Live data from Hacker News

Gun laws where guns take the most lives

latinamericareports.com

171–180 of 204 posts

Re: Gun laws where guns take the most lives

#171
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guns are like a megaphone for violence. Violent people will still exist but their reach is far less with a knife

> Guns are like a megaphone for violence. Violent people will still exist but their reach is far less with a knife You'd think so, but I don't think that's the case. There have been many multiple-death stabbings in Asia, for instance: https://newrepublic.com/article/151994/china-many-school-sta... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/world/asia/china-knife-at...

And many multi-death vehicular attacks around the world, like the one in Nice, France that killed 86 and wounded 458.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

The people who want to ban guns are aware that doing so won't end violence, but they have a plan: they'll ban knives and vehicles as well. It's already being called for in the UK and in this very discussion. They'll never stop because being "against violence" is an easy way to score cheap political points, no matter how useless such measures are.

Re: Gun laws where guns take the most lives

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are a bit quieter with a knife though. A gun gives you away immedietly to all around you unless you have a silencer but those arent so easy to get in the USA (class 3 if I remember correctly). In England people get knifed and who can know? And if its not a knife it will be a car, power tools, planes, boats, pushing someone off of a building. I rather retain my right to protect myself from crazies and die trying t…

A gun is a tool. Anybody can use a tool correctly and anybody can use a tool incorrectly. Any tool can be bought legally and illegally. People who do not follow laws will have an advantage against those who do in terms of available tools. A gun is a tool, but it is a tool with one use; wounding and killing organisms. A gun when used correctly, as designed and intended, is a ranged lethal weapon. A knife or a hammer,…

> If you’re killing someone with a car, you’ve misused your tool, but if you kill with a gun you’ve used it correctly.

Murdering someone is never the correct use for a gun. Killing in self defense or under circumstances of war is another matter. For the sake of my discussion of guns I'll define murder vs killing: Murder is a premeditated kill, you hate someone, you intend to kill them. Killing, is just what everyone thinks it is, taking the life away from some animal or person.

I've seen numerous cases where men and women with legal access to weapons have stopped bad actors from either shooting up total strangers, or trying to rob them, or worse. I've even seen plenty of videos of attempted break-ins to peoples homes.

Switzerland has plenty of guns, and their crime rate has lowered, and knives are much more common as a murder weapon now there. It's not the tool that deserves the blame, it's the mental state of the person, and without addressing that, and targeting issues that affect people (like pharmaceutical companies) we will never get to resolve the real problem.

Re: Gun laws where guns take the most lives

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And yet 20 years it hasn't devolved into authoritarianism. In fact their rates of gun violence have dropped significantly. Hasn't it been devolving into authoritarianism though? They have banned books and all sorts of things. I've read where lots of people have disagreed with the govt's new laws for censoring the internet and keeping data on people, yet the gov there still does what it wants without worry. Australi…

People also tend to forget about Switzerland[0] entirely where guns are also legal, and yet you don't have the same issues. The problem with guns is gun education, the problem with murderers is psychological, if they can't use one weapon they will turn something else into a weapon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland

I think Switzerland is an important consideration to show it's not just gun policy or ownership that determines the use of lethal weapons in a country.

I would add that some of the problems with murders are economic, some are lack of spiritual guidance, and there are other factors. If you consider that many families in the US do not get the kind of health care that they could in other places - these issues tend to spiral affect other areas of the family that sometimes spill into crimes in the community.

Certainly some of it lack of character in general. Some of the problems in the US stem from Mexico and Honduras and other places being connected by land.

There are so many factors. I hate seeing some statistics used to paint a picture and then compares the apples to oranges of other places. People who would ban / restrict gun ownership don't really get that most of the statistics and news stories are issues where people are breaking the law and are not going to follow any laws that are made.

New gun laws just make it harder for poor people to get access to defend themselves, and multiple options and training and practice. The drug dealers, gang bangers and rich people can absorb the costs of new laws no problem. The middle class and poor are the most affected.

