A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S • Hacker News Board

Re: A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S

#21

Post by JoeAltmaier » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:08 PM UTC

GuiA wrote: post #14

apetresc wrote: post #4

From the article: > By contrast, safety features on firearms—such as smartguns unlocked by an owner’s thumbprint or a radio-frequency encryption—are opposed by the National Rifle Association, whose allies in Congress also block funding for the sort of public-health research that might show, in even clearer detail, the cost of America’s love affair with guns. Can someone explain the NRA to me? At this point they come…

This is going to be unpopular, but the NRA is really just a bunch of conservative rednecks who throw tantrums when they don't get things their way. It's the kind of people who post pictures of their $20k arsenal on Facebook, like to shoot at empty bottles in their backyards with semiautomatic weapons just because they think it's fun, and somehow they have it in their heads that blowing things up every Sunday afternoo…

Sure its unpopular when you throw slurs at people you disagree with. Its mean, petty and drives the conversation to a shouting match.

Re: A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S

#22

Post by vor_ » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:08 PM UTC

samsnelling wrote: post #16

Including suicides seems unfair. > The U.S. Department of Justice reports that approximately 60% of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide, 61% more than deaths by homicide. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Stat...

> Including suicides seems unfair.

Why?

Re: A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S

#23

Post by mseebach » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:09 PM UTC

apetresc wrote: post #4

From the article: > By contrast, safety features on firearms—such as smartguns unlocked by an owner’s thumbprint or a radio-frequency encryption—are opposed by the National Rifle Association, whose allies in Congress also block funding for the sort of public-health research that might show, in even clearer detail, the cost of America’s love affair with guns. Can someone explain the NRA to me? At this point they come…

Accepting the premise that it's a good thing that the population at large can own guns, their argument is that they're thinking a few steps ahead:

If smartguns become popular, the government can then outlaw non-smartguns without too many people caring (they can still own and fire guns).

Then the smart-stuff is leveraged to "enhance" security - transferring ownership, for an example, could be made subject to a government permit, which can then be used, explicitly or implicitly - imagine a "no fly list" for guns, with the same opacity - to prevent large groups of people to own guns (well, specifically, to fire them).

Further not-very-fantastical "enhancements" could include remote-disabling of guns, initially for law enforcement use, but quickly extended to much broader use.

All this, of course, while the criminals (who are already obtaining guns illegally) keep using "dumb" guns and aren't affected by this.

These are the simple, practical reasons - there's also the ideological reason founded on the historical reason for the 2nd amendment: A government can't turn on it's own people if said people is armed. If the government can effectively control the guns of the people, that stops being a factor.

Re: A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S

#24

Post by existencebox » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:11 PM UTC

GuiA wrote: post #14

apetresc wrote: post #4

From the article: > By contrast, safety features on firearms—such as smartguns unlocked by an owner’s thumbprint or a radio-frequency encryption—are opposed by the National Rifle Association, whose allies in Congress also block funding for the sort of public-health research that might show, in even clearer detail, the cost of America’s love affair with guns. Can someone explain the NRA to me? At this point they come…

This is going to be unpopular, but the NRA is really just a bunch of conservative rednecks who throw tantrums when they don't get things their way. It's the kind of people who post pictures of their $20k arsenal on Facebook, like to shoot at empty bottles in their backyards with semiautomatic weapons just because they think it's fun, and somehow they have it in their heads that blowing things up every Sunday afternoo…

I think there are far more reasonable (Occams razor) explanations than just "redneck crazies". I'd go so far as to say that most truly rural people I knew didn't give a single damn about the NRA one way or the other. Perhaps these are outliers; but I'm much more inclined to see a financial explanation:

If gun safety studies come out, guns look BAD. Regulation goes up and sales go down. If special safety mechanisms are allowed, and show positive impact, they may be more forcefully imposed, raise costs and decrease margins.

It may just be a sign of how jaded the last few years of news have made me, but I'm far more likely to expect malfeasance from those who hold the reins and have significant amounts of money on the line than those who just want to 'blow stuff up.'

Re: A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S

#25

Post by vor_ » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:12 PM UTC

throwaway90999 wrote: post #20

collyw wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a European it seems blatantly obvious that your gun laws are absurd in the States. (I am assuming you are from the States from the fact you see the argument that way around, correct me if I am wrong).

