defend—up to and including their own armed violence—such state injustice. These gun rights in practice are effectively a tool of oppression, rather than a bulwark against it.

shapenamer 3y ago
[dead]
tivert 3y ago
And there's tons of evidence to support your point #2: the blossoming liberal democracy currently in Afghanistan that was created by post-9/11 US military force, the crushing of the pro-democracy rebellion in Myanmar by the military junta, etc. And I have no idea how a Second Amendment advocate could imagine they could fight and win against a nuke-wielding government, they'd literally get vaporized by an ICBM before they could fire a shot.
- xscott 3y ago
  I'm not accusing you in particular, but a lot of people will say that a "second amendment advocate" couldn't hope to fight against the government out one side of their mouth, and then say that the January 6th nonsense was a legitimate threat to the government out of the other side... They can't both be true.