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

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

pewsocialtrends.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 266 posts

Re: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

#241

Post by mindcrime »

corresation wrote: post #237
mindcrime wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, the stats on that are somewhat hard to find, or hard to qualify as definitive. I've seen articles that say "NO legally owned fully automatic weapon has ever been used to commit a crime" and I've seen a few articles that say the number is Guncite only comes up with two cases, one of which may one of the same ones you just mentioned: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

There is no real definition of what an "assault weapon" is, and few restrict that to only automatic weapon. I would say that an AR-15 is most certainly an assault weapon. It is a high power weapon (ignore the rather ignorant people who fail to understand the difference between a .22 and a .223) designed and built for military purposes. Being automatic fire or not has remarkable little relevance to its deadliness.

There is no real definition of what an "assault weapon" is, and few restrict that to only automatic weapon.

Right, because "assault weapon" is a made up term, created by the people at the Brady Campaign and other radical anti-gun groups, to promote their fear-mongering approach to advocating for more gun control. An "assault rifle" OTOH, does have a technical definition, and it does involve a full-auto or select-fire capability. A civilian AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Calling it an "assault weapon" makes as much sense as calling it a "gandering gillifrous".

It is a high power weapon (ignore the rather ignorant people who fail to understand the difference between a .22 and a .223)

Meh. A .223 is still a relatively low-powered round in the grand scheme of things. A typical .223 round has less kinetic energy than a standard 30-06 round which is used for hunting all over the United States. In fact, .223 is illegal for hunting deer and other large game in some states, because it isn't lethal enough.

http://guitarwarp.blogspot.com/2013/01/deadly-223-versus-saf...

Re: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

#242

Post by DigitalTurk »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #234
DigitalTurk wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. Am I get downvoted for pointing out a fallacy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

Dunno about the downvotes but is the best argument we have for reducing suicides, well if we make it more awkward then less folks will top themselves and instead will lead lives of miserable desperation? We have to be better than harm reduction surely?

I don't have a moral problem with suicide. Like I mention elsewhere, in my country euthanasia is sometimes administered to people with certain types of depression. I think that's fine (if weirdly bureaucratic).

Thing is, often people who are depressed do get better. And I think a lot of people who end up killing themselves would have gotten better if only they hadn't. I think this is all the more the case for teenagers.

That's why I think it's worthwhile to take away opportunities to kill yourself. That means making gun possession illegal, installing safety nets, etcetera. (Within reason, of course.)

Re: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

#243

Post by hga »

edtechdev wrote: post #239
hga wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5675330 ; you're talking about the number of households that admit to owning a gun, not the real number. That's somewhere around the middle of the nationwide sweep of shall issue concealed carry regimes, now totalling 42 states and 2/3rds of the population. Such an astounding political development---there were 2-3 states when Florida opened the floodgates in 1987---wouldn't se…

"you're talking about the number of households that admit to owning a gun, not the real number" Looks like you either didn't read the short sentence I posted, or didn't think about it before responding, because that doesn't say anything against the evidence that there is lower gun ownership today than there was 20 years ago, only that the actual percentage back then AND now is likely higher than surveys suggest, but…

Heh, your own descriptions of the research impeach it. "Acquaintance" of course includes e.g. drug dealers killing each other. They are generally "acquaintances" if not exactly friends, or friends any more; in general, stranger murders are relatively rare.

And your citation first mentions Arthur Kellerman, who's infamous for scoring undesired civilian deaths vs. civilians killing criminals, when such killing cannot legally be and is not the objective, stopping them is. There are many other problems with his "research", but when it's invalid at that high a level we hardly need to go into the details.

Re: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

#244

Post by hga »

DigitalTurk wrote: post #223
ctdonath wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The suicidal find a way. Where guns are not available, in at least one major comparable example, the suicide rate is different by being higher (by a lot). Sure, guns make it easy...but there are many other easy ways.

I don't think Japan and the USA are very comparable. In fact, I think insofar modern countries are concerned you'd be hard pressed to find two countries that are more different than Japan and the USA!

No, no, not at all.

We're both "high trust" societies. Compare to the Chinese stereotype/archetype of not trusting someone outside the family to run part of the business, which helped to kill Wang in the US and abroad outside of the PRC tends to limit firms to simple types like trading companies.

I agree, we are in many ways very different, many of them fundamental, but many fundamental are similar enough.

Re: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

#245

Post by ownagefool »

tome wrote: post #105
ownagefool wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a baseball bat in my house and it's not there to hit balls but to hit anyone who attempts to come into my home without my permission. I doubt I'll ever need to use it, but there you go, it's one single purpose is to "maim or kill", which in reality is actually protection and I'd be happy with fear itself being the deciding factor. I don't come down on either side on gun control, they're mostly banned here in t…

You are correct, but it's a matter of degree. It's much, much easier to maim or kill with a gun than with a baseball bat and that's why I'm glad no one has guns in the UK. If someone comes at me with a baseball bat I can run away. If someone comes at me with a gun, I'm dead.

It's already been said, but if a woman or elderly person wanted to attack me with a stick, I'm pretty confident I could disarm them. If it were a gun, I would run. This is a great equaliser and in the context of me being a potential threat by trespassing into their property, I have no arguments with people owning and using a gun.

