Hacker News Reader

Comment by ctrlc-root | Hacker News Reader

If you're arguing for proper storage of guns, I completely agree with you. If you're arguing that we should reduce gun ownership to save lives, you're ignoring how many lives are saved by private ownership of guns. Unfortunately, no one keeps track of this statistic, but the CDC estimates between 500,000 and 3,000,000 lives are saved in any given year [0]. This study only provides an estimate, but still, compare that to 13,000 firearm related murders [1] and 22,000 suicides [2, Table 6 on page 33]. I think we need more data but from what I've seen so far it seems to me private gun ownership is a net benefit.

0: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15 1: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-... 2: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr66/nvsr66_06.pdf

View on HN

> the CDC estimates between 500,000 and 3,000,000 lives are saved in any given year [0]

From that link:

> Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).

Firearms being used in self defense =/= lives saved by firearms.

Indeed, it turns out it's complicated. That's why I said we need more data. I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet.

Edit: posted in a different comment but including here as well.

> A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.

Moreover, "firearms used in self defense" practically mean more dead people even if the defense was "successful". The mindset of dehumanizing perpetrators is disgusting, they are still people and we should strive to minimize their injuries, too, if possible (there are plenty of nonlethal means like tazers and pepperspray).

Not sure I agree with this either. I expect the most likely circumstance would be that the defender shows the weapon and the aggressor runs away. It's possible that it results in more gun deaths or injuries when you count both attackers and defenders, but not certain. IMO ctric isn't wrong that, as with anything, you need to study both harms and benefits and make educated decisions; I just had to point out that his initial interpretation of the study results was misleading.

I personally don't own a gun (I'm also in Canada where things are a bit different) but I have to admit that if someone broke into my house I would prefer to have one than not. That doesn't mean that unrestricted gun ownership is a net good though, of course.

Fortunately it appears we can all agree that it is critical gun owners store and secure their guns properly. In my opinion that would be a good place for new laws to focus: for example you could be required to demonstrate that you have a secure storage location and proper training before you could be licensed to own a firearm.

> but I have to admit that if someone broke into my house I would prefer to have one than not.

Someone actually has broken into my home, when I was there, and I am profoundly grateful that I, and probably the burglar, didn't have a gun available.

It didn't even cross my mind to arm myself with a weapon. I offered him a cup of tea. I told him I had nothing of value in the flat, and that it'd be safer for him to come down from the loft and leave by the front door than to climb down the scaffolding of the building next door (which is how he got in). He declined the tea, and decided to leave via the scaffolding. I called the police, and they found him in the garden of the house next door. He pulled a beer bottle on them, they subdued and arrested him.

Guns and weapons would have made this mildly stressful situation hugely worse.

I'm glad that situation worked out well. Could you not have done exactly the same even if you'd had a gun though? And that way had he not responded to your excellent de-escalation technique, and had instead attacked you with a bottle, the deterrent of the weapon might have saved you from injury.

I feel the need to again emphasize that in general I am in support of gun control and that I don't personally own guns; I can see how a person might want to though.

No he couldn't. First, the temptation to escalate is there and real. Second, if there is a chance that the homeowner will be armed, the burglar might just as well arm themselves, too. It's a cycle of fear and violence which becomes so ingrained in population's psyche that they don't even consider the world with lesser stakes.

I don't get it? Just because you own a firearm or have one on your person does not mean you must use it. Also, just because you do not feel comfortable deciding when it's appropriate to use a firearm does not mean other people feel the same way.

It still means more guns in the society and, correspondingly, more death. The externalities of arming yourself with a gun are just too high to justify it.

> Moreover, "firearms used in self defense" practically mean more dead people even if the defense was "successful".

You appear to be assuming that using a firearm in self-defense means killing in self-defense. If that is your position (I apologize if I'm misinterpreting you), I am not convinced you are correct. Many uses of firearms in self-defense are brandishing only; and even if a firearm is discharged in self-defense, it is not a given that it kills the original aggressor.

The CDC is banned from investigating gun deaths, so is unable to produce an unbiased result. ("Dickey Amendment")

Reply on news.ycombinator.com