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

531–540 of 1001 posts

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

#531

Post by DeathArrow »

bruce511 wrote: post #523
DeathArrow wrote: post #516

People say that gun owning should be restricted. But are the mass shootings done by people who have a gun permit and legally bought the guns? Also, forbidding guns, doesn't change people minds. If someone has a psychiatric condition he can drive a large truck into the crowd, light up a crowded building or event try to poison a water reservoir, destroy a dam, derail a train, make a bomb using gasoline, fertilizer and…

While you are not wrong that there are other ways to commit mass killings, in pretty much all countries with no guns, you don't see these alternate events. So the outcomes you suggest are perhaps not the logical outcome of removing guns from society. As an example if I take Europe as a whole (the bits not in an active conflict) there aren't 600 events a year of water poisoning or trucks in crowds etc. Now true, they…

But there are many countries in Europe that allow people to own guns. And, while we have less shootings per capita than in US, there were also attempts to do mass killings by other means:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38373867

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

#532

Post by smt88 »

DeathArrow wrote: post #529

In some countries in Europe is legal to own guns, but still, the number of shootings per capita doesn't equal that in US. So, arguing that people die by being shot is because people can own guns is the same to arguing that people die in car accidents because people are allowed to won cars.

No one is arguing that the legality of gun ownership is the problem. It's irrelevant because it is a right in the US.

The argument is that the quantity, power, and saturation of guns are unusual.

The US has far, far more guns per capita than any other country[1].

We know from other, similar countries that changing laws works[2], and those changes do include reducing the ease of getting the most powerful weapons.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian...

2. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/world/europe/gun-laws-aus...

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

#533

Post by avianlyric »

DeathArrow wrote: post #529

In some countries in Europe is legal to own guns, but still, the number of shootings per capita doesn't equal that in US. So, arguing that people die by being shot is because people can own guns is the same to arguing that people die in car accidents because people are allowed to won cars.

In most countries it’s legal to own guns in Europe. The difference is they’re tightly regulated and controlled, you can’t buy a gun in a supermarket.

To equate European gun control with US gun freedom is disingenuous in the extreme. They’re not even remotely comparable.

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

#534

Post by emoII »

DeathArrow wrote: post #516

People say that gun owning should be restricted. But are the mass shootings done by people who have a gun permit and legally bought the guns? Also, forbidding guns, doesn't change people minds. If someone has a psychiatric condition he can drive a large truck into the crowd, light up a crowded building or event try to poison a water reservoir, destroy a dam, derail a train, make a bomb using gasoline, fertilizer and…

For sure the psychiatric care in the US is far from sufficient, but that doesn't remove from the fact that guns make causing massive suffering accessible in a way that building a bomb and blowing up a dam doesn't. Guns shouldn't be allowed to be sold OTC, and mental health issues should be taken seriously. Both problems have to be adressed.

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

#535

Post by bruce511 »

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.

Ah yes, the hypothetical dictator defense.

Nothing that said dictator would need support from the military (which has demonstrated it is not necessarily keen to go that route), how well will your "well armed" people fare against well trained soldiers with, um, "tanks" (using tanks here as a catchall for all their weapons.)?

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

#536

Post by geraneum »

DeathArrow wrote: post #529

In some countries in Europe is legal to own guns, but still, the number of shootings per capita doesn't equal that in US. So, arguing that people die by being shot is because people can own guns is the same to arguing that people die in car accidents because people are allowed to won cars.

Are the same people who can own a gun in US can also own a gun in those European countries under the same conditions?

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

#537

Post by multjoy »

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…

>Restricting guns, ammo, attachments, magazine sizes etc are not effective forms of gun control imo

Why?

And the argument of "it's too hard because of the volume already sold" doesn't wash.

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

#538

Post by lelanthran »

Reason077 wrote: post #433
chmod600 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Where many U.S. states permit concealed carry of handguns, handguns are virtually illegal to carry in Canada. Transporting them from your home to the range is legal, but they must be unloaded, locked, and permits are required for the transport." I see no mechanism by which those laws would reduce mass shootings. A mass shooter would simply ignore them. The other policies you mention may be more relevant, but it goes…

> “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…

> 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”.

I don't like the argument that relies on separating out gun crime from other crime to show how you get more gun crime when you have more guns. That's like saying you get more drownings in places that have more residential pools.

It's perfectly correct but only serves to further an anti-gun (or anti-pool) argument.

What I, personally, care about and what matters to the voting population, is whether we are safer in a place where the citizens are legally armed (or not, as the case may be).

Separating the crime into different buckets just to show larger numbers is intellectually dishonest.

Mass shootings are much, much rarer than home invasion and resulting rape, murder or serious assault, and as such deserve a proportionate response.

Let's be honest, if burglars decide to break into your house while you are in it they are not doing so to simply take your stuff. If they wanted your stuff they'd break in when the house was empty.

This scenario is much more frequent than the mass shooting scenario.

Guess which one scares voters more.

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

#539

Post by watwut »

chmod600 wrote: post #385
EugeneOZ wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a foreigner, I have an impression that americans can buy a gun at 18, but cun buy a cigarette at 21. Maybe I’m wrong, but still... Call me an “old-timer” but I do think you could use better psychological tests before letting them buy a gun.

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.

> A 16 year old was effectively an adult not so long ago. Today, an 18 year old is a child.

I ask genuinely - when exactly and where? Voting age was lowered in 1971 to 18, it used to be higher.

Post reply on HN