Hacker News Reader

Comment by ck2 | Hacker News Reader

I don't personally care for the existence of video games and movies that are super violent just for the sake of being violent.

But here's the thing - plenty of other countries have full access to all these video games, movies and even their fair share of mentally ill.

What they do not have is constant mass slaughters like this, and that's because they don't have the guns-are-toys mentality we do and open access to as many guns as you want, as powerful as you want, without tracking, liability or lack of social pressure to stop.

Sadly nothing will be done and in a decade we'll have a mass-killing anniversary for every day of the year and everyone will just be desensitized. Instead we'll have armed guards at every place where more than 10 people gather and like the TSA everyone will say "oh well, what can you do".

View on HN

Or, you know, we could just stop spazzing out in reaction to vanishingly-rare events. You can't shrink-wrap the world.

Especially when readily solvable problems like obesity and drunk driving kill exponentially more every year. But hey, that's how social fear and hysteria works.

Even non-drunk driving is dangerous. Apart from the array of problems associated with obesity, you have specifically heart disease, lung cancer, stomach cancer, less specifically other types of cancer... Just considering disease (or simpler, anything that falls under "old age"), and it's easy to see humans aren't very effective killers of each other, compared to what else is out there. Among all causes, for the whole world, the estimated rate is 1.8 people who die per second. If ck2 is really concerned about the total number of deaths per month, I hope he donates to various transhumanist-influenced organizations whose goal (or side-effect of their main goal) is stopping death entirely.

Uh, over 1000 people have been killed by guns since Sandy Hook a month ago [1]

That's not a rare event - it's just distributed far apart enough in the news and localized to the point where you purposely do not notice.

I think it would be a great service if every national news program would open with a list of the names of everyone killed by guns and drunk drivers, every day. It would only take a minute but if you did it every day, people would start to get a hint.

PBS News closes with all the people (mostly teenagers and twenty-somethings) killed in the military every night, it could be like that.

1. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/1...

Uh, nearly 1000 people have been killed by guns since Sandy Hook a month ago.

Sigh. We're done here.

Most of them were suicides, which really shouldn't count in this statistic.

How many were obtained illegally? How many were suicides?

How many more people died from more preventable causes?

Sound bites are sound bites are sound bites.

Isn't the proper question "how many deaths happened in other countries of the same population density" ?

Because I assure you, it's lower in the UK, Japan, etc.

You cannot just say "oh well what can you do, it's the price we pay to have our toys".

You're right. Let's ban cars. Though that's a bit too extreme, let's only ban assault vehicles. You know, those black SUV's that look a little too much like military vehicles. That is a good solution to the number of people killed by drunk drivers.

This really is about the perfect analogy. Vague statistics refracted through hysteria and political shenanigans ending with unhelpful legislation.

Nah let's remove speed limits and drink all you want when you drive. Because people should have all the freedom they want and people are rational and intelligent. Screw the rights of other people to be able to drive safely.

Heck, why restrict fully automatic M16s and bazookas - why dare impose limits at all. People are rational and intelligent their freedom should not stop where others begin. In fact you should be able to drunk drive and carry around your loaded M16 out the window down the highway.

We should be like the middle east with people firing fully automatics in the air anytime they want and gangs roaming around in pickups fully armed.

The gun bans they are trying now are the only place they can start. Because anything more sane would insanely be ignored. At least they are trying and it's a start.

Guns are not toys and that's the whole problem, people want to play with them because they think it's a game.

>The gun bans they are trying now are the only place they can start. Because anything more sane would insanely be ignored. At least they are trying and it's a start.

The thing about legislative efforts, is that on an issue where there are parties who want to take certain laws to one extreme or the other (Ex: Banning all guns.) and the sliding scale is freedom vs regulation, there will inevitably always be push from both of the extreme sides. So even if you enact "reasonable" gun laws, there will always be parties trying to push them forwards or backwards. This means that the sensible thing for guns rights organizations to do is turn even a minor gun regulation into a shitstorm so that the opposing forces on the other side have to spend all their energy maintaining reasonable gun laws.

Internet activists may want to take notes.

As long as people enjoy killing animals, guns will never be illegal in this country. There are plenty of lefties in the senate who really enjoy killing animals so guns are always going to be legal.

What they are trying to restrict is the use of guns as toys and I have zero problem with that. I think hunting is ridiculous and horrible in this day and age but I guess that's part of the compromise I have to do. I am not accepting anything further than that though, guns are not toys.

There are environmentally sound reasons to control the population of wild animals. A population boom/bust cycle wreaks havoc on the environment. We've already interfered with nature on this continent to such a degree it cannot self-regulate. I don't enjoy killing animals, but those that I know who hunt are in fact doing us all a public service we would otherwise have to pay the government to do.

> Guns are not toys and that's the whole problem, people want to play with them because they think it's a game.

This doesn't describe any gun owner I've ever met. Like most people who want to ban guns, you're arguing out of complete ignorance.

As an Australian, I thought I should point out that despite the Straw Man argument above, this is actually what happened in our country.

Our death rate due to firearms has reduced by half since our automatic/semi automatic buyback program initiated in 1996 and yet, the number of guns sold last year was the same[1] as pre-1996 levels.

[1] http://www.theage.com.au/national/australians-restock-the-gu...

As someone else pointed out, including suicides in gun death statistics is pointless: they would have found another method had guns not been available.

I looked into the stats briefly on murders per 100k by country, and the US was somewhere in the middle of the pack. If you assume that removing guns would eliminate those deaths (I doubt this), we were actually quite safe. If on the other hand you assume that those deaths would have been caused in other ways - we are still in the middle of the pack.

Let's be honest, the biggest factor is organized crime, and the strongest correlates are with the drug trade.

As someone else pointed out, including suicides in gun death statistics is pointless: they would have found another method had guns not been available

That implies that suicide is a rational act committed by rational actors. The fact that suicide prevention fences on bridges absolutely have been proven to work refutes that.

Regardless, it is misleading to include suicides when talking about gun violence, just how it's misleading to only talk about rifles when talking about gun violence.

> The fact that suicide prevention fences on bridges absolutely have been proven to work refutes that.

Have they been proven to prevent suicide, or to prevent suicide by jumping from a bridge?

I always thought those were to stop people from throwing crap at cars/trains anyway; I have never seen them on bridges that just go over water. I've also noticed that you can often judge the niceness of an area by what they put along the sides of bridges: if nothing then it is probably a nice area, if a fence then it is not notably nice but kind of average, if a corrugated steel then it is probably a fairly shitty area.

Yes, they do prevent suicide, putting up a fence on bridge A will not increase jumpers at nearby bridge B

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bridge#Prevention

Suicide is not a rational act, common sense does not apply here.

That seems like a very poor experiment to me. What happens to the total suicide rate in a city when suicide fences go up?

A cursory reading of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_prevention suggests that it is widely understood that reducing access to easy methods reduces the overall incidents of suicide. This makes intuitive sense to me: it's common for people to be hospitalised for attempted suicide and then make a full physical and mental recovery - this outcome is less likely if a gun or bridge is involved.

The US has one of the highest suicides-by-gun rates in the world.

But why are we talking about guns? This isn't a gun conversation, this is a mental health conversation. Give people a free and easy way to seek help for mental conditions and this problem just... goes away.

We dont have "Open access" and we cant buy guns as powerful as we want (no full auto, nothing over 50mm, certain shotguns, sbr...etc) we have tracking, lots of media preasure. So not sure what you are getting at. Look at ca with strict gun laws, bahas a AWB has limits on hangun purchases and registration. They still have very high gun violence. The problems lie in how kids are raised.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com