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

#121

Post by sosuke » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 6:48 PM UTC

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/…

Japan is an excellent example, even the police don't often carry guns if I remember correctly.

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

#122

Post by sliverstorm » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 6:48 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…

Another practical reason where pro-gun vs. anti-gun traditionally do not see eye-to-eye is proximity/availability of police forces.

In the city, where most people are anti-gun, the police are often very close by, and rhetoric often talks about how guns are not needed because of the police.

In the country, where most people are pro-gun, the police can easily be very far away. I have co-workers who live at least an hour from the closest police station. Naturally, rhetoric covers the fact that the police very likely cannot help you.

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

#123

Post by sosuke » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 6:50 PM UTC

vor_ wrote: post #81

danielweber wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Access to guns is very restrictive in Japan, extremely restrictive in fact, yet they have a higher suicide rate than the United States. http://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

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

#124

Post by jnbiche » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 6:52 PM UTC

ashark wrote: post #107

philwelch wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A US government worth overthrowing by armed insurrection and that couldn't be overthrown some other way would practically by definition be willing and able to engage in some really nasty practices to put down a domestic rebellion. Like, filling-mass-graves nasty. Shooting at them wouldn't help. Sympathy from the armed forces and various forms of political pressure, foreign and domestic, would be far more helpful than…

>Sympathy from the armed forces and various forms of political pressure, foreign and domestic, would be far more helpful than a few deer rifles, and if you've got that your private arms aren't really necessary.

Actually, having closely studied the dissolution of a modern European country (the former Yugoslavia) and seen the fallout from up close, it's not that simple (at least not always).

What happened in that case was that although the Yugoslav government [1] retained control of most of the heavy weaponry (artillery, tanks), and although the succeeding republics (Croatia and Bosnia) were initially limited to small arms belonging to local militia and hunters, the republics did have an abundance of active and retired officers with loyalty to their ethnic homelands who were quick to raise and lead battalions of troops into the field [2].

Those troops then went on to capture some heavy arms from the Yugoslav army, and scored lots of small arms, and eventually heavy arms and aircraft, from overseas allies.

Eventually, after lots of brutal warfare, ethnic cleansing, and in Bosnia, genocide, the republics did gain their independence from Yugoslavia (with significant help from the U.S. and other countries).

What was key in this case were the experienced military leaders who quickly assumed charge in the succeeding republics.

I suspect a worst-case, nightmare U.S. scenario would look much the same, with experienced military leaders taking control of ad hoc forces in their respective states and/or regions, and then fighting with small arms until they were able to capture heavy arms, receive outside help, or were defeated/captured.

1. Essentially, Serbia and Montenegro, plus ethnic Serbs elsewhere

2. Slovenia's succession was a different story than that of Bosnia and Croatia, for a variety of geographical, cultural, and historical reasons.

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

#125

Post by danielweber » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 6:59 PM UTC

ianferrel wrote: post #112

lkbm wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 supp…

> but it is supported by facts.

It might be based on what some sociologist said, but if you compare suicide rates by country, these is nothing suggesting access to guns is a strong driver of suicide rate.

If you assume the US turns into Canada, then of every 50 people who kill themselves via gun, about 42 would find another method.

(Unless you want to argue that, because of the superiority of the US's health system over Canada, that the US should have a way lower rate than Canada. I'm not making that argument, but let's just say it wouldn't be popular among those who want to ban guns.)

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

#126

Post by DanBC » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 7:02 PM UTC

sosuke wrote: post #114

vor_ wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-...

Removing access to means and methods is a well know. Part of suicide reduction.

You are wrong when you say that people get creative. Suicide is often an impulsive act and so making people work even a little bit harder does reduce the numbers of people dying by suicide.

England changed the domestic gas supply from coal gas to natural gas. It's now not possible to use a home even to complete suicide. This led to a permanent reduction in suicide numbers.

England made it very much harder for people to get coproxamol. That led to a small permanent drop in completed suicide.

England changed the amount of paracetamol that people could buy. This led to a reduction in suicide deaths from paracetamol. http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/csr/resparacet.html

Restricting access to means and methods of suicide is a useful and important suicide prevention measure.

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

#127

Post by DanBC » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 7:06 PM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #119

vor_ wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 gu…

> 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.

What does "real world" evidence mean? Because real world evidence from England (paracetamol pack sizes; switch to natural gas from coal gas; removing coproxamol from general use) shows that many people do not find another method.

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

#128

Post by danielweber » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 7:08 PM UTC

tthomas48 wrote: post #72

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.

About half of suicides are done via gun, and about half of households have access to a gun.

There's nothing "dramatic" about reducing your chance of dying via suicide by being in the second half. I don't want to say it's zero, because I'm sure someone's life is spared by not having a gun around when the urge to suicide pops up.

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

#129

Post by danielweber » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 7:12 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #127

danielweber wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gu…

> 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. What does "real world" evidence mean? Because real world evidence from England (paracetamol pack sizes; switch to natural gas from coal gas; removing coproxamol from general use) shows that many people do not find another method.

The real world evidence in the comment you replied to, from the paragraph that you selected your quote from.

1. About half of US households have access to gun, implying half do not. Suicide-by-gun is about half the total suicide rate. With the assumption that people kill themselves with a gun if it's available, the no-gun-in-household suicide rate is very similar to the gun-in-household suicide rate.

2. The fact that the US is within about 10% of most other first-world countries in terms of suicide rate. Unless you want to argue that something especially good about the US's mental health system such that only Luxembourg ought be in front of it.

If the US turned into Canada (meaning: essentially no guns and a suicide rate 0.92 of the US) then more than 80% of gun suicides would find another way.

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

#130

Post by johngalt » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 7:24 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?

> Is the "keep the government in line" thing really a reason that anybody actually believes anymore?

If they don't, they should (I'm not a gun owner or an NRA member). If you look at history, it is exceptionally rare to find a 100 year stretch where governments and militaries didn't kill more civilians than any amount of murderers. Not always domestic governments, but that only adds to the point.

> 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?

I'm not going to speculate, but it might not be as one sided as you'd think. Put all the hunters in the U.S. together and you have the largest army in the world by a factor of five.

Regardless it doesn't have to be that bad. Government apathy or corruption can be enough to justify retaining the right to self defense. Consider the police work slowdown in NYC turning into a thinly veiled version of protection money. Local LEOs that ask for more money every year or 'gee I guess we will have to just let everyone out of jail'. Or consider something like that judge that sold children into private prisons. Imagine that despite protests and uproar, they sweep it under the rug and continue? History is rife with examples of people being exploited simply because they were dependent or defenseless.

Someone who has your best interests in mind won't demand that you be defenseless or dependent upon them.