1,000 mass shootings in 1,260 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like | Hacker News Reader

1,000 mass shootings in 1,260 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like

theguardian.com

30 pointssergeant347 comments

This particular article relies on shock value of a single image (hardly a graph) and is devoid of analysis, so it accomplishes nothing but inflame passions. I don't believe this contributes to a productive discussion (HN guidelines).

Articles that offer analysis with their statistics are more informative:

[1] (Published 2015, updated 2016-06-12) http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-sta...

[2] http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-united-s...

[3] http://www.salon.com/2015/08/27/mass_shootings_and_the_dark_...

To bad hn has a no topic downvote policy (only comment downvote)

but thank you for pointing out what alot of people got caught up in / missed - this article relies on shock value of a single image (hardly a graph) and is devoid of analysis

This is what America's softly regulated human driving crisis looks like: "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads, and 4.4 million were seriously injured, meaning 2015 likely was the deadliest driving year since 2008."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/18/467230965/...

This is a red herring. Just because there are also a frightening number of driving fatalities doesn't mean we shouldn't better regulate firearms. It means we should ALSO better regulate driving.

Ah, but priorities, priorities.

Which should we regulate first? The media is leading me to believe that the "gun crisis" is the most pressing issue and that aggressive regulation will lead to the greatest gains in terms of preventing loss of life.

It could be classified as a red herring. But I think he is trying to point out that the potential deaths a regulation will prevent does not correlate well with how much media coverage it receives.

Can I get some stats on what America's softly regulated medical malpractice crisis looks like?

> between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-many-die-from-medical...

A car is designed to get you from A to B.

A gun is designed to kill.

Then it's impressive that one is far more fatal than the one designed to kill.

Can we get a combined statistic on how many drivers & shooters were under the influence of serious prescription drugs?

How many guns were used to safely transport people on U.S. roads from one place to another?

Luckily, this has become a huge focus for many of our most innovative companies. As someone who commutes in a car daily, I can only hope mass use of self-driving cars is soon a reality.

Humans are more afraid of gun violence than car accidents. Since we pass laws for the benefit of humans, it is fitting and proper to consider what they fear in the cost assessment.

If we ever start making laws for robots, then I'll get behind your passionless and ultra-rational account of death totals. But, for now, the laws we make are for meat bags and that's why your comment is a non sequitur.

> Humans are more afraid of gun violence than car accidents.

Well maybe we wouldn't be so afraid of gun violence if the media wasn't such a fear-mongering agenda-driven political entity.

Maybe we should regulate the media instead of guns.

> Maybe we should regulate the media

  Donald Trump revokes Washington Post press credentials

http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/13/media/donald-trump-washingto...

but i totaly agree with you. Much of our fear of guns is from media. They could probably make us all terrified of going out in our cars if it helped them sell more page views.

You have this backwards. The reason the media focuses on shootings and not daily car accidents is because they know which one we fear more. They didn't create the fear. They're exploiting it.

The only two comments so far are relating gun deaths and car deaths. Those are totally off base, and feels like astroturfing to me.

If we want to understand gun violence, we need to proceed on one front: science. We need to enable researchers to study guns, gun policy, and gun violence. We need to provide funds to do so. The state of research is none, zilch; we don't allow it. Once we understand it, then we can proceed with policies that will decrease gun violence but balance our constitutional rights.

Agreed. In addition to constructing scientifically valid experiments to gain insight into the dangers of guns as it relates to policy there should also be funds for researching if more guns make people safer, if gun-free zones are more dangerous and things of that nature.

Everyone needs to set aside their opinions and emotions and we would all be better if we gathered data objectively and studied it.

  "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked."

  – Goering, at the Nuremberg trials, on how to control a population

There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which catalogues such incidents. A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant.

The National Safety Council says it currently estimates that last year, "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads, and 4.4 million were seriously injured.

This means that in 2015, cars killed 20x more people than mass shootings.

If all life is equal than why is there no outcry against laws that prohibit Tesla and other self deriving vehicles?

There was tons of legislation since the 70s to make roads safer. Seatbelt laws, manufacturer requirements, etc. So yea.. It is pretty consistent with the outcry for more responsible gun control laws. The main problem is no one can communicate about it intelligently and it results in a bunch of chest beating on either side.

What would be the equivalent of seat belts etc for guns? Certainly not banning barrel shrouds and other things that make guns "look scary" nor limiting what types of guns can be bought, which is what a lot of the gun control side argues for.

I'm not sure this analogy can go very far, unfortuantely.

Indeed. Or guns would be required to come with suppressors to protect people's ears. But instead that's a class III stamp.

The two viewpoints are completely opposed, and there is no reasonable compromise.

One side says that guns designed with the obvious and explicit goal of effectively killing numerous people should be banned so that they cannot be misused.

The other side says that guns designed with the obvious and explicit goal of effectively killing numerous people are necessary, in keeping with the Constitutional amendment which was drafted to ensure that if it ever became necessary the American citizens would once again have the means to cast off their oppressors and begin anew.

> The other side says that guns designed with the obvious and explicit goal of effectively killing numerous people are necessary, in keeping with the Constitutional amendment which was drafted to ensure that if it ever became necessary the American citizens would once again have the means to cast off their oppressors and begin anew.

Cue the progressives who claim this was not the original intent of the 2nd amendment, guns would be of no use in a revolution because the military is so crushingly powerful, etc.

