11 ms·

A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S

46 points by denzil_correa 12y ago

slipstream- 12y ago
Google cache link to get around paywall: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fnews%2Funited-states%2F21638140-gun-now-more-likely-kill-you-car-bangers-v-bullets&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fnews%2Funited-states%2F21638140-gun-now-more-likely-kill-you-car-bangers-v-bullets&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.2239j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8&safe=active https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp...
- stevesearer 12y ago
  I understand that Hacker News is a sharing and discussion website and that it sucks not being able to read the submitted stories, but it seems people here are generally against paywalls and try to subvert them in any way possible. It also seems that many people here also subvert non-paywall sites that monetize their content using ads by installing various adblockers. As a publisher myself, I'd be interested in hearing if there are any other ways to monetize my website and content other than paywalls and advertisements which people seem to dislike so much?
  - sosuke 12y ago
    Sponsored posts, sponsored events, sponsored custom takeovers don't fall into ad blockers since they aren't being served by Akamai etc. If you're doing products, affiliate links from your posts.
    - danielweber 12y ago
      "Don't sell your product; give it away and cram it with ads!"
      - stevesearer 12y ago
        I'm assuming this is snark, but print magazines actually do both by selling the magazines themselves and filling them with advertisements.
        sosuke 12y ago
        I read a lot of watch blogs, they do sweepstakes and brand reviews that I love to read. http://www.ablogtowatch.com/watch-giveaway-tudor-heritage-chrono-70330n-truefacet/ http://www.ablogtowatch.com/watch-giveaway-tudor-heritage-ch...
  - ekimekim 12y ago
    I make a point of only enabling an ad-blocker if I find the ads overly invasive, resource-intensive or objectionable. Another suggestion is that, for sites that I regularly visit and like the content, I will (and do) happily pay a subscription fee in exchange for guilt-free ad-free content.
JTon 12y ago
Scary title, but I think I'll mark this one up as a victory for auto safety. Especially considering a good chunk of death by firearms are (tragically) suicides.
- collyw 12y ago
  As a European it seems blatantly obvious that your gun laws are absurd in the States. (I am assuming you are from the States from the fact you see the argument that way around, correct me if I am wrong).
  - savagej 12y ago
    yeah. you're a subject, not a free person in Europe.
  - throwaway90999 12y ago
    Most of the perceived absurdity comes from disingenuous framing of the issues. Here are some examples: Over half of all quoted gun deaths are suicides. [edit: removed mention of suicide survivability as I don't have a reference handy. But remember: The most likely person to shoot you is yourself.] Let's remove suicide from the discussion and talk about violence. The primary driver for violence is socioeconomic. The US has a huge wealth and education disparity problem, exacerbated by a drug war which focuses primarily on the lower economic classes. Most political rhetoric surrounding gun violence focuses on denying lower-class individuals access to firearms and is inexorably linked to institutionalized racism [ cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special#Economic_class_and_racial_inequality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special#Economic... ] What these stats don't show is the EXTREME socioeconomic skew involved in violent crime. If we look at gun deaths by wealth quadrile we find that the upper 40% have very, very few gun deaths -- on par with the nicer areas in Europe. Our inflated gun death statistics come almost entirely from the lower 40%. That is, gun deaths are emblematic of America's class divide. The right to self defense is a convenient target for politicians to score easy wins. Constructively addressing the USA's violence problem is a very different issue and frankly is almost entirely unrelated to firearm legislation.
apetresc 12y ago
From the article: > By contrast, safety features on firearms—such as smartguns unlocked by an owner’s thumbprint or a radio-frequency encryption—are opposed by the National Rifle Association, whose allies in Congress also block funding for the sort of public-health research that might show, in even clearer detail, the cost of America’s love affair with guns. Can someone explain the NRA to me? At this point they come across as cartoon villains, senselessly evil for no apparent purpose. Why can car companies be persuaded to invest in safety features but somehow the NRA works against its own interests to make guns as dangerous as possible? I feel like I must be missing some side of the story, because from the stuff I read, they're literally twirling their mustachios while cackling right now.
- vor_ 12y ago
  Guns are a political issue for American conservatives. Attempts to regulate guns are seen as an attack on their freedoms. The more extreme members maintain a fantasy of government overthrow (see the Cliven Bundy standoff).
- TheDong 12y ago
  the NRA is also in part defined by its members. These members are, for the most part, highly conservative and see technology like that as making guns worse. They don't worry about safety; after-all, the point of the gun is power and something that is dangerous feels more powerful. The other reason people oppose them is because it would reduce the gun-owner's ability to re-sell the gun to criminals with no difficulty or government intervention. It would remove some control from the gun owners. One man's safety feature is another man's oppressive inconvenience.
  - symfoniq 12y ago
    Most gun owners I know are like Unix programmers, in that they favor the simplest solution that could possibly work. A safety feature that makes a gun significantly more complicated—and therefore possibly less likely to work when needed—is a non-starter for most gun owners. Furthermore, most gun owners have firearms at least in part because of the criminal element. I find the argument that a significant number of gun owners want to be able to resell their firearms to criminals to be patently absurd.
flintchip 12y ago
