Hacker News Reader

Comment by crispyporkbites | Hacker News Reader

> You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country

Does that really happen enough to worry about? Should I spend my money on a newer, safer car or a gun? Or maybe on more comprehensive healthcare for my family instead? Perhaps on living closer to schools and other amenities so we don't have to drive as much?

I can't imagine that there are that many scenarios where a gun saves the day from violence... but maybe that's because I don't live in america

View on HN

This is where the argument always fails for me. "But having a gun means I can defend my family!" Against what? I just don't buy the premise that you're significantly at risk of a violent attack out of nowhere, for no reason, at any given time. I've never felt even remotely unsafe living in London, let alone felt the need to keep a weapon on me.

>Against what?

In the US, that would be against the individuals who collectively commit millions of violent crimes per year (surveys indicate this number easily exceeds 5 million per year).

What are the odds of that happening to you though? I don't know what the actual statistics are but it seems highly improbable. And it doesn't seem logical to me that a criminal who wants to (i.e. rob you) is really going to actually shoot and kill you to do it.

That's hugely dependent on who you are and where you live and so on, but there are estimated to be around 6 million violent crimes per year, or about 55 people per violent crime. Of course many people are victimized more than once, so you can't easily extrapolate to how likely a random person is to be victimized. Either way, over a lifespan, that is a significant risk.

>And it doesn't seem logical to me that a criminal who wants to (i.e. rob you) is really going to actually shoot and kill you to do it.

What you're missing is that I don't want someone to rob me. I don't want my family to ever be at the mercy of a violent thug. They ultimately depend upon me for their safety, and I am going to do what I can to guarantee it.

> What you're missing is that I don't want someone to rob me.

Of course.

> I don't want my family to ever be at the mercy of a violent thug.

No one does.

> They ultimately depend upon me for their safety, and I am going to do what I can to guarantee it.

Buy a pepper spray? What do you need a weapon of killing for?

>What do you need a weapon of killing for?

Are you denying that there are situations in which a gun will incapacitate a deadly threat but pepper spray will not?

Okay we are not on the same page at all because again I don't understand what "deadly threat" you could be encountering. You're talking like you live in the Purge or something.

I'm talking about the ~6 million estimated violent crimes that occur each year. Many, many of those are deadly threats. Any that involve a weapon are automatically deadly threats. Any involving multiple attackers are deadly threats. Any that involve a significant advantage in physical force of the attacker over the target are deadly threats. In general, any that involve the attacker being in a position to cause death or grave bodily harm are considered deadly threats, and can be legally met with lethal force if that is necessary to stop the threat.

I'm not sure what world you are living in. There are millions of people who are victims of violent crime each year in the US. It happens. A lot.

About 150 per 100k people are the victim of a violent crime every year in my hometown. And the rates are much higher than that in some neighborhoods.

You mentioned London. St. Louis has about twice as many homicides per year as London. There are 300 thousand people in St. Louis. London has, what, 8 million? And half as many murders.

I’m sure you do feel safe there. I’m less confident when I’m back home.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_St._Louis

You’ll forgive me, I hope, for accidentally posting the crime rates for the greater St. Louis area, immediately followed by the homicide totals for only the City of St. Louis.

The actual rates within the city are almost unbelievable: 1,913.2 violent crimes per 100k people.

Of course, this highlights the truth of a chorus oft-repeated there, which is that the region as a whole isn’t nearly as unsafe as the City numbers imply, a problem exacerbated (and concealed) by the City’s relatively small footprint within the area.

But that’s small consolation to those of us who make our homes and spend our time in that undeniably violent core.

What the hell do you mean "surveys"? You don't need "surveys" to tell you how many violent crimes there are in a year. We have actual statistics. And the numbers are not in the millions. Stop pushing lies.

Crime victimization surveys. The 'actual statistics' you refer to are reported crimes, i.e. crimes which were reported to the police and which the police took the time to record. They vastly underrepresent the actual number of crimes. That's why people who are interested in getting a more accurate estimate of the actual number of crimes do crime victimization surveys. This is all pretty well known and obvious. That you aren't aware of it is telling.

Unless these guys are liars too? Who knows, maybe 'ebbv knows better than them? https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6166

The US is awash with guns. There are multiple guns for every US citizens. Despite all these guns the US, as you say, is also a very violent crime ridden country.

Can you see how the guns aren't working?

>Can you see how the guns aren't working?

I can see that they're not an automatic cure-all for violence. There are parts of the US with extremely high gun ownership rates, and virtually no crime. And there are parts of the US with high gun ownership rates and high levels of crime. The fact is that there are many people in this world with violent tendencies. There always have been. Their violent tendencies are not a consequence of guns being around.

However, guns are a very effective tool for defending one's self and one's family against such people.

I believe the CDC estimates the low-end of lives saved by guns in the USA each year to be 300,000. High end to be a few million.

Dwarfs the number of gun deaths

Hahaha uhh no. Not even remotely. This is completely pulled out of your ass. First of all the CDC has been banned from studying guns since GW Bush administration. Secondly deaths by homicide in the US aren’t even close to that. California had the most murders of any state in 2016 and it wasn’t even 2000, then it drops off quickly from there. Total murders in the US is less than 20k per year. For your number to be right guns would have to be stopping 93.7% of murders.

Where did you even get that ridiculous number from? Insanity.

>Does that really happen enough to worry about?

Yes, of course it does. There are literally millions of violent crimes in the US in any given year.

>Should I spend my money on a newer, safer car or a gun?

I leave that to you to decide. I don't know you. Bringing a gun into your home might make you less safe if you are an irresponsible person or if you have psychological issues. If you are a responsible person with no psychological issues, but you live in an area that has virtually no violent crime, then it might just be a waste of money.

>I can't imagine that there are that many scenarios where a gun saves the day from violence

There are estimated to be over 100,000 defensive uses of guns in the US each year. The widespread ownership of guns has had a clear influence on the behavior of violent criminals. Particularly, in the US, criminals avoid breaking into homes when they are occupied, because they know many occupants will be armed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com