Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide | Hacker News Reader

Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide

medium.com

44 pointsiBelieve36 comments

All I can say is that, as a Brit (from a country where regular police don't even carry guns), I find the concept of average Joes owning guns of any description crazy. It seems like the outcome of a broken society in which people don't trust law enforcement to protect them. Maybe higher gun ownership rates don't directly lead to homicide, but that to me isn't even the issue - the elephant in the room is the massive cultural problem the US has with firearms, especially the way in which they have been politicised in such a bipartisan, black-or-white system.

Specifically regarding people not trusting law enforcement, that's because in the U.S. police don't have a responsibility to protect individuals, just the community as a whole (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia). In addition, police often can't get to the scene of a crime in progress soon enough to prevent harm to the victims. As long as criminals are armed and able to commit crimes before the police can stop them, it seems reasonable that some citizens would choose to own guns in an attempt to protect themselves or their families.

In terms of police response time, is it so different to anywhere else in the world? Police services are underfunded in many countries but this doesn't seem to drive people to think that because they won't be helped in time they need firearms. As you say, people also feel the need to arm themselves because the criminals are armed, which to me has an obvious solution.

> that's because in the U.S. police don't have a responsibility to protect individuals

That's also true of the UK, so it seems odd to mention it in a reply to someone from the UK.

I'm not familiar with the situation in other countries, so only spoke of my knowledge of the US and the legal case I linked to, though it does make sense that that's also true in the UK and elsewhere. Still, I would think that the reasons I mentioned should be valid or invalid regardless of the situation in other countries.

You're saying that the rural community needs guns to stay safe?

Suicide kills more people than murder, and restricting access to means and methods is the first thing you should do to reduce the death rate.

One of the reasons the rural youth suicide rate is so high (double that of urban 10 to 24 year olds) is because of the easy access to guns.

"guns keep people safe" is, frankly, fucking stupid.

A few things. WRT suicides; are you for restricting access to anything used to cause suicide or just firearms?

I’m just now reading this, take it with a grain of salt, but it’s safe to say that firearms are used to keep people safe https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewconten...

I usually try not to enter in to arguments where I know I won’t change my mind. I’m wasting the time of someone who disagrees with me but is willing to exchange ideas. “frankly, fucking stupid” reads like you’re not interested in hearing contrary evidence. It saddens me.

It does make some sense not to trust police all the time. People can not just blindly trust their governments. And the only way to retaliate an oppressive government should not be strictly controlled.

Shooting firearms is definitely not the only way to retaliate against an oppressive government.

But is is one way. If government was to turn tyrannical, an armed society would have a chance to defend itself.

but the government has drones

Boots on the ground. Try to control a subcontinent of 325M people with drones and planes, when every corner could have an armed citizen. Ask the vietcong, or the afghani, how much they could do with small firearms.

"Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty."

edit: grammar

I guess that encapsulates the difference in attitude perfectly. Very real consequences in terms of people dead vs. something that might happen in the future and where guns might help. Do you fear the future or not.

By the way, the article does its own share of data-wrangling by happily omitting the kinds of guns people own and how. In US one can simply buy an assault rifle. Down in Europe you need training, screening and physical exams of your home to get a gun. Both count as “a gun owned”

something that might happen in the future and where guns might help.

So because something it's unlikely to happen you shouldn't take steps to protect you against it? Why having insurance, for instance?

Read all the way through to the third article. It does go into which kinds of guns are used in homicides, which is much easier data to come by (and perhaps more relevant to the concerns at hand).

How many modern insurgents have been citizen owners of legal weapons and how many have been armed after they decided to fight?

I think the example isn't instructive as to the importance of widespread ownership. If there is a large group that wants to raise hell for a government, they will be able to obtain weapons.

The problem is that there's an equal and opposite reaction. American police are far more likely to shoot people. I can't prove it, but it seems plausible that it's scarier to police a highly armed populace.

In an effort to protect ourselves from police, we've made the police much more violent towards us.

> I find the concept of average Joes owning guns of any description crazy.

It becomes a lot less crazy when you consider that parts of the US still take advantage of guns as protection against wild animals. It becomes a little less crazy when you consider that a lot of people use them as a hobby - target practice (it's part of a few different Olympic sports).

Guns are, practically speaking, no more or less crazy than Bowie knives, hunting bows, cross bows, or any number of other devices purpose built for hunting.

> the elephant in the room is the massive cultural problem the US has with firearms

Yeah, definitely an issue. It's, oddly enough, largely a city vs. country issue. People in the city have no practical use for guns. People who don't have the miles of concrete protecting them from the wilds tend to take a much more practical view on the usefulness of, the need for, tools that can protect them from predators with teeth and claws.

I've been within 100 yards of a black bear with her cubs. I'm glad I had a pistol at the time. I'm even more glad I had no cause to use it.

> Guns are, practically speaking, no more or less crazy than Bowie knives, hunting bows, cross bows, or any number of other devices purpose built for hunting.

US schools haven't seen a mass murder using knives, hunting bows, or cross bows. US school mass murders involve handguns and rifles.

I can do a google search and find at least three "school stabbing sprees" in the US on the first page. In fact, it seems like you're much more likely to be stabbed while going to school than shot.

Sharks kill, on average, about as many people as school spree shooters per year. Those deaths to sharks are preventable by offing all the sharks, are we doing that?

Making policies based on outrage is a losing proposition.

> Guns are, practically speaking, no more or less crazy than Bowie knives, hunting bows, cross bows, or any number of other devices purpose built for hunting.