Good, finally people can stop trotting out the inane adage "if you ban guns you have to ban cars" whenever the gun control debate comes up.
- ta75757 12y ago
  Cars are not a good example because people need cars. But alcohol is a good example, nobody needs alcohol and plenty of innocent people die from drunk drivers. Yet most people consider alcohol "normal" and the idea of restricting it to home use only, for example, as absurd. But since these people didn't grow up with guns they consider them "abnormal" and see no problem with restricting them, since it doesn't affect them. This is why I think the conflict is mainly cultural.
samsnelling 12y ago
Including suicides seems unfair. > The U.S. Department of Justice reports that approximately 60% of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide, 61% more than deaths by homicide. [1] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Suicides_involving_firearms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Stat...
- vor_ 12y ago
  > Including suicides seems unfair. Why?
  - otikik 12y ago
    I can't read the article, but I would assume that they have not included the suicides happening at home using the car (by inhaling exhaust in a closed space), and have only counted the deaths on the road.
    - vor_ 12y ago
      Emission controls on modern vehicles make it difficult to die from carbon monoxide poisoning these days.
  - Torgo 12y ago
    gun owners place a high value on agency. I have wondered if one reason they tend to not see suicides as legitimate in gun death stats is because they tend to see suicide as a willful act that a person also has a right to. Just a speculation...
- m_d 12y ago
  Improving access to mental healthcare in the US would do a lot to reduce gun deaths.
- bryanlarsen 12y ago
  Just making suicide slightly more difficult dramatically reduces suicide rates. It's difficult to stop someone determined to kill themselves, but most suicides are impulse decisions, so removing the opportunity often prevents the suicide. That's why suicide barriers on bridges actually reduce suicide rates rather than changing the method.
m_d 12y ago
For some perspective, check out the CDC's "Leading Causes of Death": http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
CapitalistCartr 12y ago
Statistics don't work that way. It's not an even distribution. For instance, I am not around gun violence at all, but I've seen and been involved in several serious car accidents. I live and work in areas nearly devoid of gun crime. My odds of being shot are vastly less than being injured or killed by an auto.
- tthomas48 12y ago
  Good point. If you think about it, due to the distribution of guns and the fact that the majority of gun deaths are suicides, accidents, or domestic violence - living in a gun-free household should reduce your risk even more dramatically than these statistics might suggest.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    About half of suicides are done via gun, and about half of households have access to a gun. There's nothing "dramatic" about reducing your chance of dying via suicide by being in the second half. I don't want to say it's zero, because I'm sure someone's life is spared by not having a gun around when the urge to suicide pops up.
jayess 12y ago
According to the CDC, homicides by discharge of firearm was at about 11,000 in 2011. Death by motor vehicle accident was 35,000. By contrast, 53,000 die from the flu, 27,000 from falls, 36,000 from accidental poisoning, and 600,000 from heart disease. Table 10: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf
ryandvm 12y ago
Ignoring the click-bait headline implying that guns have become more dangerous than cars - what we actually see are that deaths from both have declined. Car deaths slightly more quickly than gun deaths. I find that incredibly encouraging. Nothing about guns or gun ownership has changed dramatically in the United States over this period. Perhaps this signals that the bizarre, and often fetishized, culture of violence in the United States is on the wane. I hope so.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
donatj 12y ago
Depending on your source of numbers, 40-60% of gun deaths are suicide and 30-60% are gang related. That at most leaves 0-30% "preventable" shootings. Gang member aren't going to use "smart guns" and I have the moral right to kill myself.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  "I should have the legal right to kill myself." And of course, even if someone disagrees with that, getting rid of the gun is more likely to change the method than the result.
  - quadrangle 12y ago
    I think the stats are that suicide by gun shows far more successful percentage than most other attempts. And I believe there's evidence that thwarted attempts often work out for the better. Essentially, if the only options for suicide fundamentally required a persistent decision over time to carry out rather than a spur-of-the-moment decision, there's an argument that it would be better for society and for suicidal people overall.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      Note that I didn't say there wouldn't be any improvement. The statistics do show guns more effective than, for instance, overdose. However: 1) it is still the case that the method is more likely to change than the result; and 2) it is likely that means is not assigned randomly, and those more intent on ending their life pick more lethal means - absent guns, some comparably lethal means remain readily available.
      - quadrangle 12y ago
        I'm really not an expert here, but I heard an argument that guns aren't chosen more in some sort of thought-out way like you describe. Instead, guns are there already, and get used by people who realize that there is a gun and they might even not make the attempt otherwise. Regarding suicide, I have much less concern about guns as a method than I do about any sort of lethal tool being available on short notice instead of a situation that requires persistent determination and waiting.
sosuke 12y ago
