Hacker News Reader

Comment by KirinDave | Hacker News Reader

The subject of the conversation is gun deaths. That's why. We weren't talking about knives, ropes, shuriken, or feral animal mauling.

> And if we compare all murder rates (not just those committed using guns), there is very little evidence that guns being available to law-abiding citizens as well as to criminals (even if that makes it easier for criminals to get guns) causes higher murder rates.

Citation needed. Every source I can find suggests that the US has more violent crime per unit population than most other developed countries in the world, and in terms of actual fatalities gun crime leads.

Can you provide some sources for this assertion?

> There are many countries with strict gun control laws that have higher murder rates than the US.

Which first world countries with strict gun control laws have a higher overall murder rate? Because it's not fair to compare underdeveloped nations to developed nations in terms of public order.

View on HN

"The subject of the conversation is gun deaths."

But it's a wholly irrelevant metric. The argument is 'we should restrict guns in the US because they're causing more people to be killed than in other countries'. But if in other countries people are being bludgeoned, then what good would restricting guns do? Hence, you need to compare murder rate, not gun murder rate. This is such an obvious point, I don't see any way someone using only gun deaths in the US isn't begin deliberately obtuse.

"Can you provide some sources for this assertion?"

Well how about an obvious one, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... . Of course it's easy to pick a bunch of countries, like say based on GDP and then completely ignore geographic and socio-economic circumstances and say 'look at horrible the US is!' (this is the tactic most anti-gun lobbyists use - taking Western Europe and comparing the gun deaths there to the gun deaths in the US, and then go all 'tss tss look at how backwards the US is').

But if you look at the total number of homicides, the US is in the middle of the pack, with less homicides per capita than say Argentina, or Lithuania, or Turkey; and the same as, say, Iran - which I imagine (although I'll admit I haven't looked into it) has very strict gun laws. Or even Mexico - but then people say 'but but drug war!'. Sure, but so is the US; i.e. a large percentage of homicides are part of drug-related crime violence. It's easy to cherry pick a few countries that have lower homicide rates than the US and say 'it's because of stricter gun laws'.

And yet Switzerland is near the top of that list (i.e., few homicides - depends on how you sort it, obviously :) ) and the Swiss have gun ownership rates comparable to those of the US! Could it be (gasp!) that overall economic prosperity, social homogeneity and income equality are better predictors of homicide (and other crime) rates? No that can't be it, we need to take the guns away!

You can say it's irrelevant, but obviously lots of us find it quite relevant. (Telling us again it's irrelevant is not persuasive.)

I also don't need to look to other countries to ask whether a given law makes sense. If it makes sense (reduce the prevalence of guns to curb gun deaths), I'd vote for that no matter what other countries were doing. If the cultural mix here makes guns more deadly than in a more uniform society, well, then that's just what we're dealing with, and let's figure out what to do about guns deaths in that context instead of saying "well, can't do nothin'."

Aaaand, if we're talking about developed nations, then neither Argentina, Lithuania, nor Turkey are on that list. They're all still considered developing nations. Saying that the U.S. is in the middle of the pack of developing nations is pretty shameful for us.

I read your comment three times; I'm really trying to interpret it generously; yet I fail to conclude anything else than that you're saying:

- 'I don't care about no stinking facts! I feel xyz, and you haven't changed my feelings, so nanana!' (your references to what 'a lot of you find relevant' for no apparent reason, and how it 'makes sense')

- You're rather presumptuous, provincial and frankly borderline xenophobic in your assumptions about other countries. Because these countries have a lower GDP, they're some backwater shitholes that can't be compared to the US? Because for example Argentina isn't all that far behind the US in, say, the human development index (because I happened to have a tab open on that from looking it up for another comment in this thread). If that hurts your little feelings of assumed American superiority over other countries in every aspect, well then that's on you.

(PS and this is not even considering that the US is a huge country and that it makes more sense to compare per state; which makes my points all the more poignant. I mean, let's talk about homicide rates for Idaho; or New Hampshire; or Wyoming and compare those to other countries! Geez those Canadians and French are even more murderous than those New Hampshirites who don't even have to register any gun they buy!).

(edit: added newline because my list was smashed into one paragraph; replaced 'racist' with 'xenophobic')

How is this borderline racist? If you can't defend that accusation you should not add it. The point in question here was the choice of which countries to compare US to, and the other comment about the ranking has no links to race that I can see.

Fair enough, that wasn't a right choice of words; I meant more 'xenophobic'. I've changed the wording.

"I don't care about stinking facts."

So...show me facts? Or some sort of reasoning? I mean, throw me a bone here. You walked into a conversation where we're talking about gun deaths and said "gun deaths are irrelevant!! talk about deaths overall!" Well, no, because we're specifically talking about gun deaths. (Hey, if it makes you uncomfortable, maybe you could hit the range and blow off some steam with a little target practice!)

