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

#91

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

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?

Yes, there's little doubt that a rural population that has grown up using guns and hunting can wreak havoc on a larger, conventional force using guerrilla warfare tactics. History abounds with examples of this.

As for "guys with guns from Wal-Mart" in the US, let's not forget that we have tens of thousands of experienced returned officers and NCOs, who are very knowledgeable about guerrilla warfare and who identify very strongly with that rural population base here in the US.

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

#92

Post by danielweber » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:39 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…

You know the way HN makes fun of legislators who pass laws about computers without knowing anything about how computers work?

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

#93

Post by vor_ » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:41 PM UTC

ta75757 wrote: post #57

lkbm wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument seems at odds with the claim that suicide constitutes the majority of the deaths.

How so?

I believe the point is that if the chance of suicide is very small, and the mentally ill are forbidden from owning guns, it would seemingly be at odds with the claim that "over half of all quoted gun deaths" are suicides.

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

#94

Post by ta75757 » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:42 PM UTC

flintchip wrote: post #11

Good, finally people can stop trotting out the inane adage "if you ban guns you have to ban cars" whenever the gun control debate comes up.

Cars are not a good example because people need cars. But alcohol is a good example, nobody needs alcohol and plenty of innocent people die from drunk drivers. Yet most people consider alcohol "normal" and the idea of restricting it to home use only, for example, as absurd. But since these people didn't grow up with guns they consider them "abnormal" and see no problem with restricting them, since it doesn't affect them. This is why I think the conflict is mainly cultural.

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

#95

Post by danielweber » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:43 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #71

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 ow…

Actually, the NRA really is against any manufacturer creating them, because a few states have passed laws saying (in a lot more words) "once smart guns are on the market, you can only buy smart guns." They view the creation of this technology the way some people on HN feel about porn-filtering technology: if it exists, a corrupt government will use it.

(I don't count myself in either of those camps but I listen to them enough to be able to explain their arguments.)

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

#96

Post by sesutton » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:45 PM UTC

Jaecen wrote: post #86

sesutton wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe not through legal means but the one gun store that tried to actually sell a smart gun got death threats.

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

#97

Post by grayclhn » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:46 PM UTC

arenaninja wrote: post #28

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…

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)

I won't hold my breath waiting for the followup news report, "GNU software is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S."

edit: to make this comment more than just a dumb throw-away joke, I'll add that sometimes the consequences of an argument are as important as its assumptions/logical soundness.

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

#98

Post by gmac » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:46 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #17

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…

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…

http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/58-murders-a-year-by-firearm...

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

#99

Post by Torgo » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:46 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…

There was a law in New Jersey that basically said as soon as smart gun technology was for retail sale in any part of the country, a general ban on non-smart guns would go into effect:

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

Effectively, allowing smart gun technology would cause a bunch of other guns to get banned, so based on their values system it was logical for the NRA to oppose the tech. There have also been complaints that the tech is not reliable. I looked into this myself and frankly, I would not trust my life with it. Also, in most cases it's using passive RFID technology which is a joke for "security" (there is one company that's using a challenge response system though.) I can think of half a dozen ways to disable or clone most of these systems, but they are sold like they are a panacea.

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

#100

Post by vor_ » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:47 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…

> They even say in the article most of the gun deaths are by suicide.

It says "suicides, accidents or domestic violence." These are all vital statistics in determining the deadliness of guns.

Gun advocates have been arguing here that suicides shouldn't be counted, which doesn't make sense. Access to an effective suicide method is one more consequence of a gun-owning society. It should be acknowledged, analyzed, and discussed.

It seems as though advocates are arguing that the statistics should be filtered to make guns appear less statistically deadly. That's nonsense. This is a comparison of deadliness; a gun death is a gun death. Despite a decline in gun ownership, gun deaths are trending upward, and the NRA opposes smart-unlock features like thumbprint identification that contrast with the myriad safety controls placed on vehicles.