More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows | Hacker News Reader

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

scientificamerican.com

17 pointsdiogenescynic31 comments

Gun data is just too easy to manipulate tbh.

What if a city has average homicide rates, yet has no CNC laws. Would the rate be higher or lower if CNC laws were applicable?

What if a city has a high murder rate (Chicago) but still allows for CNC, would it be lower if CNC wasn't allowed?

What if a city has really restrictive CNC laws (New York City) but still has high homicide and rape rates, would it be lower if CNC was allowed?

Sorting through the data isn't really possible and coming to conclusions based on data from the 80's and 90's is suspect at best. The overt anti-NRA angle in this article was a little too much for me as well.

I don't own guns, and have lived in several CNC cities and have lived with several people who had CNC permits and who carried frequently. I'm not pro gun, but I fully support those people who do own them. This article basically states that many of the established ideas that gun owners have are really myths and the only way to reduce crime is to reduce the number of guns.

My only retort to that argument is this:

It's completely ILLEGAL to even own guns in Mexico, so how's that been going for them????

It's really hard to conduct a meaning-full study and in general the issue is given way more attention compared to its actual impact on everyday lives.

What do you mean by "more attention compared to its actual impact on everyday lives"?

Firearms are currently tied with motor vehicles as the second leading mechanism of injury-related death [0]. Number 1 is poisoning, which has recently surged thanks to opioids.

[0]: https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D132/D21F190

Subtract suicides

Not if you want a meaningful result. There are strong correlations between having a gun in the house and increased suicide rates. Yes, I get it, it's a correlation. The point is it's a gross oversimplification to just say "subtract suicides."

Meaningful is very abstract term. The problem is people wanting to commit suicide not the tool they are using. There is a way stronger correlation of people being unemployed and committing suicide for example.

That may be true, but it remains a gross oversimplification to say "subtract suicides"

Not to get into the weeds too much here, but a completed suicide has a lot to do with the speed/effectiveness of the tool in question. Almost nothing is as fast/effective for this as a gun. Plus, suicide is frequently attempted impulsively, during a time of emotional crisis, so adding logistical barriers is a very effective reduction technique.

"Almost nothing is as fast/effective for this as a gun" drugs ? especially considering it requires far less will power to take a few pills vs to pull a trigger?

According to http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2...

Suicide attempts using a firearm result in death 86% of the time; ingestion of drugs or poisons with the intent to commit suicide is successful less than 2% of the time.

Only because car deaths have plummetted.

You're right, the United States has been incredibly successful at reducing motor vehicle deaths [0]. Those reductions aren't fortuitous; they're the result of engineers, policymakers, and public health professionals recognizing a problem and designing novel solutions. Maybe we could apply some of that same creativity and engineering talent to the problem of firearm deaths.

[0]: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalit...

I clicked on that and selected California where I live, the search defaulted to 2015. In that year 0.007% of people had a firearm related death (3095 deaths in 39,144,818 people).

That 3095 deaths however includes:

  * non legal gun ownership (felons, carry without permit, etc)
  * clinically depressed people killing themselves, I'd be fine with mental health checks for gun ownership.
  * terminally ill killing themselves (because there's no right to die in the California).  Seems batshit insane that you can end your dog's life when time is right, but not your own.
  * accidental deaths when a negligent gun owners lets it fall into the hands of kids, drunks, addicts, etc.
  * gangs
  * drug dealers
  * illegal guns
  * very high crime areas that I don't live in

IMO, the number that should be discussed is how many (non-suicide) deaths are there caused by legal gun owners/legal guns. My understanding is that it's a very tiny fraction of that 0.007% and once you remove the fluff the numbers are actually pretty comparable to the number of times people have actually protected their homes.

Personally I'm fine with someone who wants a gun, is mentally stable, not an addict/alcoholic, and will keep their gun locked when not in use so a kid can't find it, a thief can't easily steal it, etc.

However what I do see missing is that doctors, friends, family, etc should be able to vote/warn police about someone in an unstable state. Maybe like a fixit ticket where you could go in for an evaluation.

This makes sense. I really only need one of my guns to stop a home invasion.

First, that article is apparently a re-post, is it an old story? If so what motivation was there to re-post it if not political timing?

Second, nobody with a rational mind, nobody with critical thinking skills, would ever or has ever asked that question. Carrying guns is not about reducing crime.

The right to carry firearms is about empowering an individual to be less helpless in their own life in the case of a crime committed against them.