I keep looking through the data, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf, and it seems like cars still beat out guns by a good margin. They even say in the article most of the gun deaths are by suicide. Just the few numbers I grabbed says you're still 3 times more likely to be killed by or in a car. I looked again at the article and they don't even list the numbers because it conflicts with the story they WANT to have. The proper title is "The forecast for ways you might die in the next 5 years if you remain in the 15-24 age bracket shows a higher change of being killed by a gun, or killing yourself with a gun, than by being killed in or by a car." Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms 11,068 Accidental discharge of firearms 591 Discharge of firearms, undetermined intent 248 Motor vehicle accidents 35,303 Unless you're taking your own life: Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms 19,990
- dllthomas 12y ago
  And for context, suicide overall: 39,518
- vor_ 12y ago
  > They even say in the article most of the gun deaths are by suicide. It says "suicides, accidents or domestic violence." These are all vital statistics in determining the deadliness of guns. Gun advocates have been arguing here that suicides shouldn't be counted, which doesn't make sense. Access to an effective suicide method is one more consequence of a gun-owning society. It should be acknowledged, analyzed, and discussed. It seems as though advocates are arguing that the statistics should be filtered to make guns appear less statistically deadly. That's nonsense. This is a comparison of deadliness; a gun death is a gun death. Despite a decline in gun ownership, gun deaths are trending upward, and the NRA opposes smart-unlock features like thumbprint identification that contrast with the myriad safety controls placed on vehicles.
  - ta75757 12y ago
    How many people reading that headline do you think actually think of suicides when they read it? The reason for determining the deadliness of guns is to know whether they should be banned or not. And we're arguing that since suicides don't justify prohibition, it's not fair to include them in "deadliness". Suicides don't justify prohibition because I as a person should have the right to choose to own a gun at the small risk that I may commit suicide with it. It is not the governments place to protect me from that small risk. It seems as though advocates are arguing that the statistics should be filtered to make guns appear less statistically deadly. And the other side is doing the same thing, inflating the statistics with deaths that we believe should not affect the policy decision. gun deaths are trending upward Not according to the graph in the article: http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20150110_USC666.png http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecac...
Trillinon 12y ago
It's important to note that, according to the chart, both are on the decline. Auto deaths are simply declining further. Gun ownership is an important civil liberty in the USA, but one that comes with danger. The Economist is recommending a technological approach to mitigating that danger. Research and development has been done in this department, and many technologies have been applied to modern firearms. Better safeties that prevent accidental discharge, better safes, ammunition that prevents over-penetration, etc. We have yet to see a simple and trustworthy technology that limits who can fire a gun. When we do, it will start to be used. For such a technology to work, the user needs to feel in complete control of it. There can be zero risk that an authorized user won't be able to fire the gun due to system failure or low battery. Ultimately, though, no technological solution will prevent suicide. For that, a different approach will be necessary, and I don't have an answer for that.
- MrMember 12y ago
  >ammunition that prevents over-penetration Ironically, many gun control advocates still argue against civilian ownership of ammunition that doesn't overpenetrate. In some California cities hollow point ammunition is illegal to buy. In New Jersey it is illegal to carry hollow point ammunition outside the home. The Brady Campaign still to this day calls hollow points "cop killer bullets" despite the fact that every law enforcement department in the country uses them.
logfromblammo 12y ago
Comparing cause-of-death rates between automobiles and firearms is a lot like comparing the median number of miles traveled riding in a car versus carrying a gun. Death is a possible unintended side effect of riding in an automobile. Death is the explicit primary purpose of discharging a gunpowder weapon. Thus, this is far more laudable accomplishment for automotive safety than it is a deplorable statistic for gun owners. Cars now cause less deaths by accident than a consumer product that is actually designed to kill things when used correctly. Yay. I don't ever have an absolute need to own or use a gun, but it is practically impossible to earn a profitable living without spending at least 40 minutes per day driving in my car, or riding in any other form of on-road transportation. I don't particularly feel like the jerkass riding on the hard shoulder at 50 mph to bypass a rush-hour jam is in any way comparable to someone who plinks beer bottles--the ones they just emptied--off their back fence without stopping to consider if there are neighbors living in that general direction. They could even be the same guy. If so, I meet him far more often on the road. Neither guns nor cars kill without an operator--not yet, anyway. If I am now less at risk from an idiot behind a wheel than an idiot with his finger on the trigger, that is unequivocally good news, because I encounter far more of the former. But the article doesn't exactly break the statistics down by intent. I suspect that rates of deaths by gun due to accident or operator negligence are still less than deaths by vehicle due to accident or operator negligence. So I still feel like guns are safer for me than the average person, because I don't particularly feel like anyone has an actual desire to kill me specifically, especially given my own disinclination toward suicide. The article doesn't tell me anything meaningful. It seems to be presenting the statistics in a very narrowly interpreted way to advance a particular editorial point of view. The Economist might as well tell me how likely I am to die from falling off a ladder while cleaning my gutters, and compare that to deaths by food poisoning, except that there are far fewer passionate advocates for pasteurization and ladder stabilization bars.
- FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
  > Death is the explicit primary purpose of discharging a gunpowder weapon. That isn't true for any target rifle, target pistol, or shotgun intended to be used for skeet or trap.

