Comment by maxxxxx | Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxxxxx | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Personally I would prefer stricter gun control but the usual argument is probably that a mass shooter won't go where he knows that people have guns. So you could argue that having people with guns in a location avoids mass shootings.

I think the effectiveness of any gun control measures in the US will be determined by what any legislation is trying to stop. Is it these (relatively?) rare incidents of mass murder, is it gun violence related to drugs/gangs/poverty, is it trying to stop accidental deaths involving children and unsecured firearms, or is it trying to stop domestic violence related deaths? From the perspective of someone who enjoys target/trap shooting a handful of times a year, the hysteria in the media about "high powered military grade automatic AR-15's" seems to be pushing gun owners away from a reasonable middle ground (perhaps a registry of guns to reduce domestic violence and mental illness related deaths or make it easier to track straw buyers fueling gang related violence?). Personally I think the failure to act on this is just another example of how broken the political system is - both sides yell at each other, the media routinely reports half truths, and the middle ground of common sense that most people seem to have is lost in the "debate".

Stricter gun control laws don't do anything to prevent mass shootings. Look at the cities who have the strictest gun laws. Places like Chicago and New York City. They have some of the countries' highest gun violence rates. If you want an obscene example? look at Mexico where guns are banned completely. Sure doesn't stop gun violence does it??

You can also look at how over the past 20 years as gun ownership has increased in the US, violent crimes (including gun crimes) have continues to decrease - something Obama likes to tout.

So no, stricter gun control laws do not reduce gun crimes.

> So no, stricter gun control laws do not reduce gun crimes.

There is solid evidence against that point of view, and has been discussed/disproven numerous times. https://vimeo.com/97417009

The US is a special case compared to Australia, for sure, due to the massive difference in population. However many countries in Europe with similar population densities can manage low rates of mass shooting homicide via gun control laws...

many countries in Europe with similar population densities can manage low rates of mass shooting homicide

True...

via gun control laws

... but this is unproven I think. Europe also has much better social security and mental health care, to name just a few confounding factors.

but this is unproven I think. Europe also has much better social security and mental health care, to name just a few confounding factors.

I do agree, to be honest

There is also solid evidence that when you have more guns, you have less crime - something I pointed out in my original post.

Another Harvard study concluded the same thing:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_Kate...

While American gun ownership is quite high, many other developed nations (e.g., Norway, Finland, Germany, France, Denmark) have high rates of gun ownership," said the report. "These countries, however, have murder rates as low or lower than many developed nations in which gun ownership is much rarer. For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002."

Number of mass shootings is so low that "gun violence rates" may be completely unrelated to the number of mass shootings.

You can certainly argue that gun crime rates are what matter, but don't confuse the two.

It's only that way because in those places, the laws weren't strict enough. If they stripped searched everyone and controlled access with metal doors all over the place, it would work. It would be a nice and safe - like prison. /s

Why dont you look at Europe and see how many mass shootings we have each year per capita?

Or why doesn't he look at India? Why didn't you ask about India? Or Sri Lanka. Or anything.

You respond to his cherry picking by suggesting a different cherry picking.

He probably chose Europe because its easier to make a like-for-like comparison to in terms of culture, wealth and religion.

But it's not a good comparison at all... massive wealth inequality, a broken health care system that makes people fearful of getting sick, and violently partisan media and political climates... The United States of America is so unlike Europe that it's hilarious.

Bunch of small racially homogenic nation-states with relatively even income distribution vs. large country where racial and very poor minority shoots itself. Latter also has gang culture. Something most Europeans only see in movies and football matches.

U.S. is pretty unique in many ways.

how about Australia? Canada? Europe?

Estonia had a school shooting last year. Sweden had a mass-stabbing at a school[0] last October.

Canada had a school shooting this year[1].

Australia remains free of murder sprees since that one that convinced everyone to trade-in (or bury) their guns.

0. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/world/europe/western-swede...

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/canada-school-shooting-s...

And because we are HN readers we dont care about statistics only individual incidences..

I live in Canada and I did not hear of Canadian shooting. Thanks for bringing "Canada’s worst school violence in a decade" (4 people dead) to my attention. Because the only shooting news I hear about are from USA. Maybe, due to their sheer number of deaths? Or due to how often they happen? hhmmm

You shouldn't need to carry a gun to enjoy a basic level of safety in our society.

I'll be sure to bring that up at the next care bear meeting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com