Hacker News Reader

Comment by hkmurakami | Hacker News Reader

>Recent research has shown that it is other mental illnesses, like anxiety disorders, problems with impulse control and addiction, that are actually more strongly linked to suicide attempts.

It's often said that the presence of firearms in the house greatly increases the chances of suicide since it's this spike in despair, hopelessness, and entrapment that causes the overwhelmingly strong compulsion to end things. But if you can ride out this wave, then things revert to the mean.

Firearms don't give you a second chance to rethink things, unlike swallowing sleeping pills or slitting your wrist.

View on HN

Jumping off a bridge or freeway overpass rarely permits you a second chance to rethink things either. Nor does kicking out a stool while hanging from your rafters. Personally I find the assortment of options available comforting.

Those other options take longer and the longer it takes the more difficult it is to act on a momentary impulse. You could grab a gun from next to your bed and end things in a matter of seconds leaving no time for the impulse to pass or for you to reconsider.

This is an important point.

Its easier to resist a cookie that's out of sight in a cupboard than it is to resist a cookie that's sitting right in front of you.

Impulsivity comes from an emotional response within the deeper parts of the brain. The prefrontal cortex needs more time and willpower to really consider an impulse.

With a bridge you still have to do some planning before you can kill yourself by jumping. You have to first find a bridge, go to that bridge, climb on the bridge and then jump off the bridge. That gives you quite a lot of time to reconsider what you're doing. If you have a gun for self defense then you usually carry it around with you all the time. It's just a matter of pulling the trigger.

Plus, just getting out of the house and walking can change your attitude.

What good reasons do people have for owning firearms in urban environments? (Serious)

At least in the U.S. you don't need a reason, yet alone a good one. It would be like asking "what good reason do people have for saying fill in the blank hateful/unpopular/religious things"? Of course no one needs to justify their right to say such things, nor do they need to justify or elaborate reasons for owning a firearm.

If you were genuinely curious, violent crime is easily 2x more prevalent in urban areas. Firearms provide defense for shopkeeps and senior citizens alike.

Defending yourself in case someone breaks into your home - far more likely in an urban area than rural.

And carrying concealed, which is allowed in 42 states, plus many less urban counties of California and New York, and cities in Massachusetts. That's something like (from memory) 72% of the US population, as long as you're an adult 18-21 and haven't committed a felony etc. States with concealed carry right now have issued licenses to 5-10% of the age eligible population, well more than 12 million by now, plus 10 states don't require a license, with Missouri likely to join them by the end of the year.

Guns also become a more important means of self-defense the physically weaker the person, so the need, and observed statistics are weighted towards older people, and the US is rapidly graying with the demographic Baby Boom.

Hunting is also a popular pastime in the US, and is in fact a critical resource in controlling various prey populations after we wiped out the apex predators that used to keep them in check. As it is, deer are now the most deadly animals in the US due to collisions with cars.

Wanting to own one.

That's the good reason for most things that I own. It's something I wanted and I'm allowed to have it therefore I got it.

I have a wife and 5 kids under age 7. Were my family to be confronted with a dangerous criminal, I couldn't possibly defend them all without a gun, and even then it might still be very difficult. So I carry a Glock 22 at all times. It really is that simple -- I'm often surprised at the bewilderment about one's desire to own a gun.

There's a difference between owning a gun and carrying a Glock 22 at all times. It's sad that people imagine themselves in some action film surrounded by violent criminals out for their blood. I take it that where you live there is no police force and that you and your family are always isolated from bystanders who could help, witnesses who would discourage an attack on your family, etc. You've chosen to live in a failed state with your large family, it seems.

Statistically, it's far more likely that one of your children will kill themselves, or a friend, or each other, with your gun than it is that it will be helpful for self-defense. This is going to be a bigger deal as your kids get older.

Statistically, it's far more likely that one of your children will kill themselves, or a friend, or each other, with your gun than it is that it will be helpful for self-defense.

That can't be true, for the number of fatal gun "accidents" per year is ~600 (scare quotes because some number of those are whitewashed murders or negligent homicides), the number of non-suicide homicides is ~11,000, and the number of suicides using a gun ~19,000.