"You're rather presumptuous, provincial and frankly borderline racist".

We were talking about developed nations. A few different groups put together lists of developed nations, based on various criteria (income, health, whatever). Maybe you didn't actually know this, but that phrase is a, what do you call it, a term of art among economists and social scientists?

So I found one list that included Lithuania, and one that included Argentina. Didn't find one that included Turkey (and I'm not surprised, based on their economy, government, quality of life, etc). This, of course, isn't about race at all, but about the ways mainstream economists and social scientists talk about various countries.

If you think there's a racial component to "developed nations," by all means, take it up with the UN or the CIA or whoever. Hey, you can tell them it's irrelevant, too!

"So...show me facts? Or some sort of reasoning?"

...

I've done nothing but that everywhere in this thread; and I'm the only one doing it, too. Maybe Wikipedia isn't serious enough for you; sorry that I didn't copy and paste the references at the bottom of the Wikipedia page as more 'authoritative'. But maybe Wikipedia is in on it, of course; it's well known to be a bastion of nut cases who are in bed with the Big Weapons lobby (/s, just to be sure). But feel free to point out any factual inaccuracies you find.

"We were talking about developed nations."

Sure, a criterion which you are reducing to 'GDP', because otherwise you can't end up with Western Europe only (OK, plus Australia). Which is a silly criterion, as evidenced by those economists and social scientists making different metrics, such as the human development index. And let that be exactly what I've referenced above! I seem to know much better than you what this term means, whereas you conveniently ignore half of what I'm writing.

"take it up with the UN or the CIA or whoever"

Many government organizations use 'developed nation' in a very specific, economic way; which essentially boils down to 'per capita income > some cutoff'. And as a metric for some economic behaviors or classification for regression analysis, this makes sense. But this is not the sort of 'developed' that matters in this discussion.

"If you think there's a racial component to "developed nations,""

OK, I've conceded before that that was a poor choice of words and I've replaced 'racist' with 'xenophobic'; it was not the objective to make this into a debate on how exactly to define racism in this context. That being said, I still don't see how you can explain your peculiar definition of 'developed' as anything else than 'racist'. I mean, having minimum sentences for crack (a 'black' drug) three times higher than those for cocaine (a 'white' drug) is racist; how is cherry picking a bunch of countries so that they're all conveniently predominantly white and then saying that all 'those others' are such a bunch of barbaric sub humans that they can't even be expected to not murder each other all day every day be construed as anything but 'racist'?

I know that you didn't use those words, and I don't even think you actually think that way (I mean, no sane person could think that way). That's why I said 'borderline' - because the underlying correlation there is clear, even if there any many ways to rationalize it away (because, surely, crack is more dangerous than powder cocaine, and redlining is not racist because hey our data shows that neighborhoods x, y and z have higher default rates - again, /s just to be sure).

So let me get this straight. You've got one key example in a dataset that otherwise has a highly suggestive curve and you don't say, "Interesting outlier, I wonder what other factors are at play?"

I'd love nothing more than to try a grand experiment of having our government sign up for the same social programs and tax rates that the Swiss enjoy. It's a pretty incredible country.

But they have so many other key components of a healthy society, as you set up. We can't have trivial access to highly lethal weapons and then go, "Mental illness, serious income inequality, the total lack of a living wage, lobbyist-driven politics that make no one happy, normalization of violence, a militarized police force... None of these are our problem!"

Gun ownership is a profound responsibility and cannot be for everyone. If we cannot begin to enforce some basic standards than we need to reevaluate the entire concept.

And that means a lot of things that people are very opposed to, like a wholly socialized public health system. If the free market was capable of delivering on this, it would have by now.

So you ask me for data, I provide it, and then you move the goal post by saying 'but but but Switzerland doesn't count because reasons that have nothing to do with guns'?

But hey, this is your lucky day, because as it so happens there are other countries where firearms are available not only to criminals so that those criminals can more easily rob and murder law-abiding citizens!

So you're saying about social programs and tax rates; OK let's take the Czech Republic. Let me copy/paste from Wikipedia to set the stage:

    Income taxes in Czech Republic are levied at a flat rate of 15% on gross income with an additional 7% solidarity tax surchage for individuals making over 48 times the average wage (CZK 1,277,328 annually in 2015). The corporate tax rate in 2015 was 19%.

(hey I'd sign for those tax rates! And better than the US too!) and SS you can read on https://www.justlanded.com/english/Czech-Republic/Czech-Repu... .

So how about them guns in CZ? Well you do need a permit, but you can give any reason you want, and you'll be issued a permit unless you have some priors, or failed the exams you need. If you selected 'self defense' as the reason for your permit, you get to carry concealed, too! There are about 1/2 million permits issued, out of a population of 10 million. Not quite US levels but still enough to suspect that the Czechs would be going around shooting each other left and right every day, right? Well actually their homicide rate is 0.7 compared to the 0.5 of the Swiss, and the 1.4 of Canada and 0.9 of the UK.

