Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 1001 posts

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#591

Post by ohgodplsno »

chmod600 wrote: post #499
Reason077 wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “I see no mechanism by which those laws would reduce mass shootings. A mass shooter would simply ignore them.” And yet, there does seem to be a strong correlation between “countries with stricter gun control laws” and “countries that have low rates of gun-related deaths and homicides”. Canada has between 6-8X fewer gun fatalities per capita compared to the United States - both homicides and unintentional/accidental…

Surely there are some laws that have greater effectiveness relative to the interference with peaceful gun owners. If you care about working together with your fellow citizens who think differently than you do, you'll pursue such laws and push back on laws that have a bad relative effectiveness. For instance, did you know that, in California, you cannot buy a new model of a pistol? The most recent model you can get, f…

>For instance, did you know that, in California, you cannot buy a new model of a pistol? The most recent model you can get, from a roster that diminishes every year, is from 2013. Why? By what mechanism is that effective?

Hint: it causes, over time, gun ownership to decrease. People will not be tempted by that brand new Sig Sauer ad they saw to buy a gun at Walmart for the fun of it. Keeping only older guns accessible means that these guns break over time, and lowers the amount of freely accessible guns. Roster diminishing means that fewer people buy fewer guns.

Is there something more effective ? Sure, complete bans. Unfortunately, that would go against gun nuts like you that argue that having a .50 antimaterial rifle at home is important because MUH FREEDOMS.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#592

Post by michaelmrose »

beloch wrote: post #83

Canada is the U.S.'s neighbour and is probably closer, culturally, than any other nation. Gun ownership is also high in Canada. In terms of guns per capita, the U.S. is #1 by a long shot, but Canada is #7 [1]. In Canada, guns owned per capita is one third of what it is in the U.S.. Canada also has mass shootings. The annual deaths from mass shootings per capita in Canada is 0.032, which is about one third that of the…

You assume that 1/3 the per capita shootings for 1/3 of the guns means a difference in policy has no effect. I think you are seeing an irrelevant correlation. Mass shooters are carried out by individuals who seek out a gun to commit a crime. Difficulty to get a gun especially if you are a person of problematic character or history seems relevant. Sheer number of guns not so much. If it were merely as difficult for your problem child to get a gun as in the US and other factors were equal one would expect as many mass shootings per capita not some factor based on relative number of guns available to the total population.

That is to say that if evil bob can go by a rifle and go downtown to whack the neighborhood it is as irrelevant as it is possible to be if 2 or 20 of his neighbors are gun owners unless they are literally shooting back at him right now.

Essentially you are looking at a partial success story through a lens of faulty analysis and concluding that nothing is working.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#593

Post by andyjohnson0 »

As a non-American I found Heather Cox-Richardson's recent substack newsletter post [1] to be useful in understanding how the US has got to this point. She's a history professor at Boston College and she does a good job of describing how gun ownership and control came to be (intentionally) politicised, and how the NRA's role has changed over time.

Honestly, I don't see how the US is ever going to dig itself out of this hole. The reward system that leads to the perpetuating the culture war that lies behind this problem (among many others) just seems too strong. It's deeply structural and embedded in US culture, and there doesn't seem to be a way to change it. I wish there was.

[1] https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/may-24-2022

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#594

Post by rswail »

Aeolun wrote: post #389
School-Cotton wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's clear that this is the way Americans wish to live That’s not clear at all. The US has more anti-gun-violence activists than anywhere else in the world. There is some amount of friction, different in each country but not zero anywhere, between “what people want” and “what is the law”. Do you think North Koreans prefer living under a corrupt dictatorship? Why don’t they just make the dictatorship illegal? That’s…

If enough people actually cared about this, then you’d have people marching on the capitol, like after a certain president was not re-elected. If people haven’t gotten motivated enough after literally decades of this shit, I find it really hard to blame the law.

They have and they do. If you recall, there were marches and protests across the US after the Parkland school shooting.

However, there are 50+ Senators, disproportionally representing low population, rural states, that are beholden to the NRA and its illegal funding and mis/dis-information campaigns.

There are Senators today suggesting that schools be turned into prison-like places (Cruz with his "one door in and out" nonsense), that others are suggesting arming teachers, while ignoring the fact that the school protection officer and local law enforcement engaged the murderer in this school shooting but failed to apprehend or stop him and the SWAT team took 40 minutes to engage the murderer and eliminate the threat.

People have been marching and protesting and demonstrating continuously and yet there is a specific party, the Republicans, and specific lobby groups, that have stopped any change.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#595

Post by robbiep »

lelanthran wrote: post #554
elementalest wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. When compared to places like Australia, where guns are highly regulated and barely anyone owns a gun, such that there have been no mass shootings for 35 years, the solution really is obvious.

> Interesting. When compared to places like Australia, where guns are highly regulated and barely anyone owns a gun, such that there have been no mass shootings for 35 years, the solution really is obvious. Is it that simple? The is little correlation between stricter gun laws and fewer number of dead people: https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/27-years-recorded-crime-vict... That same link shows a slight negative correl…

Your data doesn’t show what you think it shows. Homicides is not gun deaths, because in Australia the number of gun deaths is so small. There are other ways to Kill someone.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#596

Post by makomk »

softcactus wrote: post #219
bifrost wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are suggesting is illegal. Its illegal to license a right. We shouldn't penalize the hundreds of millions of legal gun owners in the US because we're unable to catch psychopaths before they kill people.

