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

Katie's New Face

nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 337 posts

Re: Katie's New Face

#71

Post by sDlEzAtyoNAz »

crispyporkbites wrote: post #61
sDlEzAtyoNAz wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country, so there's kind of a trade off there. And no, violent criminals don't need guns to hurt you. People have been hurting each other a lot longer than gunpowder has been around.

> You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country Does that really happen enough to worry about? Should I spend my money on a newer, safer car or a gun? Or maybe on more comprehensive healthcare for my family instead? Perhaps on living closer to schools and other amenities so we don't have to drive as much? I can't imagine that there are that m…

>Does that really happen enough to worry about?

Yes, of course it does. There are literally millions of violent crimes in the US in any given year.

>Should I spend my money on a newer, safer car or a gun?

I leave that to you to decide. I don't know you. Bringing a gun into your home might make you less safe if you are an irresponsible person or if you have psychological issues. If you are a responsible person with no psychological issues, but you live in an area that has virtually no violent crime, then it might just be a waste of money.

>I can't imagine that there are that many scenarios where a gun saves the day from violence

There are estimated to be over 100,000 defensive uses of guns in the US each year. The widespread ownership of guns has had a clear influence on the behavior of violent criminals. Particularly, in the US, criminals avoid breaking into homes when they are occupied, because they know many occupants will be armed.

Re: Katie's New Face

#72

Post by bsder »

sDlEzAtyoNAz wrote: post #67
bsder wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country, so there's kind of a trade off there. You don't wish to go here as the statistics are against you. Gun owners are far more likely to have their gun fired in an accident or in a suicide than as genuine defense against a criminal. > And no, violent criminals don't need guns to hurt you. People ha…

>You don't wish to go here as the statistics are against you. What a hilariously arrogant statement. >Gun owners are far more likely to have their gun fired in an accident or in a suicide than as genuine defense against a criminal. Whether your gun is more likely to be used against you or in an accident is almost entirely in your power to control. Whether someone else decides to attempt to make a victim out of you is…

> What a hilariously arrogant statement.

Ad hominem attack required because factual statements do not support any of your arguments.

> Whether your gun is more likely to be used against you or in an accident is almost entirely in your power to control.

Well, if your statement is factually correct, then the statistics show that a huge chunk of gun owners are incompetent.

Your statements are not helping your case.

Re: Katie's New Face

#73

Post by sDlEzAtyoNAz »

bsder wrote: post #72
sDlEzAtyoNAz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You don't wish to go here as the statistics are against you. What a hilariously arrogant statement. >Gun owners are far more likely to have their gun fired in an accident or in a suicide than as genuine defense against a criminal. Whether your gun is more likely to be used against you or in an accident is almost entirely in your power to control. Whether someone else decides to attempt to make a victim out of you is…

> What a hilariously arrogant statement. Ad hominem attack required because factual statements do not support any of your arguments. > Whether your gun is more likely to be used against you or in an accident is almost entirely in your power to control. Well, if your statement is factually correct, then the statistics show that a huge chunk of gun owners are incompetent. Your statements are not helping your case.

>Ad hominem attack required because factual statements do not support any of your arguments.

No other statement is required to address yours because it's a naked assertion.

>Well, if your statement is factually correct, then the statistics show that a huge chunk of gun owners are incompetent.

What does that have to do with the safety of my family?

Re: Katie's New Face

#74

Post by PurpleBoxDragon »

wild_preference wrote: post #56
jbob2000 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She totally could have. But other means of suicide give family and bystanders a chance to intervene. Pills and alcohol can be pumped out of the stomach. You can be pulled down from the edge of a bridge. You can rescue yourself from a hanging if you find you have last minute regrets. A gun is brutally efficient at killing you; Load and pull the trigger. If the gun is lying around loaded, all you have to do is pick it…

Well, maybe we should have a right to die.

Even if we were to agree with such a right, you would have a duty about how you do it to reduce trauma to others and society has a duty to make sure it is a rational choice. Also, even in a world where adults would have that right, but I doubt those under 18 would without special circumstances such as terminal illness.

Re: Katie's New Face

#75

Post by oihoaihsfoiahsf »

crescentfresh wrote: post #47

As a father to two so-far-healthy young boys, one soon to be a teenager I feel devastated at the thought of either of them having to endure the level of emotional chaos that Katie went through the moments leading up to her suicide attempt. My stomach goes into a knot at the thought. I mean gosh, it was a cheating boyfriend. I don't know what to do to protect them from such a path.

