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

921–930 of 1001 posts

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

#921

Post by cypress66 »

dncornholio wrote: post #571
cypress66 wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As tragic as these events may be, the probability of your kids dying to a school shooting is still incredibly low, and a few orders of magnitude less than car accidents. Doing some quick math, it seems like it's around 100 to 1000 times more likely that some kid dies to some accident than a mass shooting. But people don't seem to worry 1000 times more about these accidents than school shootings. And it would actually…

> the probability of your kids dying to a school shooting is still incredibly low It's only about 50000% higher than in any other place of the world. Is this what you say to you children? That they don't get to get unlucky???????? School should be one of the safest places of the world. People are discussing what COVID will do to the future of their kids. I wonder what living in fear will do instead, which has a much…

No post body was provided.

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

#922

Post by nradov »

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.

Which psychological tests specifically? In general there is no test that can reliably quantify an individual's propensity toward violence.

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

#923

Post by paulryanrogers »

dgfitz wrote: post #847
paulryanrogers wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes you have to eat an elephant one bite at a time. If guns weren't such a charged issue then more of us would advocate to directly outlaw private gun ownership. Guns add little value to people's lives and are likely to amplify poor decisions into death and serious injury.

> If guns weren't such a charged issue then more of us would advocate to directly outlaw private gun ownership. Surely you're aware of the second amendment. I'm not sure how your proposition and said amendment can live in the paradigm.

Perhaps the US should amend the constitution more often? Instead of bitterly fighting over supreme court seats?

And if that's asking too much then maybe the country really is too big and diverse to be governed as a single nation. Anyway, just thinking out loud.

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

#924

Post by paulryanrogers »

wyager wrote: post #768
paulryanrogers wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes you have to eat an elephant one bite at a time. If guns weren't such a charged issue then more of us would advocate to directly outlaw private gun ownership. Guns add little value to people's lives and are likely to amplify poor decisions into death and serious injury.

> Guns add little value to people's lives This is a facially absurd claim to make based on the extremely motivated behavior of tens of millions of Americans. > are likely to amplify poor decisions into death and serious injury For a very questionable definition of "likely". As someone who actually performs explicit risk calculations, I am vastly more worried about hundreds of other risk sources to which I have daily…

Risk factors aren't mutually exclusive. People can advocate and the government can act on more than one issue at a time.

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

#925

Post by coinbasetwwa »

lliamander wrote: post #914
BobbyJo wrote: post #685

I think a good first step everyone can agree on to stop gun violence is: stop it's gamification. Almost every mass shooting in the last decade was someone looking for media attention and high score. And yet, every shooting is followed by detailed biography and a tally of bodies. Something as simple as a one month moratorium on information for anyone outside the community would probably work wonders, as the public eye…

I agree, but I also think a more controversial step is needed: eliminate gun free zones. If the expected outcome of an attempted mass shooting is a quick and ignominious death it will be a major deterrent. Teachers and administrators have been voluntarily carrying concealed firearms in Utah for roughly a decade.

This is the solution people should get behind. You can’t wave a magic wand and make 320 million guns disappear, the alternative is much simpler.

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

#926

Post by 908B64B197 »

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…

Sadly, the links you posted as a source for the annual deaths from mass shootings per capita make it clear the two numbers don't even measure the same things:

> For example, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) defines a mass shooting as a single attack that happens in a public place and in which three or more people are killed with a firearm. However, most other stat trackers require at least four fatalities. Similarly, some databases include events in which at least four people were wounded, but not necessarily killed. Others do not. Some databases include occurrences in which the shooter killed only family members (but still in a public place, such as a restaurant). Others do not. Some databases include organized terrorist attacks, armed robberies gone wrong, and gang-related shootings. Other databases discard some or all of these incidents. In fact, in a 2019 study that compared four different databases, the number of mass shooting events recorded in the U.S. for the year 2017 ranged from a low of 11 to a high of 346. Clearly, a significant error margin exists, particularly when creating country-to-country comparisons.

> Transporting them from your home to the range is legal, but they must be unloaded, locked, and permits are required for the transport.

Why not make transporting a firearm illegal if it's done with the intent of committing a crime? There's a well defined notion of intent in criminal law. Why are guns magically exempt from this and the assumption is immediately made that the owner is malicious?

> The harsh reality may be that the number of guns per capita floating around really is an important factor.

To me it points toward the opposite conclusion. People will just commit mass murders differently. Now, these won't get labelled as mass shooting so the stats will look better. [0] [1] [2] [3] [4].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafia_family_murders

[1] https://nypost.com/2020/11/03/quebec-police-release-new-deta...

[2] https://www.the-sun.com/news/2445508/toronto-van-attack-ince...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London,_Ontario_truck_attack

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Calgary_stabbing

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

#927

Post by throwntoday »

spicymaki wrote: post #604
neartheplain wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Canada is the U.S.'s neighbour and is probably closer, culturally, than any other nation. Your point about cultural similarity holds true mainly for descendants of European immigrants. The shared culture here isn't just Marvel movies but values passed down among families from the Old Country like a Christian moral framework, Anglo-American law, the Protestant work ethic, Puritan attidues towards sex, etc. If you bre…

You are dodging the issue with white nationalist talking points. The issue at hand is not the black murder rate. The discussion is should we restrict assault weapons, limit access to who can purchase firearms (via licensing, safety training, etc.), limit ammo capacity, etc in order to reduce mass shootings. Texas has a strong gun culture, Christian culture, NRA approved and funded government, extremely lax gun contro…

Australians also got forcefully corraled into Covid-19 camps as a result of having no means to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.

You seem to misunderstand the situation here. Guns are not and will not ever be going anywhere. Mass shootings can be prevented, and the solution has nothing to do with gun control.

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

#928

Post by wyager »

groggo wrote: post #908
wyager wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's time we start legislating based on empirical evidence instead of lofty ideals. I would take anti-gun people more seriously if they actually paid attention to what this entails. For one, anti-gun enthusiast would stop going on about "assault rifles", because only around 200 people a year in the US are killed by rifle homicides. It's totally negligible. Less frequent than blunt instrument homicides. Yet, that's…

random mass shootings are so horrific that we should do something to make them less lethal. Even if focusing on hand guns instead would statistically save more lives.

If your primary concern is reducing horror (which I think is not reasonable from a utilitarian basis), take it up with the media.

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

#929

Post by wyager »

pnutjam wrote: post #862
wyager wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's time we start legislating based on empirical evidence instead of lofty ideals. I would take anti-gun people more seriously if they actually paid attention to what this entails. For one, anti-gun enthusiast would stop going on about "assault rifles", because only around 200 people a year in the US are killed by rifle homicides. It's totally negligible. Less frequent than blunt instrument homicides. Yet, that's…

There are plenty of people advocating for limits on ammunition, or other reasonable stuff; but go ahead with your strawman.

I suspect whatever you have in mind for "ammunition limits" is not even slightly reasonable under careful consideration.

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

#930

Post by lliamander »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #779
brightball wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fwiw, pointing a gun at somebody is considered brandishing a firearm and is illegal. At least that's what I was told by an instructor years ago.

I think I read on HN (!) that it is also assault.

IANAL, but this is correct[1]. Battery is when you actually hurt the other person.

[1]https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault

Post reply on HN