Why don't people worry about cars as much as they should? There's a lot of research on how people perceive risks [1]. People are much more afraid of risks that are imposed externally (e.g. getting randomly shot) vs voluntary (driving). Catastrophic things (plane crashes) are feared more than chronic risks (car crashes). Control vs no control makes people less afraid of car crashes (since they are nominally in control). Risk vs benefit makes people less fearful of cars (since they benefit). Uncertainty makes people fear nuclear power and GMOs.

[1] Slovic's "Perception of Risk", 1987 is the fundamental risk perception paper: http://heatherlench.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/slovic.pd...

For a nice list of factors, see http://niemanreports.org/articles/understanding-factors-of-r...

The 4 person including assailant definition for a "mass shooting" has always seemed cherry picked to include the "depressed guy kills wife and kids scenario" even though the term brings to mind some sort of broadly antagonistic attack on the public at large.

It's a propaganda effort designed to lend credence to the idea that gun control can somehow be effective. It caught on because the media at large seemingly despise guns and are are loath to acknowledge that anyone cam make one in their garage, let alone that none of the millions of current gun owners are at all likely to ever give them up.

Because many people need a car to function (get to work, shops, take kids to school). Nobody needs a gun to function.

> Because many people need a car to function (get to work, shops, take kids to school).

I'm not sure that's a compelling argument. One could easily counter that people could move to be closer to work and/or school. Cars are "needed" because of the life choices people make.

> Nobody needs a gun to function.

If we apply consistent logic, there are people who need guns to function just as much as others need cars. Folks who live in the wilderness of Alaska and make a substantial living off the land need guns to hunt animals and acquire food. Sure they could hunt with a bow, but people could also get to work on bicycles.

Even people who NEED a car have to be licensed to operate one, and there are consequences if you use one without. Perhaps people should be licensed to have guns as well?

There's also a lot of studies into car safety. Perhaps it would make sense to spend some money studying gun safety, as well?

The Alaska/hunting point is a good one - I fully agree here. I think what a lot of people disagree with is the laws allowing possession of an AR-15 assault rifle and it's kin

> I think what a lot of people disagree with is the laws allowing possession of an AR-15 assault rifle

What's the difference between an AR-15 "assault rifle" (whatever that means) and a hunting rifle used in Alaska?

Likely nothing. They probably have the exact same ammo, capabilities, and the differences are purely cosmetic.

What's the economic value we derive from cars each year, vs the same number for guns? (Total sales would be a reasonable proxy). What's the ratio of that to deaths?

All lives are equal, but all fears aren't. Since we pass laws for the benefit of humans, it is fitting and proper to consider what they fear in the cost assessment. The ultra-rational approach you describe might appeal to the HN crowd, but there's nothing wrong with noticing what kinds of laws make us feel safer and preferring them.

Fear affects lives. Fear matters. Why wouldn't it?

There is a categorical difference in how a person could die because he crashes his own car into a tree and another one shooting at other people. Car deaths are terrible, and many are involuntary (someone killing someone else), but many are self inflicted and the driver is reasonably assuming that risk. The risk of walking out of your home and getting shot by a lunatic is an unmitigated externality. Its not a risk for a person to assume.

> The risk of walking out of your home and getting shot by a lunatic is an unmitigated externality.

True, but also way less likely than getting killed by some lunatic looking at their phone while driving. Hence the disconnect in the media's treatment of gun deaths vs auto deaths.

The difference here is that guns are created for one purpose, killing another person. People aren't buying up cars with the intent of killing others.

> The difference here is that guns are created for one purpose, killing another person.

Or hunting, or target shooting.

So killing 'something'. I'm not even going to entertain target shooting as a valid reason for the existence of guns.

For starters, because driving IS regulated and licensed. I agree that there should be stronger licensing requirements, but no one is arguing for "no drivers licensing at all."

Because when one car crashes into another and a family of four dies, the odds are likely it was an accident. It's a tragedy, certainly, but you rarely read news articles about a crazed maniac who got into his car with the express purpose of running down pedestrians.

When a gunman takes a gun into a public area and starts shooting people, that's not an accident. It might be a failure of mental health, but it was also a deliberate choice.

In my mind, DUI "accidents" are not actually accidents. Someone deliberately made a choice to drive under the influence of drugs, and that choice is tantamount to murder in my mind.

You mean it's likely a drunk murdered them. Drunk driving is as unforgivable as shooting innocents.

CDC mortality statistics[1] show violent deaths (including those with firearms involved) have been trending down since the 70's. Gun ownership has gone up in that same period of time[2]. In fact, violent death is no longer in the top 15 ways to die. Accidents is #4, and sadly, Intentional self-harm (suicide) is #10.

We have a terrorist attack on US soil against a minority that is thrown off buildings, decapitated, and hung in other parts of the world because of who they are. Maybe people should focus on the who and why instead of demonizing the what.

I guess its easier to blame some object, but the object is not the problem. Ask the folks at the Boston Marathon a couple of years back. Ask the families of 9/11 victims.

1) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

2) which would make you think the media would know what an AR-15 is, but one wasn't used, but it was reported

What are some practical approaches (i.e. without regulating firearms) we can take to tackle this problem? We know that there is no way to change gun laws in the US, so it feels like that particular debate is pointless in the midst of a crisis. If we avoid this debate (at least for a time) we might be able to point our efforts towards achievable policy that could really save lives even if it isn't "perfect".

Does gun violence primary stem from mental-health issues or from easy access to firearms?

Both, but mainly access to firearms, though if a person can't get a gun, they will use bombs or arson. I don't know what the answer to gun control is, but I do think its more of a social problem than a gun problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com