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

631–640 of 1001 posts

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

#631

Post by doctoroctogon »

shotta wrote: post #627
doctoroctogon wrote: post #625

Question for the pro-gun folks: where is the limit on what a civilian needs to defend themselves? Assuming you agree civilians shouldn’t have nukes. How about fighter jets. What about tanks. What about bazookas. How do you make that call. If, for example, greater than 5 round magazines isn’t the limit, where is the limit and why?

My serious and simple response would be, why are you turning against law abiding citizens instead of focusing on the psycho criminal that was known to police prior to the event?

I’m out here just trying to understand the philosophy and frameworks people are using. I’ve not advocated for a single thing.

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

#632

Post by rjbwork »

krnlpnc wrote: post #79

What if guns were treated similarly to cars? Mandatory training, License w/ renewals, registration w/ renewals, insurance mandatory, yearly inspection mandatory, etc. Personally I feel people should be able to defend themselves while at the same time deterred from stockpiling and accessing mass casualty capable arms.

Sounds good. I'll just be over here making my 1.5 caliber anti material machine gun in my backyard strictly for personal non-commercial usage on private property.

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

#633

Post by yucky »

anothernewdude wrote: post #212
yucky wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect identity politics are too blame, since the rise of that correlates to the increase in shootings. A big part of identity politics is to demonize "the other" and if we're being honest, to shift the blame for all of societal ills onto males. Younger males may not be able to shrug those pressures of as easily as others. I think this also helps explain why girls never shoot up schools, despite having the same ac…

You've got an axe, and you love to grind it. Shootings predate Identity politics.

"the rise of that correlates to the increase in shootings."

I'm not sure where you think you read that there were no shootings prior to the rise of divisive identity politics.

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

#634

Post by nulbyte »

lliamander wrote: post #569
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. The bar is never high enough, the logic never sound enough. The "broad infringements" proposed are never, and will never be, good enough. I find your statement to be a bit disingenuous in that regard. Gun control advocates consistently fail to understand the things they are attempting to regulate, and fail to prov…

I could say the same about gun owners. If only there were a way for the two to come together to work out these problems and find something that works. Something like a conversation. With no yelling.

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

#635

Post by throwaway0a5e »

pjc50 wrote: post #590
calvinmorrison wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the solution really is obvious. Well, from a programmers perspective - it's all about what you are optimizing for. We can end all car related deaths as well by outlawing all automotive vehicles. We can eliminate or curb most sexual diseases by regimenting who one can have sex with. We can end homelessness, by quartering local vagrants in the homes of the citizenry. Solutions are easy. Side effects are less so. If w…

Broadly this is what the downthread "Americans have chosen this" means. An armed, radicalized populace is one that's forever carrying out acts of lethal violence against strangers. Disarm the populace and you get less lethal violence. (The UK has quite a lot of nonlethal violence, mostly alcohol related. We don't need to re-litigate what happened when trying to ban alcohol.) If you rule out disarming, how about de-ra…

>If you rule out disarming, how about de-radicalizing? Many mass shooters leave behind helpful manifestoes detailing their reasoning.

That requires much tougher questions to be asked and a level of cultural self awareness that most people don't have.

Look up the history of prohibition. People thought that they could just ban booze and that would be the easy button that would greatly reduce all sorts of adjacent societal ills.

Guns are the same way. People don't want to ask themselves why some youth are so disaffected they go postal. People don't wanna accept that gangs and traffickers mediating business disputes with bullets are basically doing a sloppy version of what courts do for "real business" disputes with extra steps. People don't wanna ask why so many people are taking their own lives. So they bury their heads in the sand and advocate for various flavors of "ban the guns and everything will be happy." Would it have some marginal impact? Certainly. Will it have the impact that advocates say? Lol.

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

#636

Post by yucky »

jjeaff wrote: post #367
yucky wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect identity politics are too blame, since the rise of that correlates to the increase in shootings. A big part of identity politics is to demonize "the other" and if we're being honest, to shift the blame for all of societal ills onto males. Younger males may not be able to shrug those pressures of as easily as others. I think this also helps explain why girls never shoot up schools, despite having the same ac…

I don't see any undeserved shifting of blame to males. I think you are just playing the victim here. Women simply aren't as violent by nature.