Re: Gun laws where guns take the most lives

#174
post #121
post #55

The debate here has focused on guns as the problem. Guns are not the problem, they are an expression of the problem. To quote the article: "The Economist stated that rapid urbanisation and inequalities in wealth distribution were some of the largest factors in violent crime, and as one of the most unequal countries on the planet, Brazil backs up this claim." I think this statement applies to Mexico and other Latin Am…

> Removing guns from the streets may reduce gun deaths It didn't in Brazil. Since 2004, civilians can't carry their guns and the police makes it very hard for them to be able to have one in the first place, or to register them again when it's time to renew. Here is a graph with the homicides in Brazil from 1996 to 2016: http://www.ipea.gov.br/atlasviolencia/dados-series/31 (click on "País", then scroll down to see th…

Leading to the election of Bolsonaro, who promised to repeal gun control.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-guns-idUSKCN1P91Q6

Re: Gun laws where guns take the most lives

#175
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t that mean the same thing? They decide to hurt (the impulse), and they grab whatever happens to be nearby. That is, they don’t see a gun and decide to use it; they decide to use something and see a gun

How exactly would someone like, for example, Jared Lee Laughner have wounded and killed so many without a gun? How many would the Vegas shooter have killed? It’s interesting that harm reduction is fine for some things, but when we’re talking about guns suddenly the concept is discarded or evaded. I’ve talked to people who make the specious argument that if people didn’t have access to guns they’d just make bombs, as…

> How exactly would someone...have wounded and killed so many without a gun?

In addition to bombs and knives, here are some other alternative weapons people have used to kill far more people than Jared Lee Laughner did:

Gasoline

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daegu_subway_fire (192 killed)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire (87 killed)

A truck

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack (86 killed and 458 wounded)

Poison

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_H%C3%B6gel (over 100 killed)

A cord

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Ridgway (at least 49 killed)

Re: Gun laws where guns take the most lives

#176
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t that mean the same thing? They decide to hurt (the impulse), and they grab whatever happens to be nearby. That is, they don’t see a gun and decide to use it; they decide to use something and see a gun

Violence still happens but the magnitude would be reduced. It's a lot harder to kill people with things that aren't guns. If it was as easy then soldiers would primarily equipped with "knife, or acid, or poison, or fists". The army chooses guns as the primary weapon are they are clearly much more effective at killing.

The army doesn't use poisons (chemical weapons) because they are so effective, and so horrible, that their use is unthinkable.

Remember the outrage when Syria did use poison?

Re: Gun laws where guns take the most lives

#177
post #31
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would assume Canada has much stronger border control than Mexico.

Why would you assume that of the longest undefended border on Earth?

I've heard various stories of people being caught shortly after crossing the border (by accident or otherwise), via cameras and so on. Granted, these might be isolated anecdotes.

Re: Gun laws where guns take the most lives

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A gun is a tool. Anybody can use a tool correctly and anybody can use a tool incorrectly. Any tool can be bought legally and illegally. People who do not follow laws will have an advantage against those who do in terms of available tools. A gun is a tool, but it is a tool with one use; wounding and killing organisms. A gun when used correctly, as designed and intended, is a ranged lethal weapon. A knife or a hammer,…

> If you’re killing someone with a car, you’ve misused your tool, but if you kill with a gun you’ve used it correctly. Murdering someone is never the correct use for a gun. Killing in self defense or under circumstances of war is another matter. For the sake of my discussion of guns I'll define murder vs killing: Murder is a premeditated kill, you hate someone, you intend to kill them. Killing, is just what everyone…

Murdering someone is never the correct use for a gun. Killing in self defense or under circumstances of war is another matter.

You just moved the goalposts from what I said, killing, to murder. I never once used the word murder, and I didn’t even specify humans. Please discuss this with integrity.

Re: Gun laws where guns take the most lives

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are a bit quieter with a knife though. A gun gives you away immedietly to all around you unless you have a silencer but those arent so easy to get in the USA (class 3 if I remember correctly). In England people get knifed and who can know? And if its not a knife it will be a car, power tools, planes, boats, pushing someone off of a building. I rather retain my right to protect myself from crazies and die trying t…

A gun is a tool. Anybody can use a tool correctly and anybody can use a tool incorrectly. Any tool can be bought legally and illegally. People who do not follow laws will have an advantage against those who do in terms of available tools. A gun is a tool, but it is a tool with one use; wounding and killing organisms. A gun when used correctly, as designed and intended, is a ranged lethal weapon. A knife or a hammer,…

So? Not sure how that matters. Japan mass murders are with car or knife, probably because that's the 'tool' at hand.