It's very easy to see that the number of self-defense incidents using a gun is substantially larger than those numbers, from anecdotes, to the very lowest formal estimate of 108,000 (see the CDC funded 2013 monograph at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-... pages 15-6). The highest estimates range to 2.5 million, but that was a while ago, and crime rates have continued to decrease.

http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~rhuef/courses/Notes5321-6321/t...

The risk is far greater when there's a gun around, especially for children. Also it's a bit disingenuous to compare death figures with self-defense incidents where the outcome may have been simple property theft. Injury would be more appropriate, and even that fails as a comparison.

Nice move the goalposts, that's for children aged 5–14. And since those ages are completely non-standard in the literature, we can be sure the data set was massaged until they could "prove" their point using just that interval.

Texas is the only state in the nation that allows the use of lethal force to protect property, so your other point fails, while, I grant, it's informally allowed to some extent elsewhere.

Pardon my lack of familiarity with "the literature" and its standard age groups. Good of you to immediately dismiss the data as "massaged." I couldn't even view your study.

Don't the ages 5 and 14 strike you as strange? What boundaries do they fall on? Not any standard one I can remember for young children, and 14 is a bit more common, but it's not when you become a teen, or the traditional coming of age which is also generally 13, and more like 16/18/21 in the modern US.

If you've been in the field of science long enough, you learn the smell of bad studies, and this one is patently obvious. But I can look more closely at it if you insist.

As for viewing "my" study, note the "Download Free PDF" button to the upper middle right, all you have to do is supply an email address to do it as a guest. Or ask and I'll put a copy up.

And since your point was couched as a warning to others, another counter is that it's relatively easy to keep your family from joining the bad statistics by gun proofing your kids (which you should do anyway, since you can't control when they might come into contact with one outside your home), and storing your guns responsibly.

It's sad that people are often confronted by violent criminals. If this time were to come, should we just hope that police and/or bystanders will protect us? Criminals seek situations where neither is readily available.

You're free to make your own decision. I'm not about to pack heat every day for some bogeyman. The few times I've felt threatened, it's been trivial to remove myself from the situation. Awareness and caution can go a long way.

And no, I'm not here to advocate taking your guns away. Just trying to suggest that there are certain downsides to always carrying a lethal weapon, and that given our mostly secure society, people might view it as antisocial.

We seem to be in complete agreement. Personally, I do not conceal carry; however, my point was to state why some might want to do so.

Wow, you've made a lot of assumptions about me and not very charitable ones. Let me address a few of them:

1. I'm not a TV watcher. The last movie I saw was "Frozen", and before that I can't remember. I'm certainly not motivated to live-out some TV action-hero fantasy. Moreover, your comment has a strong expectation that egocentrism undergirds one's actions. My obligation as a father is think of my family before myself. If you're a parent, I hope share this ethos; if not, I hope you develop it before having children.

2. Even if I were motivated by TV, I'm not sure which action film you're referring to. I missed the one where the dad is leaving the store with the wife and kids, pushing a shopping cart full of groceries, is accosted by "violent criminals out for blood", shoots and possibly kills the criminals in front of the children, then makes their epic retreat to safety in the minivan, with the wife on talking to the 911 operator in between sobs and episodes of panic-induced vomiting. No doubt this happy tale ends with permanent hearing damage for all involved, years of court appearances, legal fees, and a possible prison sentence, and the kids in therapy after witnessing human bloodshed by the time their 4th birthday rolls around. Doesn't sound like a movie I'd like to see.

3. I'm not sure why you've assumed that violent criminals don't exist, or exist to such a limited degree that their presence should be referenced mockingly. In the United States in 2014, "[t]here were an estimated 1,165,383 violent crimes (murder and non-negligent homicides, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults) reported by law enforcement." [1] Surely this ought to at least make one pause to consider how to protect one's family.

