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

#81

Post by vor_ » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:35 PM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #34

vor_ wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Because no one is discussing "gun deaths" in a vacuum. "Gun death" weren't selected at random to compare to "car deaths" by some antiseptic algorithm. It's done, pretty obviously, to drive a narrative, i.e., "guns should be more regulated." When discussing that narrative, there is a big gap between "you shouldn't have a gun because you might hurt your neighbor" and "you shouldn't have a gun because your neighbor migh…

Easy access to an effective suicide method is one more impact of the pervasiveness of guns in a modern society. It's an important factor in determining gun deaths.

In determining the deadliness of drugs to a society, should suicides be ruled out? Accidental overdoses? Drug-related shootings? Where do you draw the line in filtering the statistics so that they're more comfortable for a given political position?

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

#82

Post by dllthomas » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:36 PM UTC

sosuke wrote: post #64

I keep looking through the data, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf , and it seems like cars still beat out guns by a good margin. They even say in the article most of the gun deaths are by suicide. Just the few numbers I grabbed says you're still 3 times more likely to be killed by or in a car. I looked again at the article and they don't even list the numbers because it conflicts with the story…

And for context, suicide overall: 39,518

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

#83

Post by Torgo » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:37 PM UTC

acomjean wrote: post #15

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…

There was a documentary on them just a few days ago. I didn't watch it, but heard the producers talking on the radio. In the 60s NRA was basically a sports/ gun safety organization. At some point they pivoted to be a gun rights organization. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections... Politicians fear them, because they have money and get out the vote power. There is some thought that the NRA cost…

It makes sense, they became political when guns came under political threat.

As a side note, it's funny to see that parts of the media still mechanically repeat LaPierre calling the ATF "jack booted government thugs" in 1995 like it was a bad thing, after the full-on liberal awakening over police militarization via the Boston Marathon Bombing and Ferguson, MO. The NRA was 20 years ahead of the curve on that.

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

#84

Post by ta75757 » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:37 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #27

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.

But you're doing that at the cost of denying all non-suicides the right to own a gun. The government's mandate is not to eliminate all deaths at all costs. It is to balance a wide variety of conflicting issues. And many people who wish to own firearms do not believe that the very small chance that they may commit suicide justifies the government preventing them from owning a firearm.

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

#85

Post by ekimekim » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:37 PM UTC

stevesearer wrote: post #18

slipstream- wrote: post #2

Google cache link to get around paywall: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp...

I understand that Hacker News is a sharing and discussion website and that it sucks not being able to read the submitted stories, but it seems people here are generally against paywalls and try to subvert them in any way possible. It also seems that many people here also subvert non-paywall sites that monetize their content using ads by installing various adblockers. As a publisher myself, I'd be interested in hearin…

I make a point of only enabling an ad-blocker if I find the ads overly invasive, resource-intensive or objectionable.

Another suggestion is that, for sites that I regularly visit and like the content, I will (and do) happily pay a subscription fee in exchange for guilt-free ad-free content.

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

#86

Post by Jaecen » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:38 PM UTC

sesutton wrote: post #63

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…

This is just a variation of the slippery slope argument except this slope doesn't seem very slippery to me. Gun rights have been getting stronger in the US not weaker, courts in recent years have decided that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and that it is incorporated against the states. I don't see how a libertarian, as many gun advocates but certainly not all, can make a rational argument for preventing a…

I don't think anyone is trying to ban smart-guns. What they're trying to stop is regulation requiring guns to be smart.

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

#87

Post by MrMember » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:38 PM UTC

sesutton wrote: post #63

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…

This is just a variation of the slippery slope argument except this slope doesn't seem very slippery to me. Gun rights have been getting stronger in the US not weaker, courts in recent years have decided that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and that it is incorporated against the states. I don't see how a libertarian, as many gun advocates but certainly not all, can make a rational argument for preventing a…

It isn't a slippery slope, it is already reality. The New Jersey Childproof Handgun Law outlaws the sale of non-smart guns once a smart gun becomes available for sale anywhere in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Childproof_Handgun_...

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

#88

Post by vor_ » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:38 PM UTC

ta75757 wrote: post #35

vor_ wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Because the fact that there is a very small chance that a person may kill themselves with a gun does not mean the government should deny that person the right to own a gun. And people with a history of mental illness are already excluded from owning guns.

This article is a comparison of deaths caused by vehicles and guns as well as a comparison of the amount of government regulation between the two, not an argument to ban the 2nd Amendment. One point in the article is the lack of oversight on gun sales to criminals.

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

#89

Post by stevesearer » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:38 PM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #41

sosuke wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sponsored posts, sponsored events, sponsored custom takeovers don't fall into ad blockers since they aren't being served by Akamai etc. If you're doing products, affiliate links from your posts.

"Don't sell your product; give it away and cram it with ads!"

I'm assuming this is snark, but print magazines actually do both by selling the magazines themselves and filling them with advertisements.

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

#90

Post by fizgig » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:38 PM UTC

vor_ wrote: post #25

throwaway90999 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seems outside the relevant scope of discussion regarding gun policy. Just my opinion, though, as a former card-carrying NRA member with a liberal political leaning.

I am curious, though: Are carbon monoxide suicides-by-car counted in the car deaths for this gun-vs-car deaths comparison?