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

641–650 of 1001 posts

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

#641

Post by npc12345 »

belorn wrote: post #113
freediver wrote: post #2

I sincerely hope this does not descend into a flamewar. We can't have discussion about this in an intellectually stimulating way in congress, we can't have this discussion in the media, we obviously can't have this discussion on social media so HN is the last bastion of hope. It is a multi-faceted problem with a lot of complexity. The fact stands that USA has a school shooting problem [1] unlike any other country in…

If we look at the data we can see a significant increase in the last decade, and the mass school shootings are almost exclusively a modern concept from the last 30 years. A question one might ask is then what changed in the USA during those years to trigger this. In addition those factors should be compared to other nations. We should also look at what prevent school shootings. What in society might protect against a…

The only correct answer in this godforsaken discussion.

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

#642

Post by amelius »

librish wrote: post #89

It's time we start legislating based on empirical evidence instead of lofty ideals. Yes, if everyone was responsible perhaps it would be OK for all of us to own firearms. But so many people are utterly irresponsible, and guns make that irresponsibility lethal. People should safely store their fire-arms, but they don't and guns get stolen and sold illegally, or used by their teenage child. People shouldn't point a gun…

If at all, perhaps allow geo-fenced guns, which don't work in and around schools?

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

#643

Post by JofArnold »

What are guns bringing to the table that makes them so precious? At the very least they don't seem to be capable of feeding people nor preventing attempted insurrections nor preventing innocent people being killed by the authorities. In the situations they are used for self-preservation they are only done so because the adversary has/may themselves have a gun. It defies logic; unless I'm missing something crucial is it purely a cultural thing?

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

#644

Post by engineeringwoke »

twayt wrote: post #282

How about having a mandatory committee that seriously investigates {physical, social, cyber, etc.}-bullying more instead of just ignoring it? We can both work on stringent gun laws and take the mental health of children/teenagers more seriously. There is a clear pattern of which demographic of people consistently commit such crimes. Using this subset of gun owners to dictate gun ownership policies is going to be a ho…

Anything that violates the tight seal that the nuclear family has relative to society in the United States is universally hated. All the problems start in the family but you are not allowed to go there here, probably because of religion. It's just the way we are, unfortunately.

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

#645

Post by francisofascii »

shotta wrote: post #627
doctoroctogon wrote: post #625

Question for the pro-gun folks: where is the limit on what a civilian needs to defend themselves? Assuming you agree civilians shouldn’t have nukes. How about fighter jets. What about tanks. What about bazookas. How do you make that call. If, for example, greater than 5 round magazines isn’t the limit, where is the limit and why?

My serious and simple response would be, why are you turning against law abiding citizens instead of focusing on the psycho criminal that was known to police prior to the event?

It is a layered security approach. Like when a system is hacked, law abiding users have to go through hoops with crazy passwords, 2 factor auth, etc. to deal with the psycho hacker.

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

#646

Post by JohnWhigham »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #640
chmod600 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Where many U.S. states permit concealed carry of handguns, handguns are virtually illegal to carry in Canada. Transporting them from your home to the range is legal, but they must be unloaded, locked, and permits are required for the transport." I see no mechanism by which those laws would reduce mass shootings. A mass shooter would simply ignore them. The other policies you mention may be more relevant, but it goes…

I see no mechanism by which those laws would reduce mass shootings. A mass shooter would simply ignore them. If the guns are illegal, they aren't as easy to get. They aren't in everyone's home. If you break in somewhere to steal a gun, you'll not get a handgun. You know, because most folks aren't willing to hold onto an illegal gun. You aren't going to go to a gun show and buy an illegal gun because those folks don't…

Doesn't track for many places in the US. Chicago has some of the strictest gun control in the country, yet also has a mass shooting every other week in the summer.

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

#647

Post by christophilus »

JofArnold wrote: post #643

What are guns bringing to the table that makes them so precious? At the very least they don't seem to be capable of feeding people nor preventing attempted insurrections nor preventing innocent people being killed by the authorities. In the situations they are used for self-preservation they are only done so because the adversary has/may themselves have a gun. It defies logic; unless I'm missing something crucial is…

The US is an independent country (as opposed to a British colony) purely due to the fact that we had lots of individuals with guns who could be organized into a rebel army. (And the help of foreign arms.) I think that is why guns are so precious in the US psyche.

It’s also why guns are enshrined in the constitution. There’s disagreement on why the constitution left the arming of militias up to “the people”, but I’m of the opinion that it was meant to facilitate another American revolution (against our own government should it turn tyrannical).

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

#648

Post by wyager »

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…

> what if gun users were regulated like car users

You mean "having no legal restrictions whatsoever on private property"?

> requiring training and a license

Most states do require this on public property, same as a car.

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

#649

Post by wyager »

librish wrote: post #89

It's time we start legislating based on empirical evidence instead of lofty ideals. Yes, if everyone was responsible perhaps it would be OK for all of us to own firearms. But so many people are utterly irresponsible, and guns make that irresponsibility lethal. People should safely store their fire-arms, but they don't and guns get stolen and sold illegally, or used by their teenage child. People shouldn't point a gun…

> It's time we start legislating based on empirical evidence instead of lofty ideals.

I would take anti-gun people more seriously if they actually paid attention to what this entails. For one, anti-gun enthusiast would stop going on about "assault rifles", because only around 200 people a year in the US are killed by rifle homicides. It's totally negligible. Less frequent than blunt instrument homicides. Yet, that's exactly what anti-gun people focus on.

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

#650

Post by ImaCake »

r_c_a_d wrote: post #616
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…

As another outsider, I can remember seeing reports of mass shootings in the US every year or two for the last 30 years or so. Each time I thought "this time they have to do something" and yet the pattern continues. So to me it also seems "clear" that there isn't _enough_ will in the US to act on this.

Yes. There is even precedent in other western countries. Australia radically restricted its gun ownership laws after a single high profile massacre. This was done by a conservative government no less! The same one that followed the USA into Afghanistan and Iraq.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australi...

Post reply on HN