Comment by neartheplain | Hacker News Reader

Comment by neartheplain | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Guns are mostly used to kill people.

That’s an incorrect statement. Let’s look at the evidence.

More than 50 million Americans engaged in some kind of recreational shooting in 2018 [0]. Compare that to 14,000 gun-related homicides across the country in the same period [1], mostly in certain high-crime communities [2].

The CDC estimates there are between 500,000 and 3 million instances of defensive gun use in the US each year [3]. They also found that cases of self-defense where the victim used a gun resulted in less injury to the victim, on average, than in cases where other self-defense strategies where employed.

There are also obvious downsides to a society with permissive gun ownership, but overstating the case for gun control doesn’t move the discussion in a positive direction.

[0] https://www.nssf.org/research/nsga-participation-reports/

[1] https://www.thetrace.org/2019/01/gun-deaths-2018-america-mas...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/jan/...

[3] http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_Priorities-for-Research-...

Your sources need work. The salient point (defensive gun use) is not substantiated by your linked report as it specifically mentions the CDC may not collect this data:

> In addition to the restrictions on certain kinds of data collection,

> congressional action in 1996 effectively halted all firearm-related injury research

> at the CDC by prohibiting the use of federal funding “to advo-cate

> or promote gun control.”18 In 2011, Congress enacted similar re-strictions

> affecting the entire U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The

> net result was an overall reduction in firearm violence research

> (Kellermann and Rivara, 2013). As a result, the past 20 years have

> witnessed diminished progress in understanding the causes and ef-fects

> of firearm violence.

Additionally, "homicide" is not a sufficient tally of gun deaths. There are also suicides and unintended discharges.

Regardless, the original point is that guns are primarily designed to kill things. It would not be "effective" defense if that were not the case. 2A advocates do not defend their gun rights purely so they can enjoy target shooting.

> Your sources need work. The salient point (defensive gun use) is not substantiated by your linked report as it specifically mentions the CDC may not collect this data

This is an odd claim, given that the "salient point" seems to be a verbatim quotation of the linked report, which contains further citations...

> 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 per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997).

This isn’t a gun debate. If you want, I’ll rephrase: guns are mostly used to kill living beings, or to target practice so that one may get better at killing living beings. They don’t have a domestic function like knives do: you can’t cook or clean with them.

> They don’t have a domestic function like knives do

Hunting for sustenance, depending on where you live

I don’t disagree with that, but there are large categories of guns that are completely unsuitable for that purpose: handguns (except very specific cases), automatic weapons like used by the military, grenade launchers, mortars, sub machine guns, tactical nukes, etc.

But we were talking about Parler and Facebook. I am sure some people have used Parler for things other than far right propaganda, but can you honestly make the point that it wasn’t its primary use case?

> But we were talking about Parler and Facebook. I am sure some people have used Parler for things other than far right propaganda, but can you honestly make the point that it wasn’t its primary use case?

The truth of the matter is that, unless I was actively watching those conversations, I can't make any point about its primary use case.

I'm definitely not arguing it's not; but, I have heard a call to action to get Telegram taken down from the App Store because "that's where the alt-right is going now", but there's plenty of other conversation types going on there.

Just because you and I had no interest in being a part of the communities we know are going on in Parler doesn't mean that people of those persuasions didn't primarily have friendly conversations about knitting much of the time.

I'm not sure that we can go just by volume of conversation, either. I imagine the vast majority of Twitter messages are spewing hatred, too. Maybe not the top-level comments, but there are hundreds if not thousands of people that previously responded to most every Trump tweet in a way filled with hatred for him.

As I was not a member of Parler, I can't really tell what kinds of conversations that place was designed and had in a way that's meaningfully distinct from Twitter.

I don't mean to say I'm an expert on this matter, but I make a point of checking out new platforms to see what's on them. I think the absolute worst one I saw was Voat. The front page was equally split between memes calling to “gas the Jews” and QAnon posts about how all the "libtards" are about to be arrested and sent to the gulags.

I’d also include putting down rabid animals or animals that threaten livestock/pets.

Apparently you’ve never heard of trap shooting or a biathlon? These are Olympic sports. While they might not be as popular as hunting, they are definitely not uncommon either. Both sports have clubs and classes here in Seattle. I know a number of “liberal” gun owners that engage in these activities as well.

Okay, compare this to the ratio of recreational knife use (including kitchens) to violent knife use and you'll see why guns are a problem.

> Okay, compare this to the ratio of recreational knife use (including kitchens) to violent knife use and you'll see why guns are a problem.

In the US, stabbings are the second most common cause of murders after shootings, and a higher incident of assaults. In the UK, stabbings are significantly more common than shootings, to the point they are establishing very similar regulations around knife purchase and possession.

An honest look at the data on violence would indicate two things:

1. Violent behavior and the tool used are disconnected. E.g. People with an intention to be violent will act violent regardless of which tools are available.

2. When someone is violent they'll use the most efficient tool available. E.g. Once someone has made a decision to act out violently they'll identify and use the best tool available to carry out their violence.

In effect, there are two ways to approach violence in society. You can try to reduce the number of available tools to carry out violence so people are restricted to their bare hands (note strangulations and beatings just barely trail stabbing in the US as a cause of murder). Or you can address the social issues that result in people acting violently at all, to reduce the incidence of violence and violence-adjacent behaviors in society.

Levering #2 is easier but less impactful, Levering #1 is harder, but has much wider positive impacts.

No matter what you do, violence will never be entirely eliminated.

I think assessing the data honestly and coming to the conclusion "guns are a problem" is either a result of bias or naivete, because it's not a logical conclusion following from the available data, either US-centric or globally.

Yep, clearly anyone who disagrees with you is inciting violence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com