When you look at government programs designed to help those in need, would you say there is an equitable gender distribution in those programs? Or really forget equitable, are there any programs designed specifically for helping males who find themselves suffering in any way? Because I suspect nobody could even count the number designed for females. And not just government programs, but scholarships, hiring initiatives etc. That ratio must be 100-1 at least.

So how is this reality supposed to be processed by males who find themselves stuck? Many, or perhaps most, will internalize it and just push forward. Others will lash out.

Females have a societal safety net designed to catch them when they fall, males do not. I don't think anybody would dispute that, the question is what effect does that have on the psyche of those who are left helpless?

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

#637

Post by nemo44x »

zionic wrote: post #360
nemo44x wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America is ready to go from our republic phase into our empire phase. We only need our Caesar…

If only. We’re trying to skip the empire phase and go direct to collapse

That is a very strong possibility too.

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

#638

Post by tomp »

rswail wrote: post #594
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.

They have and they do. If you recall, there were marches and protests across the US after the Parkland school shooting. However, there are 50+ Senators, disproportionally representing low population, rural states, that are beholden to the NRA and its illegal funding and mis/dis-information campaigns. There are Senators today suggesting that schools be turned into prison-like places (Cruz with his "one door in and out…

> However, there are 50+ Senators, disproportionally representing low population, rural states, that are beholden to the NRA and its illegal funding and mis/dis-information campaigns.

Well, there's the political interpretation (NRA lobbying) and the factual interpretation as well: "low population rural states" i.e. where guns are used for hunting & self-defence (low population but also huge, so low density, so the nearest police/neighbours are so far away you can't always rely on their help)

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

#639

Post by lucozade »

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.

Of course restricting magazines and accessories is not effective. They're only brought into the argument by people who don't want effective gun control.

But restricting guns and ammo is absolutely effective. The UK has a sixtieth of the rate of gun deaths compared to the US. And the UK is no paragon. Its rate is much higher than it should be, in my view, because a lot of gun crime is gang related so does not get the attention it deserves. A more reasonable rate would be closer to Japan's which is about a quarter of the UK's. Much lower and you likely start requiring genuinely authoritarian regimes such as Singapore or HK.

The US could absolutely get to saner gun crime and homicide levels if there was any real will to do so but there isn't. Of course it wouldn't happen overnight but it doesn't have to.

The real problem, in my opinion, is that the US is so de-sensitised to extreme violence that they can never have the equivalent of the collective traumatisation that the UK had after Dunblane. That was the spur we needed to put rational gun laws in place. The balance in the US is so far out of kilter that the seesaw is buried in concrete. Even biblical massacres of innocents can't shift it. So very very sad.

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

#640

Post by Broken_Hippo »

chmod600 wrote: post #358
beloch wrote: post #83

Canada is the U.S.'s neighbour and is probably closer, culturally, than any other nation. Gun ownership is also high in Canada. In terms of guns per capita, the U.S. is #1 by a long shot, but Canada is #7 [1]. In Canada, guns owned per capita is one third of what it is in the U.S.. Canada also has mass shootings. The annual deaths from mass shootings per capita in Canada is 0.032, which is about one third that of the…

"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.

If the guns are illegal, they aren't as easy to get. They aren't in everyone's home. If you break in somewhere to steal a gun, you'll not get a handgun. You know, because most folks aren't willing to hold onto an illegal gun. You aren't going to go to a gun show and buy an illegal gun because those folks don't want the shows shut down.

Which does mean that you'll have to go to the black market. The thing about the black market: If something is harder to come by, you'll be charged more. Same if the penalty is higher. You could see this in the drug market: LSD was generally more expensive than weed. (Still probably is, but I really don't know how pot legalisation has affected black market prices).

If guns are harder to get, there is less chance that a mass shooter will be able to get one. Could it mean that they use other means?

Sure they could. But realistically, those options don't always have the same effect. You could build a bomb, maybe. If you can get the supplies and knowledge to do it. Most options available to the average person, though, aren't going to be as deadly as guns and in general, won't kill so many people in such a short span of time and so many simply aren't as lethal.

In this, it is much like suicides. When gun laws are more strict, fewer people choose guns for a suicide. They choose different methods, though, and most of these are less lethal - which overall means that death by suicide goes down.

For a decent comparison, check Australia, which used to have a similar gun culture.

Post reply on HN