4. I also don't understand why you think the presence of witnesses or general availability of law enforcement is indefeasible deterrent to violent crime, especially in light of the recent events in Orlando. [2] Finally, the Supreme Court has even ruled that police, et al., are not obligated to protect you. [3] Even if the police appeared on the scene the very moment a crime were committed, they would still be reacting to violent crime that has already occurred, and have no legal duty to intervene.

Source:

1. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2015/september/latest-crime...

2. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/

3. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-pol...

I live in the middle of Montreal and don't own firearms, but I plan on going hunting soon because I want to try to kill my own food, and if I get into it it would be a pretty good reason to own a firearm.

If you want to "kill your own food", you could start by killing poultry with your hands -- and cooking the chicken!

No reason to take it to the macho fantasy of the hunter -- that armed with a 21st century high-tech shotgun kills some deer that never had a chance.

As if the chicken had a chance when you kill it "with your hands"... No reason to be condescending towards another's hobby.

Another's hobby, an animal's death.

Besides, it's not about the chicken having more chances or less. It's that it's a more substantial lesson in "killing one's own food" -- as we eat chicken, beef etc tons of times a year, whereas hunting is 100% hobby and 0% substantial "killing own food".

Speak for yourself. My father and I have a policy that everything we hunt that isn't a varmint (pest control and the like, due to our removal of other apex predators, including dealing with invasive species like coyotes) we also eat. From squirrels and turtledove to elk and moose, and I'm pretty sure that the value of good meat gained by my father's hunting of the latter and mule deer before my mother said NO MORE! (due to the taste) at least covered the expenses of his hunting, which weren't huge. A whole elk or moose goes a long way (I don't remember much about the deer phase, but mule deer aren't small).

So make that at worst 50-50. And there's a lot of poorer people out there for whom the annual deer is a significant and cheap source of high quality meat.

Sounds like the very definition of "outlier". Even if your family does that, nowhere near a significant majority of hunters do anything like 50-50 for hunted vs bought food.

Err, sorry for my lack of clarity, I meant hunting itself is a 50-50 hobby and food collection thing. The one big animal a year back when my father did that, plus upland game birds and miscellania (including the bull frogs I hunted for dissection and giving the legs to my Cajun mother), plus fishing ... maybe as much as 1/3 the year's meat? More than half the red meat, a much smaller fraction of fowl compared to the chicken, and a domestic turkey or three a year.

And that doesn't count veggies (we did garden) plus the cereals that probably accounted for probably over half the calories we consumed.

There need not be a distinction. Your hobby could literally be to kill your own food.

Recreation. Many people enjoy visiting a firing range.

Why not let the firing range own the weapons then, and rent whatever you like for the day? Or at least, why not store them there in an approved gun locker you can rent?

Same reasons most people own a car instead of lease - for one it is yours - every time you go back to the range, your favorite gun is the exact same as when you left, a few thousands rounds have not been thrown through it since. For two it costs less over time, to own if you shoot frequently. For three you are in control of maintenance and upkeep.

Some people do exclusively rent guns and never take them out of the firing range. If this is your only intended use, that's probably the best strategy. However, like others have suggested, an additional reason to own a gun is self-defense; a gun stored at the firing range is completely ineffective in this regard.

Only the latter addresses customization of guns, and I've done a fair amount of that, plus fixing a couple of issues, plus of course all my cleaning of them, at home. Or assembling your own, in the US AR-15 pattern rifles are pretty much the ultimate examples of both.

Because I don't just use one range? Also, I can't shoot intruders with a gun at the range.

I've never understood "guns for self defense". Gun ownership without storing the gun in a proper secured gun locker is completely irresponsible, and is much more likely to lead to your kids or someone else discharging the firearm and injuring/killing someone than it is likely to be useful for self defense. And if you do store your guns appropriately, you won't have time to get them in a self defense situation.

The former is like saying "I won't wear seatbelts so I can get out of the car quickly in case of fire". The latter is saying "I'll buy a fire extinguisher for my car, but I'll keep it locked up under the hood."

And if you do store your guns appropriately, you won't have time to get them in a self defense situation.

Simply not true: https://www.google.com/#q=push+button+gun+safe (Americans are problem solvers, after all; you can also use one with a key and keep that on your person, say, on a string around your neck; this is also what hardening your entrances etc. is about, to give you time to react).

