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

671–680 of 1001 posts

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

#671

Post by pengaru »

Aeolun wrote: post #366
jstream67 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody was talking about reducing access to cars after that guy ran over a ton of old folks in Kenosha a couple months back. In fact no one is talking about it at all as he does not fit the correct political narrative

I always hear this argument, but it’s like people forget what the primary purpose of guns and cars is. If the primary purpose of cars was to drive over people then they would be banned. This is why you can own a car, but not a tank.

The primary purpose of guns AFAICT is amusement, some would say the same for cars.

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

#672

Post by Miner49er »

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…

> they don't seem to be capable of feeding people

There's many people in this country that use guns to hunt and feed their family every year.

Ranchers also use guns to protect livestock from coyote and such.

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

#673

Post by boppo1 »

makomk wrote: post #613
anigbrowl wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has more anti-gun-violence activists than anywhere else in the world. Because other people don't have this problem. And when you get right down to it, they have megaphones and placards, while their opponents have guns. Amazingly, the gun owners have more political power. My views on gun ownership are complex and don't fit neatly into existing pigeonholes - I'm very much in favor of the right to own weapons, bu…

The US anti-gun movement seems to be more a part of the culture war than something founded in reality or that could ever lead to a healthy culture around guns, unfortunately. They seem to particularly like pointing to the country where I live (the UK) as proof that their measures work whilst misleading people about what the UK's strict gun laws actually restrict and then pushing for almost the exact opposite. They in…

>misleading people about what the UK's strict gun laws actually restrict and then pushing for almost the exact opposite

Can you elaborate on this? Everyone I know has been citing the UK

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

#674

Post by nisegami »

jimbob45 wrote: post #455
colechristensen wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have to start by giving less attention to these events. We have to start by being kind to the people who need it most and are often the most difficult to be kind to. You can’t just create a way to think of people who do things as some sort of “other”, we are all human and capable of similar things given the wrong circumstances.

Replacing the perp’s name with “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” in major publications seems like a strong first step.

If the shooter is white, the left wing will accuse the media of trying to cover up for a hate crime.

If the shooter is not white, the right wing will accuse the media of trying to cover up a violent criminal.

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

#675

Post by umvi »

Hamuko wrote: post #450
sb057 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People should safely store their fire-arms, but they don't and guns get stolen and sold illegally, or used by their teenage child. This is extraordinarily rare. >People shouldn't point a gun at someone unless their life is in danger and they're prepared to take a life, but they do and people get shot by accident, or road rage turns deadly. Brandishing weapons is illegal in every state and not pointing the muzzle of…

> not pointing the muzzle of a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy is basic gun safety. Are you required to know basic gun safety in order to obtain one?

No, for the same reason you don't need to have basic civility/racial sensitivity training to exercise free speech.

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

#676

Post by boppo1 »

astockwell wrote: post #451
simon1ltd wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want gun violence, but I 100% want the 1986 National Firearm Act repealed. I believe fully automatic assault weapons and machine guns should be available for purchase, new, just like any other weapon. (Fully automatic weapons are legal to buy and own right now in the US, if you pay a $200 stamp tax and wait 9 months for the ATF to process the paperwork, but you can only buy "NFA" regulated machine guns that w…

Most people I know would like to see their children grow up.

Children are about 300x more likely to die from leukemia than in a school shooting (2019 numbers).

"Regular" gun violence with handguns is another story.

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

#677

Post by dgfitz »

bko wrote: post #662
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…

> empirical evidence instead of lofty ideals The problem with a lot of anti-gun measures is that the proponents readily admit that they would not have stopped any particular shooter. For instance, people talk about background checks, but this shooter and many others did not have a history and were not known to police. They would have passes a background check. Often times the person acquiring the gun already broke a…

I was talking to my wife about this the other night and we came to the same conclusions as the points you made. What we posit at this point is: what didn’t exist in 1969? Social media. The internet.

Legislation won’t change anything. Proponents of stricter gun control are being idealistic.

Having kids in school right now, we are both quite concerned about the current state of affairs when it comes to school shootings. Making guns illegal won’t stop anyone touched enough to shoot up a school/gay bar/concert/grocery store. They’re going to find a way to do it. To think otherwise is ignorance.

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

#678

Post by tanmay7270 »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #584
glogla wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what would you say about the same argument for mandatory veganism or outright banning cars? The evidence is pretty clear there as well.

Is it? What empirical evidence do we have that mandatory veganism or outright banning of cars would be a net positive, let alone feasible? To me those two ideas sound like perfect examples of the non-empirical lofty ideals that the previous comment was rejecting in the very first sentence.

Not advocating for it but _eventual_ transition to veganism would definitely be a net positive (lower carbon emissions, land and water use, horrors of factory farming, mental health of the factory workers, exploitation of immigrant labor, etc.). Most of the arguments I've seen from the Veganism movement seem to have sufficient scientific backing.

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

#679

Post by BobbyJo »

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?

I think a good test is the risk an accident poses to others. An accident with a nuke, tank or fight jet can easily kill 10's, 100's or millions.

With guns, a bullet is a bullet for the most part (if we are talking about human fired calibers), an the risk any given undirected bullet poses is effectively the same. Larger magazines don't increase accident risk, while being automatic or explosive does.

I.E. if you're a responsible gun owner, an assault rifle with with a 100 round magazine carries the same risk to your neighbor as an old revolver (if not less since most old revolvers have no safety). The risk to others only diverges when you assume ill-intent, but then risks get whacky for tons of legal objects (plastic bags, cars, planes, pens, household chemicals).

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

#680

Post by picklesman »

JohnWhigham wrote: post #646
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While that possibly makes it harder to acquire a gun in the city, an individual purchaser or black market dealer could simply drive a couple of hours to get their hands on one, no?

Also while impossible to prove, I think the numbers would be even higher in the city without the control in place.

Post reply on HN