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

Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#471

Post by Reason077 »

ghufran_syed wrote: post #464
Reason077 wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “I see no mechanism by which those laws would reduce mass shootings. A mass shooter would simply ignore them.” And yet, there does seem to be a strong correlation between “countries with stricter gun control laws” and “countries that have low rates of gun-related deaths and homicides”. Canada has between 6-8X fewer gun fatalities per capita compared to the United States - both homicides and unintentional/accidental…

the article you quoted says: “Homicide figures may include justifiable homicides along with criminal homicides, depending upon jurisdiction and reporting standards” Why don’t we talk separately about “murders” vs “suicide” vs “justifiable homicide”? Each of those terms is fairly clearly defined in most people’s minds (maybe the last one a little less so), and then we could focus on the different mitigation that might…

A valid point. However, the number of justifiable gun homicides relative to criminal homicides is pretty insignificant:

“In 2016, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 37 criminal homicides”

https://vpc.org/studies/justifiable19.pdf

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#472

Post by eyelidlessness »

kodah wrote: post #463
charles_kaw wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I see no mechanism by which those laws would reduce mass shootings. A mass shooter would simply ignore them. On virtue of how many shootings have begun "without warning", the cultural context in canada versus the us is quite different. The expectation of actions when you see a firearm is very different in these two countries! - in the US, someone with an openly carried firearm may be transporting it or any number of…

> Gun owners consistently misrepresent and come up with inconsistent interpretations of any gun control. Maybe sometimes, but there's also gun laws like in California that affect large populations of gun owners. I don't think they're making their dissatisfaction and confusion with the gun laws up. Owning a gun in the US isn't very simple; different states have wildly different laws you have to observe, and those are…

> and those are in effect at airports as well

I don’t think this is that difficult. Don’t bring a gun to an airport. If you must for transport, arrange for a professional to do it for you. If you can’t afford that, you don’t have a good reason to travel with a firearm.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#473

Post by chrischen »

LoveGracePeace wrote: post #415
Aeolun wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If enough people actually cared about this, then you’d have people marching on the capitol, like after a certain president was not re-elected. If people haven’t gotten motivated enough after literally decades of this shit, I find it really hard to blame the law.

Quoted post unavailable.

That amendment was written back when a gun was more powerful than words or information, and when gun ownership was more prevalent and necessary.

In our modern day information, speech, and and privacy are the guns that ensure rights are not stomped on. It’s no longer the wild wild west.

To think that rules written hundreds of years ago never need to be changed is spitting in the face of our founders who realized that the process of amendments are necessary because things change. The irony is that people are defending the second amendment by claiming it cannot be amended.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#474

Post by zaroth »

abvdasker wrote: post #465
mafro wrote: post #459

People are always saying things like "the second amendment protects my right to bear arms". So can we have another "amendment" that removes this right?

Quoted post unavailable.

> I don't know why anyone cares about…

A lot of people care very deeply about it, and many have even spent a good deal of their lives elucidating why you should too.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#476

Post by cowmoo728 »

simon1ltd wrote: post #412
School-Cotton wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's clear that this is the way Americans wish to live That’s not clear at all. The US has more anti-gun-violence activists than anywhere else in the world. There is some amount of friction, different in each country but not zero anywhere, between “what people want” and “what is the law”. Do you think North Koreans prefer living under a corrupt dictatorship? Why don’t they just make the dictatorship illegal? That’s…

I don't want gun violence, but I 100% want the 1986 National Firearm Act repealed. I believe fully automatic assault weapons and machine guns should be available for purchase, new, just like any other weapon. (Fully automatic weapons are legal to buy and own right now in the US, if you pay a $200 stamp tax and wait 9 months for the ATF to process the paperwork, but you can only buy "NFA" regulated machine guns that w…

I would like to be able to purchase a Boeing AH-64 Apache, along with its M230 machine gun and AGM-114 Hellfire missiles.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#477

Post by heretogetout »

abvdasker wrote: post #465
mafro wrote: post #459

People are always saying things like "the second amendment protects my right to bear arms". So can we have another "amendment" that removes this right?

Quoted post unavailable.

Even if the amendment for past the supermajority requirement 37 or 38 state legislatures would have to ratify the amendment. At this point it's almost certainly impossible to amend the US constitution.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#478

Post by catalyst5a »

abvdasker wrote: post #465
mafro wrote: post #459

People are always saying things like "the second amendment protects my right to bear arms". So can we have another "amendment" that removes this right?

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#479

Post by cowmoo728 »

mafro wrote: post #459

People are always saying things like "the second amendment protects my right to bear arms". So can we have another "amendment" that removes this right?

Pre-2008 DC vs Heller, the standing law of the land was that the 2nd amendment did not provide an individual right to purchase or own firearms. So it is entirely possible that a future Supreme Court, given an adequate case, will overturn DC vs Heller and allow states and the federal government to go back to heavily restricting and licensing gun ownership outside of the context of state-sponsored militias and police forces.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#480

Post by chmod600 »

EugeneOZ wrote: post #427
chmod600 wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 16 year old was effectively an adult not so long ago. Today, an 18 year old is a child. We should just move the age of majority to 24 or so. Guns and voting would start there. Vices and contracts would be some sliding scale.

24th birthday doesn't make a person wise automatically. Psychological tests are needed for gun buyers.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

24 is 6 extra years of maturing. That will save a lot of lives (not just mass shootings, but gang violence and suicides). And 24 better reflects reality in terms of adulthood.

Not only that, but it's palatable politically. As long as it goes with voting age and other rights, then gun owners are more likely to go along with it. Make some exceptions that work for young hunters, and people won't feel left out.

If anything, it's likely to see pushback from the left because they want lots of people voting from a young age. But I don't think the overall electoral decisions will be any worse by making people wait 6 more years. The left will just adapt and move on (e.g. more focus on struggling families and less on cultural/identity issues).

Post reply on HN