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

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

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 155 posts

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

#71

Post by refurb »

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…

What the NRA is really against is the legislating of these safety devices. They certainly don't care if a manufacturer wants to sell a gun like this. The other argument is that technologies like this (microstamping is another) aren't effective, thus why force them on people?

Also keep in mind that a lot of NRA folks are rural. They have almost no local gun crime and have (what they feel) are legitimate reasons for owning a gun (self-defense, hunting, etc). Their opinion is why should they give up their guns because the city folks have a problem?

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

#72

Post by tthomas48 »

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #51

Statistics don't work that way. It's not an even distribution. For instance, I am not around gun violence at all, but I've seen and been involved in several serious car accidents. I live and work in areas nearly devoid of gun crime. My odds of being shot are vastly less than being injured or killed by an auto.

Good point. If you think about it, due to the distribution of guns and the fact that the majority of gun deaths are suicides, accidents, or domestic violence - living in a gun-free household should reduce your risk even more dramatically than these statistics might suggest.

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

#73

Post by refurb »

apetresc wrote: post #30
mseebach wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Look at how the resistance in Iraq stymied the US army for months/years.

Also, look at the Nazi invasion of the Island of Crete. A ton of local farmers with gun took a huge toll on the Nazi paratroopers.

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

#74

Post by GabrielF00 »

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…

Down voted as this is not factual. Suicide by firearm is much less survivable than taking pills, and even when it is survivable it can be incredibly disfiguring and/or debilitating.

There's also the fact that suicide by firearm can be done impulsively, without much preparation, in contrast to asphyxiation or falls. When there's more requirement for preparation there are more opportunities for someone to change their mind or for some intervention to take place.

The use of guns might be the reason why more women attempt suicide than men, but more men actually die of suicide. It may be that women are more likely to prefer a method that doesn't result in disfigurement (pills) and, because that method is less likely to be successful, women are less likely to die of suicide.

If guns were banned, it is at least plausible that deaths by suicide would go down because the alternatives might be less accessible to those making an impulsive decision and more survivable.

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

#75

Post by Trillinon »

It's important to note that, according to the chart, both are on the decline. Auto deaths are simply declining further.

Gun ownership is an important civil liberty in the USA, but one that comes with danger.

The Economist is recommending a technological approach to mitigating that danger. Research and development has been done in this department, and many technologies have been applied to modern firearms. Better safeties that prevent accidental discharge, better safes, ammunition that prevents over-penetration, etc.

We have yet to see a simple and trustworthy technology that limits who can fire a gun. When we do, it will start to be used.

For such a technology to work, the user needs to feel in complete control of it. There can be zero risk that an authorized user won't be able to fire the gun due to system failure or low battery.

Ultimately, though, no technological solution will prevent suicide. For that, a different approach will be necessary, and I don't have an answer for that.

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

#76

Post by danielweber »

apetresc wrote: post #38
jerf wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, among the key facts necessary to understand that is that the "safety features" are not pure cost-free benefit, and the NRA believes the costs outweigh the benefits. They have some decent arguments for the existence of the costs; reasonable people could disagree about the relative degree of each. It is also not generally the case that guns are always "bad"; guns are also significantly used in self-defense, usual…

> Well, among the key facts necessary to understand that is that the "safety features" are not pure cost-free benefit, and the NRA believes the costs outweigh the benefits. They have some decent arguments for the existence of the costs; reasonable people could disagree about the relative degree of each. Sure. Advanced safety features in cars probably cost a lot to develop, too, and I'm sure there's a lot of people wh…

That's actually the direct opposite of what the article says. The very first paragraph states: "Deaths by guns, though—the great majority suicides, accidents or domestic violence—have been trending slightly upwards."

They don't give a source, but their own graph [1] shows that, aside from a tick on 2006, gun deaths have been trending down, almost indistinguishable from flat in recent years.

I couldn't find a nice graph, but googling gave me these two years (that I did not cherry pick): here's an anti-gun site giving the numbers for 1998 as 30K [2] and another anti-gun "just the facts" editorial in 2013 saying it's 31K. [3] Using normal per-population numbers, the US increased in population over 13% over that time.

The US in the 21st century is a very safe place to be. Foreign news may distort the picture, but middle-class Americans don't worry about being killed by guns.

[1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp...

[2] http://college.cengage.com/english/resources/research_guide/...

[3] http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16547690-just-the...

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

#77

Post by symfoniq »

TheDong wrote: post #8
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…

the NRA is also in part defined by its members. These members are, for the most part, highly conservative and see technology like that as making guns worse. They don't worry about safety; after-all, the point of the gun is power and something that is dangerous feels more powerful. The other reason people oppose them is because it would reduce the gun-owner's ability to re-sell the gun to criminals with no difficulty…

Most gun owners I know are like Unix programmers, in that they favor the simplest solution that could possibly work. A safety feature that makes a gun significantly more complicated—and therefore possibly less likely to work when needed—is a non-starter for most gun owners.

Furthermore, most gun owners have firearms at least in part because of the criminal element. I find the argument that a significant number of gun owners want to be able to resell their firearms to criminals to be patently absurd.

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

#78

Post by [deleted] »

philwelch wrote: post #33
apetresc wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Honestly? It's not a far step away from the kind of firepower they lost to in Vietnam and Iraq.

[deleted]

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

#79

Post by tstrimple »

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…

In this case, they would be opposed to "smart" guns due to laws like New Jersey has.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/06/24/325178...

Essentially, once a smart gun becomes available for sale in the US, all guns sold in New Jersey must be "smart" within 30 months. I wouldn't be surprised if other jurisdictions had similar laws in place. This dramatically increases the cost of legal firearms while doing very little to impact firearm murder or suicide rates.

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

#80

Post by MrMember »

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…

The NRA is not opposed to the development of smart guns. They are opposed to legislation that bans the sale of non-smart guns once smart guns are available on the market.

Such a law already exists in New Jersey and was proposed at the federal level by Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts.

Post reply on HN