Re: Gun laws where guns take the most lives

#180

Nobody seems to point out the obvious fallacy of the "right to protect yourself". If having that right actually results in being more likely to be harmed, or harm someone else, having that right is an unacceptable public safety risk. A common argument against gun control ("should we ban hammers next?") is obviously fallacious when you compare it to an even more extreme comparison ("should we ban private ownership of…

> the obvious fallacy of the "right to protect yourself". If having that right actually results in being more likely to be harmed, or harm someone else, having that right is an unacceptable public safety risk. I disagree. I understand that the divorced female across the street has a higher chance to harm someone else because she has the right to own weapons - that does not make is unacceptable. I would like to see in…

Education does not always correlate to action. Behavioral psychology and economics show us that even when people know what they should be doing, they don't always do it.

We have had training and instruction on the use and care of firearms for decades, but we still have an unacceptably high number of incidents, both accidental and intentional. States like NY have even passed laws that make not securing your weapon a misdemeanor; people aren't just uneducated, they need a clear incentive to act safer.

> I'd like to see some stats that show how many people are killed by guns that are not involved in illegal activities (and suicides), gun deaths in the circles of drug dealers, gangs and other illicit activities should not so much in the stats of risk to public safety imho.

Before I get into the stats, I'd like to point out that suicide risk is still a public safety risk that the united states takes very seriously. If someone is a danger to themselves, it's nearly the same as if they were a danger to others: either way, a life is at risk. Suicide is (most of the time) an impulse decision, and even small mitigations can prevent them. If not having a gun prevents a suicide, that saves a life, and thus has an impact on public safety. Suicide impacts not only families, but entire communities. This is a complex subject, but one that should never be discounted.

Guns account for over half of all suicide deaths in the US. In fact, the use of guns in suicide has only increased, and is now even larger than gun homicides. [3]

Gun deaths involved in illegal activities are definitely public safety issues. It's easy to dismiss gang violence as a lesser part of society that we shouldn't care about. But if you get to know the kinds of people in gangs, you realize it's 14 year old kids, and 50 year old lifers. It's people with families, who live in real communities. Their life affects many other lives. From the police they come into conflict with, to the social workers that try to help rehabilitate them, to the hospital workers that pick up the damage, and the prisons that generate hardened soldiers.

Gun crime creates worse outcomes for all these parts of society and more. To say nothing of the collateral damage of their conflicts that reach out into any surrounding communities. Gang violence enacted through guns is a very significant public safety risk, perhaps one of the largest gun-related risks to public safety. Their impact on public safety is probably greatest through the impact of the drug trade, but second to that, the collateral of gun crimes.

Snopes did an investigation on a meme about homicides. They found that only about 48% of homicides could be directly attributed to gangs, with the rest being due to interpersional relationships, and "unknown causes". [4]

Gun crimes significantly affect minorities, which has a significant accumulative effect not just on public safety, but the health, safety and economic stability of significant portions of minority communities. Homicide is the fourth leading cause of death for non-Hispanic whites 15-24, but the second leading for Hispanics 15-34, and the leading cause for non-Hispanic blacks. [1]

> car crashes, cell phone use, and hospitals likely contribute to more deaths than guns yet we don't rush to ban them - and yet access to those things are not 'rights'

Wait, cell phone use causes deaths? You lost me there.

Cars cause about as many deaths per year in the US as guns, so I would definitely say we need tougher regulations there. But like I mentioned before, people are not rational, and we should be legislating based on real-world harms, not based purely on the "perception" of risk.

[1] https://www.apha.org/-/media/files/pdf/factsheets/160317_gun... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20160616013917/https://www.ama-a... [3] http://www.bradycampaign.org/gun-violence-in-the-united-stat... [4] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gun-homicides-disputes/

Post reply on HN