Where things get murky is those defending themselves aren't always resonable. There are countless other cases where the "victim" steps over bounds within the UK, and presumably elsewhere, and whilst I don't really support protecting criminals, I don't entirely the idea that you can murder someone for stepping on your lawn, stealing from you, or any other reason besides you feeling that you or others are going to come into direct harm.

Personally I think the US has some very strange rules with regards to guns, standing your ground and protecting your property, but we are obviously largely divided on what constitutes resonable force, which is why I don't exactly endorse guns ownership.

Re: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

#246

Post by DigitalTurk »

DigitalTurk wrote: post #242
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dunno about the downvotes but is the best argument we have for reducing suicides, well if we make it more awkward then less folks will top themselves and instead will lead lives of miserable desperation? We have to be better than harm reduction surely?

I don't have a moral problem with suicide. Like I mention elsewhere, in my country euthanasia is sometimes administered to people with certain types of depression. I think that's fine (if weirdly bureaucratic). Thing is, often people who are depressed do get better. And I think a lot of people who end up killing themselves would have gotten better if only they hadn't. I think this is all the more the case for teenage…

Even this comment and others are getting downvoted. What the hell… I think I'm going to call it a day here.

Re: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

#247

Post by DigitalTurk »

hga wrote: post #244
DigitalTurk wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Japan and the USA are very comparable. In fact, I think insofar modern countries are concerned you'd be hard pressed to find two countries that are more different than Japan and the USA!

No, no, not at all. We're both "high trust" societies. Compare to the Chinese stereotype/archetype of not trusting someone outside the family to run part of the business, which helped to kill Wang in the US and abroad outside of the PRC tends to limit firms to simple types like trading companies. I agree, we are in many ways very different, many of them fundamental, but many fundamental are similar enough.

> We're both "high trust" societies. Compare to the Chinese stereotype/archetype of not trusting someone outside the family to run part of the business, which helped to kill Wang in the US and abroad outside of the PRC tends to limit firms to simple types like trading companies.

Sure, but I explicitly excluded non-modern countries. (I have lived in China.)

> I agree, we are in many ways very different, many of them fundamental, but many fundamental are similar enough.

Okay, but you're not controlling for any variables. Like you say, there are many differences even if there are similarities too.

Re: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

#248

Post by hga »

mseebach wrote: post #180
tome wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct, but it's a matter of degree. It's much, much easier to maim or kill with a gun than with a baseball bat and that's why I'm glad no one has guns in the UK. If someone comes at me with a baseball bat I can run away. If someone comes at me with a gun, I'm dead.

I read somewhere about a study which suggested that some ridiculous high number of gun uses (90+% if memory serves) were resolved without discharging the gun. The thing is, these situations were rarely, if ever, reported (and if they were, it's often up to speculation if the situations would actually have led to a crime), leading to a systematic difficulty in accurately deciding the effectiveness of guns in crime pre…

Bingo, and it's many studies; amusingly, the first was done with data collected by gun grabbers, and it had lower numbers since it didn't ask if the respondent had used a gun in self-defense more than once during the year.

Current numbers put self-defense gun uses at something like 2.25 million per year, with indeed way over 90% never involving a gun being discharged.

There's also a systematic difficulty in the other direction, I'm pretty sure most criminal uses of guns also don't involve it being discharged. And some fraction of those don't get reported to the police or then reported accurately, you'd need to start with the national crime survey data.

Re: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

#249

Post by hga »

ensignavenger wrote: post #220
tome wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct, but it's a matter of degree. It's much, much easier to maim or kill with a gun than with a baseball bat and that's why I'm glad no one has guns in the UK. If someone comes at me with a baseball bat I can run away. If someone comes at me with a gun, I'm dead.

Which is exactly why grandma needs a gun, and not a baseball bat. Unless you believe that defending yourself is not a legitimate use case.

Anecdotally, from what I've heard and what I observed in the Missouri CCW class I took, the demographics of concealed carry are strongly biased to the older, mostly middle-aged and older.

For exactly the reason you point out. Grandma and grandpa have gotten too old to even think of holding their own in hand to hand combat, but a very large fraction can safely use handguns. And, anecdotally, in my CCW class it was mentioned they had only failed two people, one guy who couldn't observe Rule 2 (was pointing his handgun everywhere, can't remember if he was really old), and one old lady who wasn't strong enough to rack the slide of Glock (unfortunately she gave up at that point instead of finding a solution that was within her physical capabilities).

Re: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

#250

Post by hga »

dyno12345 wrote: post #231
rgraham wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly, I don't think anyone is advocating for their freedom to 'gun people down.' More importantly, I don't think your interest in particular freedoms should arbitrate which ones others receive. I can understand that you don't wish to exercise your 2nd amendment rights. No one is force-handing you a gun. Freedoms are about choices for people. "I don't want this freedom, so no one should have it," is misguided. Plen…

I want the freedom to have claymore mines and hand grenades.

A point I've made in a previous discussion is that we clearly draw a line between directed and undirected weapons, and therefore claymores and grenades are verboten, but something like 250,000 full auto guns are legally in the hands of US citizens.
Post reply on HN