I somewhat agree with the similarity, at least for rifles; however, many firearms in the US are legal and definitely not suitable nor intended for hunting. For the record, in the UK there are also rifle clubs and farmers are allowed to have rifles to protect their livestock from wild animals, but both groups get yearly inspections from the police and in general the police will know that you keep guns and therefore keep an eye on you. You have to keep the ammo separate from the guns, and both in locked containers with different keys. Hand guns are completely outlawed because they couldn't be justified in the context of hunting or protecting livestock.

> I've been within 100 yards of a black bear with her cubs. I'm glad I had a pistol at the time. I'm even more glad I had no cause to use it.

True. The wild animals in rural US are much more dangerous than in the UK, and so, like in the UK, there are some good but narrow reasons to own certain kinds of firearm. We seem to agree the issue is mainly guns (especially handguns) in cities. I hope the US can find a solution that keeps both inner city and rural dwellers relatively happy.

Black bears aren't as violent as many people think. They kill less than one person per year.

I'll grant you, encountering a mother bear near her cubs is not a good scenario. I certainly wouldn't volunteer to be in that situation, but statistically speaking, you were unlikely to be harmed.

the elephant in the room is the massive cultural problem the US has with firearms

There's no such problem. That's what the article is about.

In the western states (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, etc), the time from a 911 call to a cop may be 30 minutes. It may also be hours depending upon the circumstance.

So there is some consideration needed for ranchers and others that do have a livelihood out there and can't wait for the police to show up.

Which only makes the argument that perhaps your access to firearms should be associated with actual proven need versus want. I don't get why this debate even exists though. Unless the second amendment is overturned firearms will always be legal and that's an unlikely thing to happen. If killing kids didn't make people care enough to outlaw them, then killing more isn't likely to increase the desire to outlaw firearms. Repealing the second amendment is a very, very unlikely scenario. Someone could walk into a nursery full of newborn babes tomorrow surrounded by a full tactical SWAT team, murder the entire SWAT team and babies and the response would only be that the SWAT team needs more weapons to protect against the killers and that perhaps the babies should have been armed as well. America has a hammer problem where they see the only solution to violence is more violence.

That's okay. The USA is used to Brits trying to take away our guns. It was kinda the pivotal event that sparked the revolution and caused our ancestors to throw your ancestors out of the country. Not surprising that you still don't understand the big deal.

So I'm looking at his data, and I make the following observations.

1. In Kansas City, MO, the murder rate is 31 per 100,000 people in 2018. [1] Yet for the state it was 5 per 100,000 in his graph. That may skew the results towards rural areas with less people.

2. Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Idaho, while the highest percentage of gun ownership, are also the least populated. But they seem to skew the graph downward giving their contributions more weight than Louisiana and Missouri, say.

[1] http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article19263428...

As a gun owner I have a lot of conflicting feelings about them. On the one hand, I am enamored with the mechanical engineering. On the other, I'm proud to be able to own them, as a strange rite of practice as an American. The very essence of our democracy is so well represented in an armed citizenry. That said.. I agree we need stronger laws. Longer waiting times. Mandatory mental health evaluations and training. Limits in the number that can be purchased at one time, in one year. One per year would be fine with me. Between pride of this right and fascinating with the engineering and physics behind it, I am conflicted.

Do have evidence of intentional deceit? Could it just be that those you accuse of lying are just wrong?

I didn't write this article. I just found it interesting and wanted to share it to see what counter-arguments and discussion it would lead to.

One: They’re sneaking suicide in with the data, and then obfuscating that inclusion with rhetoric.

Alternative hypothesis: they’re including suicide data because it’s relevent. Suicide is homicide (not murder), and they’re including the copious accidental killings (also homicide, also not necessarily murders).

I see a difference between suicides and accidents vs murders when it comes to gun restrictions. If I chose to own guns (I don't), then I'm ultimately responsible for avoiding accidents and not committing suicide, just as I would be responsible for any other risky activity or sport I partake in. Murder on the other hand involves the criminal act of taking someone else's life. In my opinion, we should only focus on acts of criminal intent when discussing banning or restricting gun use, and only include accidents or suicide when we discuss laws that improve safe use of guns.

What about drunk driving? Do you think DUI should be restricted even in victimless cases with no criminal intent?

Definitely, because drunk driving has the potential to harm others, even thought it may not always. Also, I'm not sure that's a good analogy, as trying to prevent drunk driving doesn't take the form of restricting driving for everyone, while gun control usually affects responsible gun owners as well as bad people and suicidal/uncareful people.

The single greatest risk factor for someone committing suicide is a first-order relative who committed suicide. Everything in life isn’t as obvious as crashing a car into someone, but the harm of suicide extends far beyond the victim.

Suicides are not restricted to purchasers, but anyone suicidal that may find they have access to gun, like the purchasers children.

Blending suicides in with homicides without declaring or defining their contribution is deceptive.

Imagine if we tried to portray how dangerous cars were, even to people who do not own cars, by combining pedestrian deaths by car with driver and occupant deaths by car, without calling that out and using that "deaths by car" data immediately after discussing recent pedestrian deaths.

With guns, you can opt out of ownership and be "safe" from suicide and accident by gun. If you opt out of living in a high crime area you are incredibly "safe" from homicide by gun as well. That takes care of 90% of deaths by gun. OTOH, if you own a gun, are careful, mentally stable and don't live in a high crime area, you have similar odds. Much like a pedestrian who shouldn't worry about getting killed by a car.

People are talking about gun deaths and gun violence. Why would those be excluded from the debate? Why exclude injuries?

Lots of gun violence doesn’t result in death.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com