Sure sure you say, but them Czech are an exception, like the Swiss!

OK then how about Italy? Again, you do need a licence to own a gun, but you'll get one unless you have a criminal record or are an alcoholic or some other restrictions; and once you have your licence it's valid for common 'assault rifle' ammunition like 5.56 nato (for AR15) or 7.62 nato (for your AK74)! Man those murderous Italians with their 'assault rifles' - must be a bloodbath there every day! tabs back to Wikipedia page Uh, look at that, homicide rate of 0.8!

But but but you say - those are all - uh - either ex-commies, or they consume above-average amounts of pasta! Surely those countries are special! Well then let's look at other countries where law-abiding citizens can legally buy guns. Take Sweden, number 9 on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_c... . Yes, with only 1/4th as many guns per capita as the US, but the question is how easy it is to get access to a gun. Well, you either take a hunting exam or join a shooting club, and you'll get a licence and can buy a gun. Homicide rate - 0.9.

But but but you say - statistical significance! Still only a handfull! OK, there are a few more countries that have loose gun laws, and they have higher homicide rates; yet there are insufficient countries to draw a conclusion one way or another. So let's look at the US again, because as it so happens the US functions almost as a continent and we have numbers per state; states that by population, GDP and many other metrics might as well be compared to countries. New Hampshire? Idaho? Utah? Vermont? Wyoming? All 'middle of the pack' homicide rates when compared to other countries, even when you cherry-pick those countries without civilian ownership (like taking 'only OECD countries', or 'only Western European countries' like so many gun control advocates like to do). And those states aren't exactly the ones with the strictest gun laws either, to put it mildly.

Look, I'm not going to convince you one way or the other anyway, my original point was that the claim that 'data shows that civilian gun ownership causes high murder rates' is wrong, and that those who do claim so only can make their point by cherry-picking or deliberate misrepresentation of the issue. That's what rubs me the wrong way about it. Either there is a point and then it can be made fair and square; or don't make it all. Don't play me for an idiot with sophistry and misrepresentation.

How many mass-bludgeonings have there been on US, Canadian, British, French etc. campuses?

How many mass shootings?

I hate this site sometimes. I can't speak my mind or else I'll just get flagkilled. You seem so desperate to shift the blame off of US gun culture and the surrounding laws that it's bordering on absurdity.

Thank you for slumming it around here and enlightening us idiots.

Meanwhile, in the real world, literally two hours after you posted this comment there was a mass stabbing on a school campus in Mountain View

That is a tragedy, and it's true: we do have "mass stabbings."

It's important to recognize the relative scale. "Mass stabbings" seldom exceed 12 victims, let alone fatalities. Gun violence easily extends past that.

There is a common counter-argument here that the US is inherently a violent country and therefore limiting gun ownership wouldn't decrease violence. I'm not sure that follows, but it misses a central point: Guns enable violence at an industrial scale. They're mechanized killing devices with tens of thousands of engineering hours around making it quick and reliable to critically disable a target, often via death.

A knife is a knife. Like any sharp object, it can be dangerous. A baseball bat is similarly potentially dangerous. But the scope of the dangers of these things is smaller. It seems unfair to compare them directly to gun ownership.

It seems strange to say, "We cannot stop all murders, therefore we shouldn't try and stop the easiest kind." Every life saved is someone's mother/brother/father/sister/child. It's a human story that isn't ended in tragedy and pain. Pitting that against these rhetorical devices about "all violence" seems to me to not address the central question we're asking: "Could we save more lives if we made it harder to own guns?"

Did I say something about how mass stabbings don't happen?

Nope.

...

Really, you're going to take the French, who were attacked with a heavy truck 4 months ago resulting in the death of 86 people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack, because you might not believe me of course), as an example of a country where no killings with other weapons than guns happen?

Or you're going to ignore the last 10 entries on this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in... which are all stabbings?

But no, these all aren't 'campus shootings' so they probably don't count in your (again) cherry-picked narrative.

But sure, feel free to continue your 'arguing by eye rolling', because if only everybody else was as enlightened as you are (you don't even need to look at reality to know you're right!), the world would be a better place, right? Excuse me if it's my turn this time to roll my eyes.

>as an example of a country where no killings with other weapons than guns happen?

Again with the straw man.

Did I say no other killings than with guns? Of course not.

You insist on putting words into my mouth so that you can attack an argument other than that which I'm making.

Strawman, as USA has the highest murder rate of all first-world nations.

Counterexample - Switzerland. "The Small Arms Survey of 2007 placed Swiss gun ownership per capita at between 30% and 60%", but with a much lower murder rate than the US

Reply on news.ycombinator.com