It is a constant fraud of the anti-gun crowd to suggest that respecting the right to self defense and the right to carry arms is somehow indoctrination into a public defense agency. And it speaks volumes about the way they really think about freedom or an individual's liberty.

It is a proven fact that carrying a gun visibily will reduce the risk of a person being assaulted in various ways by strangers on the street. If you want to fund a proper study we can doubly prove this. The visible presence of a firearm changes the way people behave. People who would behave in anti-social and criminal ways will think twice if they see their victim has a gun on their hip. I promise.

That's not saying there aren't occasional freak exceptions. Some people's lives are so rotten they are aching to throw them away and take a few of us out with them. You can't do anything to stop them. That's what being free is, people are free to turn into monsters. What you can do is remain empowered to put them down if they become so rabid.

Sorry for the lengthy comment. Protecting everyone's right to arm themselves is more important than any other aspect of this subject.

To male the claim in the title you have to show lack of correlation between an increase and decrease in gun ownership to crime numbers. And be mindful that the stats might be trailing by years or even generations.

Odds ratios are good except they are missing the OR for prevention of a criminal attempt. The stats they cite ate indeed self-contradictory.

Additionally this might just be highlighting a problem with training policies or more importantly culture. Please compare with stats for, say, Czech Republic.

The ORs should be normalized against general homicide rates, but they weren't.

I like the argument that people are going to "keep the government in check" by owning guns. That one cracks me up the most, have you seen the size of the government's guns?

You can march off to the concentration camp. I’ll keep my guns.

I'll keep my freedom of speach, and use it to preserve your right to hold those beliefs and assemble freely. Without the rights to publicly speak your mind and assemble freely, no matter how many guns you have, you're still just one guy barricaded in his house, easily handled by the government forces those guns are supposed to protect you against. It is the first amendment that allows concerned citizens to actually and effectively protest and protect against government overreach, regardless of what the NRA would have you believe, because effective protest is a mass activity.

Sure, but the 2nd ensures the 1st. Government needs to be afraid of its citizens. Only armed citizens ensure that.

There are other perspectives of that argument.

1) Many countries have codified freedom of speech, religion, expression. The deterrents to undermining those protections have nothing to do with armed citizens.

2) Populist uprisings in many countries contain caches of weapons at the time it is deemed fruitful.

3) Inclusion in a constitution isn't necessary to make it legal for citizens to own guns.

4) Inclusion in a constitution isn't necessary to make it illegal for nearly all citizens to own guns.

5) Can you elaborate on exactly what the role of armed citizens is in making sure the government doesn't undermine first amendment protections? The only thing I can think of is killing judges, hanging senators, shooting pencil pushers that enforce the administrative aspects of onerous regulations. Is that an accurate understanding of the argument?

When US police officers are afraid of its citizens, more citizens die, because police officers are people and would rather be alive and sorry than be shot and dead.

A government "afraid" of its citizens cannot function properly. If armed citizens ensure that, I'd consider that an argument in favor of disarming citizens.

And the 1st ensures the second. Government is only ever afraid of large numbers of its citizens, the "lone armed guy" is simply too easy for the government to pick off individually. The NRA is feeding you large helpings of boondoggle in thinking the 2nd is important on its own. The founding fathers put the first two amendments together for a reason. They work together, not apart.

Have you seen how the size of the government's guns were so useful in occupying Afghanistan and Iraq.

the key differences I see are that:

a) this didn't require a constitutional right to accomplish, free flowing guns everywhere by any regional or international supporter interested

b) it was also ineffective at expelling a foreign invader (NATO, US, Al Qaeda, ISIS)

c) it was also ineffective at expelling the sovereign institution

Historically the military in our country comes to protect the civilians when the local government fails. The cases of our own military attacking our own citizens are thankfully rare, but almost always end in bloodshed. You're far more likely to need a firearm to protect yourself against the police than the military and far more likely to need to protect yourself against your fellow citizens than the police. I'm fairly liberal but there's an important reason the founders added the 2nd Amendment. I just wish there was more outrage when the other Amendments were trampled upon.

Very few of those who would be carrying everywhere would have the kind of training needed to be effective at stopping crime, even if they were to be around it.

That’s irrelevant, since carrying a firearm is about protecting yourself and family, not others.

It would be hard to come up with numbers to back or disprove your statement.

Read “The Armed Citizen” columns. Lots of evidence.

There is some research showing self-defensive gun use is not associated with a lower risk of victim injury during a crime [0]. If training levels were generally high, I'd expect people who use guns in self-defense to be more successful in preventing injury.

[0]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com