46 points by denzil_correa 12y ago

Google cache link to get around paywall: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fnews%2Funited-states%2F21638140-gun-now-more-likely-kill-you-car-bangers-v-bullets&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fnews%2Funited-states%2F21638140-gun-now-more-likely-kill-you-car-bangers-v-bullets&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.2239j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8&safe=active https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp...

stevesearer 12y ago
I understand that Hacker News is a sharing and discussion website and that it sucks not being able to read the submitted stories, but it seems people here are generally against paywalls and try to subvert them in any way possible. It also seems that many people here also subvert non-paywall sites that monetize their content using ads by installing various adblockers. As a publisher myself, I'd be interested in hearing if there are any other ways to monetize my website and content other than paywalls and advertisements which people seem to dislike so much?
- sosuke 12y ago
  Sponsored posts, sponsored events, sponsored custom takeovers don't fall into ad blockers since they aren't being served by Akamai etc. If you're doing products, affiliate links from your posts.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    "Don't sell your product; give it away and cram it with ads!"
    - stevesearer 12y ago
      I'm assuming this is snark, but print magazines actually do both by selling the magazines themselves and filling them with advertisements.
      - sosuke 12y ago
        I read a lot of watch blogs, they do sweepstakes and brand reviews that I love to read. http://www.ablogtowatch.com/watch-giveaway-tudor-heritage-chrono-70330n-truefacet/ http://www.ablogtowatch.com/watch-giveaway-tudor-heritage-ch...
- ekimekim 12y ago
  I make a point of only enabling an ad-blocker if I find the ads overly invasive, resource-intensive or objectionable. Another suggestion is that, for sites that I regularly visit and like the content, I will (and do) happily pay a subscription fee in exchange for guilt-free ad-free content.

