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

111–120 of 155 posts

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

#111

Post by danielweber »

geebee wrote: post #65
bryanlarsen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree with you generally… but in this specific case, do regions with very strong and effective gun control have dramatically lower suicide rates than the US? My understanding is that suicide rates in Europe aren't dramatically lower, though they do appear to be a bit lower in western europe and higher in eastern… I can't tell if this might be handgun related, is the delta large enough? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

Just eyeballing, I see a handful of strongly liberal European countries above the US, and a bunch that are just below the US.

But this is a tough thing to compare, as you note. Suicide rate is encompassing a whole bunch of things. I'm tempted to compare against Canada, where the suicide rate is only less by 1 per 100,000 people per year, but I have no idea if I'm picking that out fairly.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/9/07-043489.pdf suggests that the US is the only country where firearm is the preferred method of suicide. A bit morbid to read but there you go.

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

#112

Post by ianferrel »

lkbm wrote: post #70
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.

When I accidentally shoot someone and they die, they would be alive if I hadn't had the gun. When I intentionally shoot someone and they die, they would likely be alive if I hadn't had the gun. When I intentionally shoot myself and I die, I would likely have found another effective suicide method and died anyway without the gun. Killing someone with a pill is not something you do in a fit of rage. Killing someone wit…

>When I intentionally shoot myself and I die, I would likely have found another effective suicide method and died anyway without the gun.

This isn't true. You certainly could find another method, but you wouldn't likely do it. Most suicides are not well-planned, they are spur-of-the-moment decisions, and removing easy methods actually reduces the number of suicides substantially.

This is not intuitive, but it is supported by facts.

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

#113

Post by ta75757 »

vor_ wrote: post #100
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 d…

How many people reading that headline do you think actually think of suicides when they read it?

The reason for determining the deadliness of guns is to know whether they should be banned or not. And we're arguing that since suicides don't justify prohibition, it's not fair to include them in "deadliness". Suicides don't justify prohibition because I as a person should have the right to choose to own a gun at the small risk that I may commit suicide with it. It is not the governments place to protect me from that small risk.

    It seems as though advocates are arguing that the statistics should 
    be filtered to make guns appear less statistically deadly.
And the other side is doing the same thing, inflating the statistics with deaths that we believe should not affect the policy decision.

    gun deaths are trending upward
Not according to the graph in the article: http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecac...

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

#114

Post by sosuke »

vor_ wrote: post #100
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 d…

I'd argue that domestic violence shouldn't be separated in that, and to my point the word domestic doesn't appear in the data. It is suicide, homicide, or accidental. As for suicide prevention, removing the instruments of death only makes people more creative, and isn't the right focus. http://clinicalpsychreading.blogspot.com/2014/12/suicide-by-...

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

#115

Post by scott_karana »

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…

Numerous other countries have substantially curtailed the right to own guns, so it's no large stretch of the imagination.

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

#116

Post by logfromblammo »

dllthomas wrote: post #66
donatj wrote: post #60

Depending on your source of numbers, 40-60% of gun deaths are suicide and 30-60% are gang related. That at most leaves 0-30% "preventable" shootings. Gang member aren't going to use "smart guns" and I have the moral right to kill myself.

"I should have the legal right to kill myself." And of course, even if someone disagrees with that, getting rid of the gun is more likely to change the method than the result.

The ethics of suicide spawns some interesting philosophical conundrums.

Would you be justified in entering a time machine, traveling 40 years into the future, and murdering your future self? If not, how could you be justified in murdering your future self without the use of the time machine?

Or imagine a person with multiple personalities. Each has a theoretically equal claim of ownership of the body. While one is in control of the body, it commits suicide. Is that ethical? Now consider that your personality now is not the same as it was 10 years ago, nor will it be the same 10 years from now. Your personality may also change permanently or temporarily under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.

If you have nothing left to lose but your own life, and no longer care about losing that, would it not be preferable to gamble it in a bid to gains something that you would like to keep, rather than merely throwing it away for no gain?

If you outlaw suicide, who would you ever be able to prosecute for the crime?

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

#117

Post by sosuke »

fizgig wrote: post #90
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.

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?

They are not, that is "Intentional self-harm (suicide) by other and unspecified means and their sequelae"

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

#118

Post by sosuke »

stevesearer wrote: post #89
danielweber wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I read a lot of watch blogs, they do sweepstakes and brand reviews that I love to read. http://www.ablogtowatch.com/watch-giveaway-tudor-heritage-ch...

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

#119

Post by danielweber »

vor_ wrote: post #100
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 d…

If this were epidemiology, we would talk about "total morbidity." If I develop a flu vaccine that 100% stops flu deaths but kills 10% of patients via heart attacks, I have not improved the situation. A troll or person otherwise committed to a narrative that my flu vaccine should be foist on everyone might say "a flu death is a flu death" but it's not what matters.

About half of American households have access to a gun while about half of suicides are done via gun. The US is within 10% of most other first world countries in terms of suicide rate. The real world evidence is that if you got rid of guns in an attempt to stop suicides, the strong majority of those who want to commit suicide would find another method.

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

#120

Post by sliverstorm »

grayclhn wrote: post #97
arenaninja wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If smartguns run Linux, maybe we could make that article!
Post reply on HN