This is part of why a sensible discussion cannot be had. "Shall not be infringed" has become axiomatic to many gun owners. Disclaimer: I am a gun owner. I like guns very much. Here's the 2A in full: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I am not a historian but I believe that this quote from James Madison in…

The general assumption of politically active gun owners in the US is that any attempt to regulate guns is a back-door route to try and outlaw gun ownership. This seems like an accurate assessment of how US gun politics actually works. Even consumer safety law intended to protect against dangerously defective products was used to push gun control under the pretext that firing reliably when called upon to do so was a dangerous defect - and now consumer safety law no longer applies to guns in the US because gun owners no longer trust the government with that power.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#597

Post by rswail »

tomrod wrote: post #133
bifrost wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its because buying a gun is a civil right. Smoking is not. That said, the 21yo requirement may be unconstitutional as well.

I've noticed your eight comments in this thread to date are fairly declarative but aren't well founded or sourced, simply assertions and often appear to be incorrect as responding comments have shown. Clearly, you and I both support the second amendment. However, we should recognize when our support of certain associate claims aren't well founded. Bearing arms and being part of a well-regulated militia are American c…

Please define "being part of a well-regulated militia" in terms of bearing arms in the current US situation.

The entire premise of individuals owning weapons is based on that "well-regulated militia", yet no such entities actually exist in 2022.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#598

Post by erklik »

hunterb123 wrote: post #586
rswail wrote: post #583

Until Americans realize that owning a gun is a dangerous thing, there will be no change. Guns are a force multiplier, they allow someone that is armed to have much greater lethality than someone that is not. No, I don't care if you go hunting or target shoot for "sport". Tough. Live with it. The world won't be worse off if you don't shoot deer or rabbits or ducks. Weapons have specific uses in agriculture (removing p…

> Guns are a force multiplier, they allow someone that is armed to have much greater lethality than someone that is not. So is a van, see Europe. > Guns are a force multiplier, they allow someone that is armed to have much greater lethality than someone that is not. Tell that to wild hogs. Population control is a thing, especially needed for invasive boar. > and they have obvious use in military activities. Exactly,…

> Gun crimes usually happen in strict gun controlled areas because criminals know it's unlikely they will be met with force.

Huh. That's an interesting point. I wonder if there are statistics showing that there is less gun crime in states with more lax gun laws.

Edit: I found two things:

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/22/3/216.full

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/a...

Seems like the opposite is true. States with easier gun laws have far more gun deaths. It does not seem like guns prevent crime really. If that was the case, then states with the most guns would have the least gun deaths, no?

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#599

Post by lelanthran »

robbiep wrote: post #595
lelanthran wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Interesting. When compared to places like Australia, where guns are highly regulated and barely anyone owns a gun, such that there have been no mass shootings for 35 years, the solution really is obvious. Is it that simple? The is little correlation between stricter gun laws and fewer number of dead people: https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/27-years-recorded-crime-vict... That same link shows a slight negative correl…

Your data doesn’t show what you think it shows. Homicides is not gun deaths, because in Australia the number of gun deaths is so small. There are other ways to Kill someone.

> Your data doesn’t show what you think it shows. Homicides is not gun deaths, because in Australia the number of gun deaths is so small. There are other ways to Kill someone.

It shows exactly what I think it shows: just how much safer (or not) a place is after enacting stricter gun laws.

The whole point is that the parent tried to imply that stricter gun laws make the society safer. The data for his example shows no real correlation.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#600

Post by bjt2n3904 »

javajosh wrote: post #443
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if cars were legislated like guns? Mufflers would be illegal. If you are driving between states, you need to check to see if your driver's license is accepted by each state you go through -- and some counties. Adjustable car seats are illegal. Automatic transmissions are illegal. Building your own car would be illegal. If your truck is too short, it's a felony. Unless you call your truck a car, and never put any…

>What if cars were legislated like guns? What the GP meant, clearly, was "what if gun users were regulated like car users", e.g. requiring training and a license. IMHO this fits the "part of a well-regulated militia" clause that people always ignore. If I had to guess, this clause was there specifically to prevent unstable people from getting firearms, since your fellow militia members are probably not going to want…

Yes. And anyone who makes such a statement clearly doesn't have a grasp on the issue -- either of what a civil right is, or how guns and cars are regulated.

If guns were regulated like cars, there would be no background check to buy a gun. A felony would not disqualify you from gun ownership. Schools would teach marksmanship starting at age 15, and you could get a license to carry at sixteen, recognized by all states. Suppressors wouldn't just be legal, they'd be mandatory. No one would try to sue Smith and Wesson for shooting sprees, just like nobody tried to sue Ford for the Waekusha ramming attack. Etc, etc, etc.

But as to what the first response said, ultimately then, gun ownership would be a privilege, not a right. You don't license rights.

Post reply on HN