JTon 12y ago

Scary title, but I think I'll mark this one up as a victory for auto safety. Especially considering a good chunk of death by firearms are (tragically) suicides.

collyw 12y ago
As a European it seems blatantly obvious that your gun laws are absurd in the States. (I am assuming you are from the States from the fact you see the argument that way around, correct me if I am wrong).
- savagej 12y ago
  yeah. you're a subject, not a free person in Europe.
- throwaway90999 12y ago
  Most of the perceived absurdity comes from disingenuous framing of the issues. Here are some examples: Over half of all quoted gun deaths are suicides. [edit: removed mention of suicide survivability as I don't have a reference handy. But remember: The most likely person to shoot you is yourself.] Let's remove suicide from the discussion and talk about violence. The primary driver for violence is socioeconomic. The US has a huge wealth and education disparity problem, exacerbated by a drug war which focuses primarily on the lower economic classes. Most political rhetoric surrounding gun violence focuses on denying lower-class individuals access to firearms and is inexorably linked to institutionalized racism [ cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special#Economic_class_and_racial_inequality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special#Economic... ] What these stats don't show is the EXTREME socioeconomic skew involved in violent crime. If we look at gun deaths by wealth quadrile we find that the upper 40% have very, very few gun deaths -- on par with the nicer areas in Europe. Our inflated gun death statistics come almost entirely from the lower 40%. That is, gun deaths are emblematic of America's class divide. The right to self defense is a convenient target for politicians to score easy wins. Constructively addressing the USA's violence problem is a very different issue and frankly is almost entirely unrelated to firearm legislation.

apetresc 12y ago

From the article: > By contrast, safety features on firearms—such as smartguns unlocked by an owner’s thumbprint or a radio-frequency encryption—are opposed by the National Rifle Association, whose allies in Congress also block funding for the sort of public-health research that might show, in even clearer detail, the cost of America’s love affair with guns. Can someone explain the NRA to me? At this point they come across as cartoon villains, senselessly evil for no apparent purpose. Why can car companies be persuaded to invest in safety features but somehow the NRA works against its own interests to make guns as dangerous as possible? I feel like I must be missing some side of the story, because from the stuff I read, they're literally twirling their mustachios while cackling right now.

vor_ 12y ago
Guns are a political issue for American conservatives. Attempts to regulate guns are seen as an attack on their freedoms. The more extreme members maintain a fantasy of government overthrow (see the Cliven Bundy standoff).
TheDong 12y ago
the NRA is also in part defined by its members. These members are, for the most part, highly conservative and see technology like that as making guns worse. They don't worry about safety; after-all, the point of the gun is power and something that is dangerous feels more powerful. The other reason people oppose them is because it would reduce the gun-owner's ability to re-sell the gun to criminals with no difficulty or government intervention. It would remove some control from the gun owners. One man's safety feature is another man's oppressive inconvenience.
- symfoniq 12y ago
  Most gun owners I know are like Unix programmers, in that they favor the simplest solution that could possibly work. A safety feature that makes a gun significantly more complicated—and therefore possibly less likely to work when needed—is a non-starter for most gun owners. Furthermore, most gun owners have firearms at least in part because of the criminal element. I find the argument that a significant number of gun owners want to be able to resell their firearms to criminals to be patently absurd.

flintchip 12y ago

Good, finally people can stop trotting out the inane adage "if you ban guns you have to ban cars" whenever the gun control debate comes up.

ta75757 12y ago
Cars are not a good example because people need cars. But alcohol is a good example, nobody needs alcohol and plenty of innocent people die from drunk drivers. Yet most people consider alcohol "normal" and the idea of restricting it to home use only, for example, as absurd. But since these people didn't grow up with guns they consider them "abnormal" and see no problem with restricting them, since it doesn't affect them. This is why I think the conflict is mainly cultural.

samsnelling 12y ago

Including suicides seems unfair. > The U.S. Department of Justice reports that approximately 60% of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide, 61% more than deaths by homicide. [1] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Suicides_involving_firearms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Stat...

vor_ 12y ago
> Including suicides seems unfair. Why?
- otikik 12y ago
  I can't read the article, but I would assume that they have not included the suicides happening at home using the car (by inhaling exhaust in a closed space), and have only counted the deaths on the road.
  - vor_ 12y ago
    Emission controls on modern vehicles make it difficult to die from carbon monoxide poisoning these days.
- Torgo 12y ago
  gun owners place a high value on agency. I have wondered if one reason they tend to not see suicides as legitimate in gun death stats is because they tend to see suicide as a willful act that a person also has a right to. Just a speculation...
m_d 12y ago
Improving access to mental healthcare in the US would do a lot to reduce gun deaths.
bryanlarsen 12y ago
Just making suicide slightly more difficult dramatically reduces suicide rates. It's difficult to stop someone determined to kill themselves, but most suicides are impulse decisions, so removing the opportunity often prevents the suicide. That's why suicide barriers on bridges actually reduce suicide rates rather than changing the method.