Most of the perceived absurdity comes from disingenuous framing of the issues. Here are some examples: Over half of all quoted gun deaths are suicides. [edit: removed mention of suicide survivability as I don't have a reference handy. But remember: The most likely person to shoot you is yourself.] Let's remove suicide from the discussion and talk about violence. The primary driver for violence is socioeconomic. The U…

> Let's remove suicide from the discussion and talk about violence.

Why? This is the second time I've seen that suggestion in these comments, and I don't understand why suicides should not be counted as gun deaths.

Re: A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S

#26

Post by m_d » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:13 PM UTC

samsnelling wrote: post #16

Including suicides seems unfair. > The U.S. Department of Justice reports that approximately 60% of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide, 61% more than deaths by homicide. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Stat...

Improving access to mental healthcare in the US would do a lot to reduce gun deaths.

Re: A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S

#27

Post by bryanlarsen » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:14 PM UTC

samsnelling wrote: post #16

Including suicides seems unfair. > The U.S. Department of Justice reports that approximately 60% of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide, 61% more than deaths by homicide. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Stat...

Just making suicide slightly more difficult dramatically reduces suicide rates. It's difficult to stop someone determined to kill themselves, but most suicides are impulse decisions, so removing the opportunity often prevents the suicide. That's why suicide barriers on bridges actually reduce suicide rates rather than changing the method.

Re: A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S

#28

Post by arenaninja » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:14 PM UTC

mseebach wrote: post #23

apetresc wrote: post #4

From the article: > By contrast, safety features on firearms—such as smartguns unlocked by an owner’s thumbprint or a radio-frequency encryption—are opposed by the National Rifle Association, whose allies in Congress also block funding for the sort of public-health research that might show, in even clearer detail, the cost of America’s love affair with guns. Can someone explain the NRA to me? At this point they come…

Accepting the premise that it's a good thing that the population at large can own guns, their argument is that they're thinking a few steps ahead: If smartguns become popular, the government can then outlaw non-smartguns without too many people caring (they can still own and fire guns). Then the smart-stuff is leveraged to "enhance" security - transferring ownership, for an example, could be made subject to a governm…

Honestly, these arguments make sense, and I don't own a gun.

I wish the public at large could understand these are largely parallel to the arguments FSF makes (at least to me, they are)

Re: A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S

#29

Post by refurb » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:14 PM UTC

GuiA wrote: post #14

apetresc wrote: post #4

From the article: > By contrast, safety features on firearms—such as smartguns unlocked by an owner’s thumbprint or a radio-frequency encryption—are opposed by the National Rifle Association, whose allies in Congress also block funding for the sort of public-health research that might show, in even clearer detail, the cost of America’s love affair with guns. Can someone explain the NRA to me? At this point they come…

This is going to be unpopular, but the NRA is really just a bunch of conservative rednecks who throw tantrums when they don't get things their way. It's the kind of people who post pictures of their $20k arsenal on Facebook, like to shoot at empty bottles in their backyards with semiautomatic weapons just because they think it's fun, and somehow they have it in their heads that blowing things up every Sunday afternoo…

This kind of comment adds nothing to the discussion. Whether or not it comes from the left or the right.

Re: A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S

#30

Post by apetresc » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:14 PM UTC

mseebach wrote: post #23

apetresc wrote: post #4

From the article: > By contrast, safety features on firearms—such as smartguns unlocked by an owner’s thumbprint or a radio-frequency encryption—are opposed by the National Rifle Association, whose allies in Congress also block funding for the sort of public-health research that might show, in even clearer detail, the cost of America’s love affair with guns. Can someone explain the NRA to me? At this point they come…

Accepting the premise that it's a good thing that the population at large can own guns, their argument is that they're thinking a few steps ahead: If smartguns become popular, the government can then outlaw non-smartguns without too many people caring (they can still own and fire guns). Then the smart-stuff is leveraged to "enhance" security - transferring ownership, for an example, could be made subject to a governm…

Is the "keep the government in line" thing really a reason that anybody actually believes anymore? Like, if things got so bad that the government was "turning on its own people" with weaponry, somebody really thinks some guys with guns from Wal-Mart are going to be what stops them?