And "appropriately" is really situation specific; I haven't lived in a situation where there was danger of another abusing one of my guns for decades. There's also the pattern of keeping it in your safe until you get home (and if you're really hard core, carrying it until you go to bed). And you're completely ignoring concealed carry, which covers 42+ of the states and ~72% of the US population, 12+ million licensees, and 10 states without a license requirement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11980298

And that's before we even get into the "much more likely", which simply isn't supported by the facts, starting with a 25% drop in the number of fatal gun accidents per year in the period 1980 to now, while both the population and number of guns owned by it roughly increased by 50%.

Note that if you're depending on e.g. Kellerman's studies, they score only fatal outcomes for home intruders as successful defensive gun uses, when the majority don't involve any shots being fired, the vast majority don't involve anyone getting hit by a round, and pistol torso hits resulting in fatality only about 1/4 of the time. Even the biased CDC admits to the utility of guns: https://www.google.com/#q=%E2%80%9CSelf-defense+can+be+an+im...

I guess my main argument against the need for guns for self-defense is that outside the US, only people living in the worst slums of megacities plus people living in the less civilised parts of Africa, Middle East and Latin America feel a need for guns for self defense. Everywhere else people do fine, and it's not like people getting killed in armed home invasions is a problem anywhere civilised. The occurrence of e.g. school shootings are also orders of magnitude lower.

Is that really true for the U.K., where the courts first stripped its subjects of the right to effective self-defense (using more force than the perpetrator) in the 1950s, then the Parliament by statute in the 1960s, and of course this was in the middle of increasing gun control that started more than a century ago and that is now almost total.

Historian Joyce Lee Malcom has pointed out that a steady trend of declining interpersonal violence starting in the 13th Century reversed in a few decades. Others point out that "burglaries" in the U.K. much more frequently take place when dwellings are occupied than in the US. See the British Crime Survey, which as of 2009 said:

There were 284,427 burglaries.

20% of those were face to face.

In 59% of those cases, violence was threatened or used.

In 40% of those face to face encounters, violence was actually used against the householder, a rising number since such statistics were first collected in 2002-3.

If the subjects of the U.K. don't feel a need for guns for self-defense; maybe they aren't getting killed in large numbers, but they're getting brutalized, and that's very bad in a zillion ways.

The very definition of citizen, vs. subject or slave, is one who bears arms in defense of his polity.... (Although that's not something that Black Armband History mentions....)

Your "orders of magnitude" claim about school shootings is flatly WRT to Europe, especially Western Europe (which is significantly larger than the US in population), compare, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Europe and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_th... This is especially true about the ones of larger magnitude.

And yet, there is a 1.5x higher chance per capita of being in a burglary in the US vs UK, and 4x more likely to be killed. Even though US citizens have much higher gun ownership.

https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com

"Being in a burglary", such that you might get killed, counts as robbery in the US, and per that page:

UK robbery incidences: 76,179 (THOSB – CEW page 61, paragraph 2.)

76,179 / 561 = 135.72

US robbery incidences: 354,396 (FBI – CUS)

354,396 / 3116 = 113.7

You are thus 1.1x (135.7 / 113.7) more likely to suffer robbery in the UK than in the US.

Now, robberies in the context of home invasions I don't know, and I didn't see it on that page. Nor did I see where you then got a 4x more likely to be killed if in a house invasion robbery in the US, although I'm quite willing to believe it. But I'll seriously look at that page, the author's inclusion of BCS and NCVS statistics means he's serious (as, e.g., a posting in the current "Dial 911 and get Wall Street" topic notes, US robbery statistics are understated by cities where they don't even bother with them if there's no injury).

At the moment, correct, in most places there is no need to defend against violent crime in most parts of the U.S. It's shortsighted to think it will always be that way. Guns for self-defense is a long-term form of insurance.

Because they're pretty to look at and can make incredibly loud noises / destroy things. Guns are just appealing to own. And plus a properly maintained gun will be more acurate than the one you rent at a range.

None.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com