m_d 12y ago

For some perspective, check out the CDC's "Leading Causes of Death": http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

CapitalistCartr 12y ago

Statistics don't work that way. It's not an even distribution. For instance, I am not around gun violence at all, but I've seen and been involved in several serious car accidents. I live and work in areas nearly devoid of gun crime. My odds of being shot are vastly less than being injured or killed by an auto.

tthomas48 12y ago
Good point. If you think about it, due to the distribution of guns and the fact that the majority of gun deaths are suicides, accidents, or domestic violence - living in a gun-free household should reduce your risk even more dramatically than these statistics might suggest.
- danielweber 12y ago
  About half of suicides are done via gun, and about half of households have access to a gun. There's nothing "dramatic" about reducing your chance of dying via suicide by being in the second half. I don't want to say it's zero, because I'm sure someone's life is spared by not having a gun around when the urge to suicide pops up.

jayess 12y ago

According to the CDC, homicides by discharge of firearm was at about 11,000 in 2011. Death by motor vehicle accident was 35,000. By contrast, 53,000 die from the flu, 27,000 from falls, 36,000 from accidental poisoning, and 600,000 from heart disease. Table 10: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf

ryandvm 12y ago

Ignoring the click-bait headline implying that guns have become more dangerous than cars - what we actually see are that deaths from both have declined. Car deaths slightly more quickly than gun deaths. I find that incredibly encouraging. Nothing about guns or gun ownership has changed dramatically in the United States over this period. Perhaps this signals that the bizarre, and often fetishized, culture of violence in the United States is on the wane. I hope so.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

donatj 12y ago

Depending on your source of numbers, 40-60% of gun deaths are suicide and 30-60% are gang related. That at most leaves 0-30% "preventable" shootings. Gang member aren't going to use "smart guns" and I have the moral right to kill myself.

dllthomas 12y ago
"I should have the legal right to kill myself." And of course, even if someone disagrees with that, getting rid of the gun is more likely to change the method than the result.
- quadrangle 12y ago
  I think the stats are that suicide by gun shows far more successful percentage than most other attempts. And I believe there's evidence that thwarted attempts often work out for the better. Essentially, if the only options for suicide fundamentally required a persistent decision over time to carry out rather than a spur-of-the-moment decision, there's an argument that it would be better for society and for suicidal people overall.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Note that I didn't say there wouldn't be any improvement. The statistics do show guns more effective than, for instance, overdose. However: 1) it is still the case that the method is more likely to change than the result; and 2) it is likely that means is not assigned randomly, and those more intent on ending their life pick more lethal means - absent guns, some comparably lethal means remain readily available.
    - quadrangle 12y ago
      I'm really not an expert here, but I heard an argument that guns aren't chosen more in some sort of thought-out way like you describe. Instead, guns are there already, and get used by people who realize that there is a gun and they might even not make the attempt otherwise. Regarding suicide, I have much less concern about guns as a method than I do about any sort of lethal tool being available on short notice instead of a situation that requires persistent determination and waiting.

sosuke 12y ago

I keep looking through the data, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf, and it seems like cars still beat out guns by a good margin. They even say in the article most of the gun deaths are by suicide. Just the few numbers I grabbed says you're still 3 times more likely to be killed by or in a car. I looked again at the article and they don't even list the numbers because it conflicts with the story they WANT to have. The proper title is "The forecast for ways you might die in the next 5 years if you remain in the 15-24 age bracket shows a higher change of being killed by a gun, or killing yourself with a gun, than by being killed in or by a car." Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms 11,068 Accidental discharge of firearms 591 Discharge of firearms, undetermined intent 248 Motor vehicle accidents 35,303 Unless you're taking your own life: Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms 19,990