What happened to Katie is super sad, but hundreds of thousands of people get dumped and cheated on every year without shooting themselves. I totally understand your feelings, because I also worry for my children.

But I also try to do a few things:

1. Try to help my kids keep things in perspective. Don't hide the risk of pain and failure from them. Instead, warn them that such things will happen, and try to teach resilience.

2. Watch out for signs of depression in my kids. If I ever see them, I'll treat it seriously and get them help as soon as possible.

3. That said, I also try to keep things in perspective myself. There are so many big risks. The best I can do is care for my little ones as best I can.

Re: Katie's New Face

#76

Post by PurpleBoxDragon »

Markoff wrote: post #30
jbob2000 wrote: post #27

> While the two were outside talking about how upset Katie was, she went into the bathroom, put the barrel of Robert’s .308-caliber hunting rifle below her chin, and pulled the trigger. Why did she have access to that gun? I bet Robert considers himself a "safe" gun owner too. Keep your guns locked and separate from your ammunition. Gun culture takes another victim.

better solution would be not having guns at all, you don't see these suicides in Europe or very rarely due to limited access

I see this as on par with banning alcohol to drastically reduce drunk driving. People tend to not support that one because they see, though they would likely never formulate the thought in such a fashion, that having the freedom to buy and consume alcohol is worth the trade off of people drunk driving and the lives ruined by it. Of course, other actions are done to reduce the harm of drunk driving, but people are not willing to give up alcohol for it. Many people, especially in the USA, view guns in the same manner.

I do find it odd that some people who hold the first view concerning alcohol find the second view as being immoral.

Re: Katie's New Face

#77

Post by throwaway987909 »

jonah wrote: post #36
nhfoiwehf wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a problem of their own creation... The DoD didn't invent war. It doesn't declare war. It just fights wars. Who sends our young people to be blown up? Our elected leadership. So we all made this problem.

Fair enough. I think we need to market images of badly disfigured veterans as a tragedy instead of an honor.

I hate the glamorization of the military. I don't understand how anyone would actually join. Sacrifice yourself mentally, and physically to fight political wars for the rich and powerful. No thank you. But the propaganda is soooo strong it preys on people who can't think for themselves.

Re: Katie's New Face

#78

Post by hokumguru »

crispyporkbites wrote: post #61
sDlEzAtyoNAz wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country, so there's kind of a trade off there. And no, violent criminals don't need guns to hurt you. People have been hurting each other a lot longer than gunpowder has been around.

> You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country Does that really happen enough to worry about? Should I spend my money on a newer, safer car or a gun? Or maybe on more comprehensive healthcare for my family instead? Perhaps on living closer to schools and other amenities so we don't have to drive as much? I can't imagine that there are that m…

I believe the CDC estimates the low-end of lives saved by guns in the USA each year to be 300,000. High end to be a few million.

Dwarfs the number of gun deaths

Re: Katie's New Face

#79

Post by pluma »

jdoliner wrote: post #10
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #6

> Much of Katie’s care is being paid for by the Department of Defense, because her youth and ballistic trauma make her a stand-in for wounded warriors. For the rest of her life, she’ll take powerful antirejection drugs with risks of their own, becoming a lifelong subject in the study of this still experimental surgery. Kudos to the DoD for doing this. The military historically has been the driver for advances in surg…

I think I remember reading that the DoD deserves credit for the entire field of plastic surgery, it was originally pioneered to help soldiers who had suffered disfigurement in combat. Only later did it become something for civilian augmentation.

I don't know about the history of plastic surgery in the US, but in Germany apparently a lot of the plastic surgery for veterans was based on experience treating coal miners. Due to the frequent and horrific injuries, some coal mines had extremely good surgical teams and a lot of experience in reconstructive surgery.

Re: Katie's New Face

#80

Post by rhizome »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #57
jdoliner wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I remember reading that the DoD deserves credit for the entire field of plastic surgery, it was originally pioneered to help soldiers who had suffered disfigurement in combat. Only later did it become something for civilian augmentation.

Close - an Ally. It was Gilles at the Royal Army Medical Corps in WW1 who pioneered skin grafts and plastic surgery. He'd done thousands of facial reconstructions by war's end. He set up a plastic surgery clinic between the wars. A relative of his, McIndoe, became famous (the better known of the two today) for his work in WW2 for pioneering and inventing many treatments for burn victims. Burns had become a common inj…

Relevant story: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/anna-coleman-ladd-masks-191...
Post reply on HN