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

761–770 of 1001 posts

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

#761

Post by mmcgaha »

scotty79 wrote: post #609
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…

Or just tax bullets and gunpowder so they cost $10k per shot.

Sure, create an environment for black market cartridges. Turn every hunter into a criminal. Forget standards on these black market cartridges so they are blowing up in people's guns.

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

#762

Post by Damogran6 »

sb057 wrote: post #435
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…

>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…

“This is extraordinarily rare”

As is mass shootings, when considering the population…what’s different is that all murder/suicides are now perfectly announced to everyone, almost instantly.

This problem needs several factors to resolve, and perfectly doing all of them (hardening soft targets, mental health response, reduction in the availability of guns, intervention in situations of parental abuse and neglect) will still not, 100%, make the problem go away. It’s a factor of a large population, people with a moral/ethical gap - possibly due to external factors, with ready access to very effective tools, broadcast to a passive population instantly - which brings revenue to the media.

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

#763

Post by softcactus »

simon1ltd wrote: post #375
softcactus wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Except the National Guard are actually part of the Army, Navy and Air Force. "The National Guard is a state-based military force that becomes part of the reserve components of the United States Army and the United States Air Force when activated for federal missions." It may be organized by state, but it's a federal force. The 2A exists to give people tools to fight the government (or support it), it's not a gun feti…

I addressed that the US National Guard is part of the US Military. I don't doubt that an armed civilian population can defeat the US Military, but most 2A advocates support the physical mechanisms of tyranny: militarized police, violation of privacy, unlawful detainment. They wait for a civil war that never comes, while supporting the growth of the police state. Is the annual number of gun casualties worth an absolutist 2A position when guns don't actually make us any freer?

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

#764

Post by yostrovs »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #701

Step 1: repeal the Second Amendment. There's never going to be useful progress here until America unsticks from the idea that the right to arm yourself belongs in the same category as the right to free speech or due process.

Talking about repeal of the 2nd amendment is equally useless when there are probably more guns than people in the US, and there's nowhere near enough support for that. There are some ideas, such as increasing the age of ownership, and many others, which should be considered. You'll actually be able to achieve results. Banning guns completely in America is simply impossible now.

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

#765

Post by quickthrower2 »

tcspence wrote: post #713
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #701

Step 1: repeal the Second Amendment. There's never going to be useful progress here until America unsticks from the idea that the right to arm yourself belongs in the same category as the right to free speech or due process.

Quoted post unavailable.

That is probably the biggest strawman I have seen on HN

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

#766

Post by tablespoon »

pc86 wrote: post #691
BobbyJo wrote: post #685

I think a good first step everyone can agree on to stop gun violence is: stop it's gamification. Almost every mass shooting in the last decade was someone looking for media attention and high score. And yet, every shooting is followed by detailed biography and a tally of bodies. Something as simple as a one month moratorium on information for anyone outside the community would probably work wonders, as the public eye…

Enforced by whom? What is the punishment if you break it? This is just not realistic suggestion.

> Enforced by whom? What is the punishment if you break it?

The government. We need a comprehensive set of media safety laws that prevent publication of these dangerous reports so they won't fall into the wrong hands.

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

#767

Post by jihadjihad »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #760
jihadjihad wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see this happening for at least a handful of generations, if ever, even though it has happened once with the 21st amendment (repealed the 18th). A supermajority in both houses is doable, but you need all but 12 states to vote in favor, too. There are comfortably 15+ states in the "ain't ever gonna budge" category on that front, and while attitudes could shift in future generations that make such change possib…

I agree with you, I don't say it because I think it's a useful thing to try to achieve right now; I say it only because I believe it's true, and I wish we'd start from the fundamental problem.

Totally, and it is a tough thing because it feels so intractable--the mountain to get over (38 states in favor of repealing) just seems nigh impossible. But, stranger things have happened.

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

#768

Post by wyager »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #702
wyager wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Sometimes you have to eat an elephant one bite at a time. If guns weren't such a charged issue then more of us would advocate to directly outlaw private gun ownership. Guns add little value to people's lives and are likely to amplify poor decisions into death and serious injury.

> Guns add little value to people's lives

This is a facially absurd claim to make based on the extremely motivated behavior of tens of millions of Americans.

> are likely to amplify poor decisions into death and serious injury

For a very questionable definition of "likely". As someone who actually performs explicit risk calculations, I am vastly more worried about hundreds of other risk sources to which I have daily exposure.

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

#769

Post by softcactus »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #563
softcactus wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Natty Guard = "well regulated malitia" argument is not compelling at all to me. If it was, the fact the guard can be nationalized and that states don't appoint officers unilaterally would be in strict contravention of how the constitution says the militias should be run. On top of that, the Bill of Rights is focused on rights of the people and states. IIRC there's nothing in it about protecting the "rights" of th…

Yes the guard was nationalized in 1903 and runs counter to the idea of state militias. The Civil War was the end of the discussion about states needing a physical deterrent to keep the federal government out of their business.

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

#770

Post by coldtea »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #743
BobbyJo wrote: post #685

I think a good first step everyone can agree on to stop gun violence is: stop it's gamification. Almost every mass shooting in the last decade was someone looking for media attention and high score. And yet, every shooting is followed by detailed biography and a tally of bodies. Something as simple as a one month moratorium on information for anyone outside the community would probably work wonders, as the public eye…

I wonder if John Carmack feels any compunction about first person shooters and their proliferation.

The same as the inventor of Pacman feels for teenagers popping little white pills while listening to repeatitive computer music.

The fact that first person shooters are played by hundreds of millions all over the world, but mass shootings are 99% a US thing (which much predated first person shooters, e.g. "I don't like Mondays") should answer the question...

Post reply on HN