Hacker News Reader

> yet they live essentially petrified of violent crime to the point of carrying a deadly weapon for self-defense on their person at all times

That's an odd way of stating it. They're concerned, so they're arming themselves.. but continuing on with their lives. Sounds like the opposite of "petrified" to me.

What's odd about saying it's completely innumerate to carry a gun on your person at all times?

And don't for one second pretend Americans are "continuing on with their lives", what a joke; gun culture is huge in the US, people are absolutely obsessed with the things.

Hardly a more obvious "not over it" situation exists than Americans and their guns.

They won't go places (businesses, cities, etc) that don't allow guns. They routinely talk about and consider scenarios when, where, and how they'd fire on someone. They select clothes based on what will conceal a firearm (or select the daily firearm make/model based on what can be concealed with their clothing that day).

It's clearly a major driving force in their lives. Perhaps petrified wasn't the best use of words. I'll suggest terrified as an alternative but the actual reality is all the same.

I've been kidnapped and robbed at gunpoint in the US. I'm pretty sure if I had a firearm that situation would have been worse. I would have either gotten myself killed or suffered the trauma of killing someone and watching them die. This isn't a movie where you go bang and the bad guy cleanly falls to the ground. Death by firearm is brutal and changes you forever (as my ex-military friends will tell you). Life isn't Hollywood and anyone who thinks their life will be the same and just fine after using that weapon is either a bona fide psychopath or delusional.

I also can't imagine waking up everyday and strapping a gun to myself just to leave the house. I'd consider that fear winning and an event that I've long sense gotten over continuing to have an outsized amount of control and power over me. I got out of my traumatic event losing an iPhone and $100. After a few months of initial PTSD my life hasn't changed one bit. I won.

I am not going to debate generic gun carry but I completely support being able to own and carry guns / rifles in the wilderness for example. It is pathetic when for example in Canada bear attacks construction crew, pulls a women and kills her and the others are not able to protect since they were not allowed to carry.

Absolutely agree - I have no intention of debating guns generally (ownership or carry). I own guns, always have, and had a concealed carry permit for many years. However in my case the permit was more for practical reasons - I lived in an apartment and there are some weird grey areas with guns in "common areas" otherwise. I think I actually "concealed carried" a few times and was generally uncomfortable and put-off by it (personally).

I'm more speaking to the motivation behind absolute, 100% carry everyday. It's completely emotional, fear driven, and not in any way supported/justified by the data.

I know you're just sharing your anecdote, but the vast majority (over 80%) of Americans live in urban areas. Many cities do in fact see violent crime. Although I don't own a firearm myself, I totally understand why someone else would want one in my neighborhood. Violent crime is not unusual where I live.

Don't let your bubble from small town USA distort your view of the entire country.

It's disingenuous as hell to clump "cities" together, as if going to Anacostia in DC is the same as going to Georgetown.

If you live in a city and carry a gun, you're not protecting yourself, you're escalating the violence.

Getting robbed is exceedingly rare anywhere in the US, and trying to stop a robbery with a gun is among the stupidest things a person can do.

Further, robbing someone doesn't mean you should die, and killing someone over property is evil beyond comprehension. No society should support it, and very few do (nearly nowhere in the US, for example).

I think most people not from DC will not even know where Anacostia is, you can probably just say SE or something.

> It's disingenuous as hell to clump "cities" together, as if going to Anacostia in DC is the same as going to Georgetown.

I don't understand what you're arguing. Cities unequivocally see more crime than rural areas, even in nicer areas within a city (which may only be 1 mile from the "bad parts").

> Getting robbed is exceedingly rare anywhere in the US, and trying to stop a robbery with a gun is among the stupidest things a person can do.

> Further, robbing someone doesn't mean you should die, and killing someone over property is evil beyond comprehension. No society should support it, and very few do (nearly nowhere in the US, for example).

1. Not everywhere is the same. Just because you feel comfortable in your bubble doesn't mean that owning a firearm is a ridiculous proposition for all. In my past 10 years of living in Atlanta, I've witnessed or been a victim of enough crime to fully understand why some folks here choose to own a gun.

2. The second part is totally ridiculous. Nobody is arguing that all thieves should die.

Haha, yeah a lot of people are arguing that thieves should die.

And no, “cities“ are not one solid, unbroken group, they are not universally more dangerous than rural areas.

Where are they arguing that? We’re moved far away from OP. The original point that Americans “live in fear” is what I object to.

You’ve turned the conversation into something else entirely. You think the entire country of 350M lives in fear? Seriously? I get that HN loves to shit on Americans but what exactly is your point here?

My first comment says “many cities see crime” somehow that became “all cities see crime everywhere” in your mind.

I'm American, and I firmly believe that anyone who carries a gun in their daily life is living in abject and completely irrational fear based on a fundamental, tragic innumeracy.

And if you think me saying "And no, “cities“ are not one solid, unbroken group" means “all cities see crime everywhere”, you've gotten yourself very lost, friend.

This describes <1% of Americans.

You seem to be lost yourself. What exactly do you disagree with me on from the original comment?

You are still quite unlikely to be a victim of violent crime by a stranger if you are not actively involved in the drug trade in the city.

