4 ms·

I agree, but 11,000 people dying a year sounds like an actual threat/risk to me. Your list can be modified to: heart disease, cancer, public debt, guns, etc.

by nayefc 13y ago

protomyth 13y ago
The number of people killed in violent crimes by guns in the US is continuing to trend down. This is via the CDC. Why screw with that? Second, the US government does not have to the money or constitutional authority to "fix" all things. It has a budget and income which should start to match. 11,000 people taken over the whole US is not much of a risk. If you look at the CDC stats, it is very far down on a long list.
- hga 13y ago
  "Why screw with that?" Exactly. This period of decreasing violent crime is correlated with a massive, near nationwide relaxation of gun controls that go back to the post-Civil war period. Correlation does not suggest let alone prove causation, but desiring a reversal in a trend that correlates with what in theory is your objective should give one pause.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    There are couple of things that suggest correlation: Chicago and DC.
    - nayefc 13y ago
      I wonder if you realise city-wide laws don't matter: you can drive 30 minutes from DC in Virginia and get a rifle...
  - nayefc 13y ago
    Do you actually believe this? This makes me laugh... I think we need a psychological study to see what is this filthy obsession with guns people have here in the US.
    - hga 13y ago
      Do you deny either of the facts cited? The crime decrease was extensively discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5674263 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5674263 The most visible and perhaps biggest of the relaxations of gun control is the nationwide sweep of shall issue concealed carry regimes, now around 42 states and 2/3rds of the population, see this for more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_S...; the recovery through political means of the fundimental right to bear arms is no small thing. You may laugh about my "filthy obsession", but the facts on the ground are that every time I exit my residence, I can carry a concealed handgun, and almost every time I do. That wasn't true here in my home state before 2004. As for a study, not only are there plenty, but since you've made up your mind, for what purposes do you desire one?
      - nayefc 13y ago
        I can show you 10 studies to counter each study you just posted, so all these "studies" are useless. At the end of the day, 11,000 people are dying in the US per year vs. only tens or hundreds in other countries where they have proper gun laws. I know the US population is higher, so let's take it by ratio: the rate per 100,000 population per year in the US is 10.20. The US ranks 57 in the world. In the UK, the rate is 0.25, and they rank 5. Japan ranks 1st with a rate of 0.07. It doesn't look like you care about ranking high with the rest of the civil societies in the world. I frankly couldn't care less about the "right to bear arms". A right made in the 1700's when militias were there to fight the British. You don't realise we're 300 years ahead now, do you? And yes, I did make up my mind a long time ago. I simply can't wrap my head around two things: guns & death penalty. To me, these are primitive issues that if we're really a civil society, we really shouldn't be discussing them in 2013. I think we should end the argument. A HN discussion will not stop you from carrying a concealed weapon, nor will it alter my views.
        hga 13y ago
        "Facts are stubborn things", and I was quoting facts, not "studies" in the sense of the word as we've been using it. E.g. the fatality data comes from the CDC, and the sources are, per http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/fatal/help/faq.htm#Where http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/fatal/help/faq.htm#Where: "Where does WISQARS get its data? "Death data come from a national mortality database compiled by CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. This database contains information from death certificates filed in state vital-statistics offices and includes causes of death reported by attending physicians, medical examiners, and coroners. It also includes demographic information about decedents reported by funeral directors, who obtain that information from family members and other informants. Population data come from the Bureau of the Census. These data are based on information gathered in censuses and on estimation procedures conducted in non-census years." Similarly, it is a hard fact, based on legislation enacted, that shall issue concealed carry has swept the nation 1987 (Florida) to 2011 (Wisconsin and Iowa). That you dismiss these as "studies" is about as disturbing as you dismissing the rule of law, which after all is the only thing that stands between you and the barbarians....

I agree, but 11,000 people dying a year sounds like an actual threat/risk to me. Your list can be modified to: heart disease, cancer, public debt, guns, etc.

by nayefc 13y ago

I agree, but 11,000 people dying a year sounds like an actual threat/risk to me. Your list can be modified to: heart disease, cancer, public debt, guns, etc.

protomyth 13y ago

The number of people killed in violent crimes by guns in the US is continuing to trend down. This is via the CDC. Why screw with that? Second, the US government does not have to the money or constitutional authority to "fix" all things. It has a budget and income which should start to match. 11,000 people taken over the whole US is not much of a risk. If you look at the CDC stats, it is very far down on a long list.

hga 13y ago
"Why screw with that?" Exactly. This period of decreasing violent crime is correlated with a massive, near nationwide relaxation of gun controls that go back to the post-Civil war period. Correlation does not suggest let alone prove causation, but desiring a reversal in a trend that correlates with what in theory is your objective should give one pause.
- smsm42 13y ago
  There are couple of things that suggest correlation: Chicago and DC.
  - nayefc 13y ago
    I wonder if you realise city-wide laws don't matter: you can drive 30 minutes from DC in Virginia and get a rifle...
- nayefc 13y ago
  Do you actually believe this? This makes me laugh... I think we need a psychological study to see what is this filthy obsession with guns people have here in the US.
  - hga 13y ago
    Do you deny either of the facts cited? The crime decrease was extensively discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5674263 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5674263 The most visible and perhaps biggest of the relaxations of gun control is the nationwide sweep of shall issue concealed carry regimes, now around 42 states and 2/3rds of the population, see this for more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_S...; the recovery through political means of the fundimental right to bear arms is no small thing. You may laugh about my "filthy obsession", but the facts on the ground are that every time I exit my residence, I can carry a concealed handgun, and almost every time I do. That wasn't true here in my home state before 2004. As for a study, not only are there plenty, but since you've made up your mind, for what purposes do you desire one?
    - nayefc 13y ago
      I can show you 10 studies to counter each study you just posted, so all these "studies" are useless. At the end of the day, 11,000 people are dying in the US per year vs. only tens or hundreds in other countries where they have proper gun laws. I know the US population is higher, so let's take it by ratio: the rate per 100,000 population per year in the US is 10.20. The US ranks 57 in the world. In the UK, the rate is 0.25, and they rank 5. Japan ranks 1st with a rate of 0.07. It doesn't look like you care about ranking high with the rest of the civil societies in the world. I frankly couldn't care less about the "right to bear arms". A right made in the 1700's when militias were there to fight the British. You don't realise we're 300 years ahead now, do you? And yes, I did make up my mind a long time ago. I simply can't wrap my head around two things: guns & death penalty. To me, these are primitive issues that if we're really a civil society, we really shouldn't be discussing them in 2013. I think we should end the argument. A HN discussion will not stop you from carrying a concealed weapon, nor will it alter my views.
      - hga 13y ago
        "Facts are stubborn things", and I was quoting facts, not "studies" in the sense of the word as we've been using it. E.g. the fatality data comes from the CDC, and the sources are, per http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/fatal/help/faq.htm#Where http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/fatal/help/faq.htm#Where: "Where does WISQARS get its data? "Death data come from a national mortality database compiled by CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. This database contains information from death certificates filed in state vital-statistics offices and includes causes of death reported by attending physicians, medical examiners, and coroners. It also includes demographic information about decedents reported by funeral directors, who obtain that information from family members and other informants. Population data come from the Bureau of the Census. These data are based on information gathered in censuses and on estimation procedures conducted in non-census years." Similarly, it is a hard fact, based on legislation enacted, that shall issue concealed carry has swept the nation 1987 (Florida) to 2011 (Wisconsin and Iowa). That you dismiss these as "studies" is about as disturbing as you dismissing the rule of law, which after all is the only thing that stands between you and the barbarians....