dllthomas 12y ago
And for context, suicide overall: 39,518
vor_ 12y ago
> They even say in the article most of the gun deaths are by suicide. It says "suicides, accidents or domestic violence." These are all vital statistics in determining the deadliness of guns. Gun advocates have been arguing here that suicides shouldn't be counted, which doesn't make sense. Access to an effective suicide method is one more consequence of a gun-owning society. It should be acknowledged, analyzed, and discussed. It seems as though advocates are arguing that the statistics should be filtered to make guns appear less statistically deadly. That's nonsense. This is a comparison of deadliness; a gun death is a gun death. Despite a decline in gun ownership, gun deaths are trending upward, and the NRA opposes smart-unlock features like thumbprint identification that contrast with the myriad safety controls placed on vehicles.
- ta75757 12y ago
  How many people reading that headline do you think actually think of suicides when they read it? The reason for determining the deadliness of guns is to know whether they should be banned or not. And we're arguing that since suicides don't justify prohibition, it's not fair to include them in "deadliness". Suicides don't justify prohibition because I as a person should have the right to choose to own a gun at the small risk that I may commit suicide with it. It is not the governments place to protect me from that small risk. It seems as though advocates are arguing that the statistics should be filtered to make guns appear less statistically deadly. And the other side is doing the same thing, inflating the statistics with deaths that we believe should not affect the policy decision. gun deaths are trending upward Not according to the graph in the article: http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20150110_USC666.png http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecac...

Trillinon 12y ago

It's important to note that, according to the chart, both are on the decline. Auto deaths are simply declining further. Gun ownership is an important civil liberty in the USA, but one that comes with danger. The Economist is recommending a technological approach to mitigating that danger. Research and development has been done in this department, and many technologies have been applied to modern firearms. Better safeties that prevent accidental discharge, better safes, ammunition that prevents over-penetration, etc. We have yet to see a simple and trustworthy technology that limits who can fire a gun. When we do, it will start to be used. For such a technology to work, the user needs to feel in complete control of it. There can be zero risk that an authorized user won't be able to fire the gun due to system failure or low battery. Ultimately, though, no technological solution will prevent suicide. For that, a different approach will be necessary, and I don't have an answer for that.

MrMember 12y ago
>ammunition that prevents over-penetration Ironically, many gun control advocates still argue against civilian ownership of ammunition that doesn't overpenetrate. In some California cities hollow point ammunition is illegal to buy. In New Jersey it is illegal to carry hollow point ammunition outside the home. The Brady Campaign still to this day calls hollow points "cop killer bullets" despite the fact that every law enforcement department in the country uses them.

logfromblammo 12y ago

Comparing cause-of-death rates between automobiles and firearms is a lot like comparing the median number of miles traveled riding in a car versus carrying a gun. Death is a possible unintended side effect of riding in an automobile. Death is the explicit primary purpose of discharging a gunpowder weapon. Thus, this is far more laudable accomplishment for automotive safety than it is a deplorable statistic for gun owners. Cars now cause less deaths by accident than a consumer product that is actually designed to kill things when used correctly. Yay. I don't ever have an absolute need to own or use a gun, but it is practically impossible to earn a profitable living without spending at least 40 minutes per day driving in my car, or riding in any other form of on-road transportation. I don't particularly feel like the jerkass riding on the hard shoulder at 50 mph to bypass a rush-hour jam is in any way comparable to someone who plinks beer bottles--the ones they just emptied--off their back fence without stopping to consider if there are neighbors living in that general direction. They could even be the same guy. If so, I meet him far more often on the road. Neither guns nor cars kill without an operator--not yet, anyway. If I am now less at risk from an idiot behind a wheel than an idiot with his finger on the trigger, that is unequivocally good news, because I encounter far more of the former. But the article doesn't exactly break the statistics down by intent. I suspect that rates of deaths by gun due to accident or operator negligence are still less than deaths by vehicle due to accident or operator negligence. So I still feel like guns are safer for me than the average person, because I don't particularly feel like anyone has an actual desire to kill me specifically, especially given my own disinclination toward suicide. The article doesn't tell me anything meaningful. It seems to be presenting the statistics in a very narrowly interpreted way to advance a particular editorial point of view. The Economist might as well tell me how likely I am to die from falling off a ladder while cleaning my gutters, and compare that to deaths by food poisoning, except that there are far fewer passionate advocates for pasteurization and ladder stabilization bars.

FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
> Death is the explicit primary purpose of discharging a gunpowder weapon. That isn't true for any target rifle, target pistol, or shotgun intended to be used for skeet or trap.