Violent crime rates in the city very low relative to the past.

You are much more likely to be injured or killed in a suburban car accident than an urban assault/murder/mugging.

Exactly. In my age range (25-44) I'm more likely to die by heart disease (9.8%), cancer (10%), suicide (11%, most by firearm), and unintentional injury (34.2%) (plus "other" at 20%). Homicide is the cause of 6.2% of deaths in my age range and in the highest percentage of the population (10-24) it's still outpaced by suicide and unintentional injury. After age 45 homicide isn't even in the top 10.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-09-508.pdf

My bubble extends well beyond "small town USA".

Paradoxically, I don't have a single friend in Chicago, Denver, Miami, Los Angeles, etc that carries a gun. These cities run the spectrum of gun laws and all have higher crime rates than a small town yet fear of violent crime runs higher in communities where it's non-existent.

This is anecdotal but statistics back it up. Most gun ownership is rural, personal protection is often cited as the primary factor, most gun ownership is handguns (i.e. not hunting), and white males (small town friends) love guns and carry everyday.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-dem...

> My bubble extends well beyond "small town USA". Paradoxically, I don't have a single friend in Chicago, Denver, Miami, Los Angeles, etc that carries a gun.

And yet, I know people in each of those cities that own firearms.

> This is anecdotal but statistics back it up. Most gun ownership is rural...

The study you cited doesn't support that claim. What the study says is "Among those who live in rural areas, 46% say they are gun owners, compared with 28% of those who live in the suburbs and 19% in urban areas."

You're failing to consider that <20% of the population lives in rural areas according to the latest 2010 census: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/g...

This means <10% of the population is a rural gun owner. Your study also states "When it comes to hunting, however, rural gun owners are far more likely than their urban or suburban counterparts to say it is as an important reason they own a gun; 48% of gun owners in rural areas say this." Also note the study says 30% of rural firearm owners do so for sport shooting, 15% as part of a collection, and 8% as a requirement for their job.

Less than half of rural gun owners do so solely for protection. All in all, <4% of the US population owns a gun in a rural area solely for protection. That's a pretty far cry from your original claim that Americans live in a culture of fear.

> yet your entire life is accessible to the NSA.

I'll bet you money that most Americans are not okay with this either.

They're nominally "not ok" with it, unless it's couched in some piece of legislation like the PATRIOT Act or snuck into a Defense Authorization Act, particularly after a national tragedy happens. Then a lot (a majority?) of Americans will suddenly be ok with the "if you got nothing to hide you got nothing to fear" mantra.

I'm actually not a huge fan when people act like Americans are a a bunch of flag-waving morons, because I think that people who say that are often being extremely reductive to a borderline-offensive level [1], but in this case I do think Americans are uniquely ok with pretending their rights don't exist when they're convinced it's for a greater good.

[1] Disclosure, I'm American

>" I do think Americans are uniquely ok with pretending their rights don't exist when they're convinced it's for a greater good."

Check Canada. We are way more screwed up in this department

> "if you got nothing to hide you got nothing to fear" mantra.

I know people like this and it's not a good mantra to follow. I have to remind them that all that needs to happen is to have political winds go the other direction and soon something they do regularly becomes illegal or suspicious. So dumb to give up privacy for safety.

That's always been my perspective. I'm going to take the radical position that not everyone in the government can be trusted, so we have to assume that there are bad actors who are going to abuse their power and use the questionably-obtained information to their advantage.

I'm not a fan of that, and the only way I can think of to avoid this being an issue is for them not to have the information in the first place.

The NSA acting like a creepy Big Brother-secret police organization is a separate issue.

It's an example of American schizophrenia. No National ID because tyranny! Monitoring everyone constantly? That's keeping us safe!

Well I consider for example requirement to carry ID in France as the schizophrenia or worse from the government side. Brings out the worst associations

In the United States you are pretty much required to give your name to police if they ask for it. They will run that name and if it's doesn't check out, match the picture on their computer, etc you will be arrested for providing a false name. In many states they can also demand you present photo identification and skip all of that.

Practically speaking the United States has been a "papers please" country for a long time.

What we're talking about here is a standardized, national ID. It's currently a weird patchwork of driver's licenses, identification cards, etc - each of which are slightly different variants issued by each of the states. So we don't have a standardized national ID. We have at least 50 of them, all with different formats, different issuing criteria, different validity, etc. We've tried to have some bare minim standards for years (REAL ID act) but the mandatory compliance date for that keeps getting pushed (currently next year).

>"In the United States you are pretty much required to give your name to police if they ask for it. They will run that name and if it's doesn't check out, match the picture on their computer, etc you will be arrested for providing a false name. In many states they can also demand you present photo identification and skip all of that."

Stop and identify" statutes are laws in several U.S. states that authorize police to lawfully order people whom they reasonably suspect of a crime to state their name. If there is not reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, an individual is not required to provide identification, even in these states

I've had to identify myself for flipping off a cop (unmarked car) who honked his horn at me because he didn't like me exercising my freedom of movement. This power gets abused all the time.

Police also commits crimes, what's your point? We are talking about the actual law here.