[IgorPartola]

That's fair, but as easily dismissed as the 4 in 50 million number: from http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable16.pdf it's clear that only in 0.9% of cases was the victim offering resistance using a gun. From what I can tell the outcomes of such resistance have not been compiled to see if offering resistance using a firearm made things better or worse for the victim.

In other words, personal firearms made very little difference in preventing crime. "The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" is therefore at best a stretch.

I will grant you that the media does sensationalize mass shootings over someone defending themselves from a criminal. Sensationalizing mass shootings is possibly one of the reasons there are so many of them. I am not a huge fan of Malcom Gladwell, but he did describe school shootings specifically as spreading in an epidemic-like fashion: after Columbine they were given so much attention that it sort of self-perpetuated. But the fact remains that if I am being mugged in a dark alley, I am most likely safer if I simply hand over my wallet and phone, then cancel my credit cards when I get home, than if I try to resist.

> I will say, though, I respect your position on gun control much more than the folks who think we'll solve our gun death issue by banning characteristics of firearms (i.e., "assault weapon" bans).

I appreciate that. I don't believe that the problem is scary looking rifles. The problem is first and foremost hand guns which are responsible for most firearm-related deaths. At the same time, mass shootings are a US-specific problem that I do believe comes from two sources: easy access to firearms AND fetishizing guns. As a society we can't change the latter. By definition it's the very rare outliers who go on mass killing sprees. You can't just teach them to not do it. So the solution is to control the former: gun control. You can take incremental measures like stricter background checks, but people will still slip by that. That's the thing about a sociopath: they know exactly how to get around rules and restrictions. But I am in favor of just starting over: repeal the second amendment, remove as many guns as possible from the society, bring that 101 guns per 100 people down to 1.1 guns per 100 people. Then see if there is an actual need to introduce them back into society. My guess: you won't see a strong need beyond the cries of a few enthusiasts.

I also support the hunting exception. I am not a hunter myself, but I know that lots of people derive their livelihood from it. But weapons used for hunting are significantly different than you'd use for self defense. You don't need a huge quick reload magazine to take down a deer for example, because deer by their nature will bolt shortly after hearing the first shot. You won't be able to unload into one unless you are spot lighting the. You can make hand guns used for hunting boar or bear highly reflective orange. Again, quick reload is likely not necessary for these guns.

I looked into bow hunting for a bit, and the funny thing is that the advice I got in one of the classes was to always zip tie your bowstrings when leaving the hunting area so that if a rangers stops you, you can show that you aren't actively using your bow. But you can carry a loaded pistol with the safety off at your hip while doing this and the ranger can't do a thing about it because the pistol is protected by the second amendment. A bit ironic, I think.

</soap-box>

[barsonme]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your first sentence. Even if only 0.9% of cases involved resistance with a firearm, it still totals over 87,000 a year which is nearly 3x the rate of _all_ firearm deaths. It's over 9x the rate of firearm homicides.

I'm not sure how you square

> the outcomes of such resistance have not been compiled to see if offering resistance using a firearm made things better or worse for the victim.

and

> But the fact remains that if I am being mugged in a dark alley, I am most likely safer if I simply hand over my wallet and phone...than if I try to resist.

> So the solution is to control the former: gun control.

I have some ideas for this :-) It's another pet-peeve of mine: lots of gun control is never run by gun owners first. While there's an obvious conflict of interest, it also means those implementing it lack a whole lot of context and insight that only gun owners can provide.

> But weapons used for hunting are significantly different than you'd use for self defense.

Sorta. A shotgun used for hunting would make a fine home defense firearm. AR-15s can be used just fine for hunting and home defense. Although, a deer hunting rifle (bolt action, scope, etc.) probably wouldn't be a great choice. (Additionally, usually hunters are limited to 3 cartridges in their rifle, but that wouldn't make much sense for home defense.)

> the advice I got in one of the classes was to always zip tie your bowstrings when leaving the hunting area so that if a rangers stops you, you can show that you aren't actively using your bow.

I wonder if this is similar to how it's illegal to have loaded long guns inside vehicles (in most states...)

[IgorPartola]

You say 60k deaths from guns is bad, but 4 kids not involved with guns is ok. I say the 87k uses of guns in resisting an attacker (where there is no documented outcome and it is possible that quite a few of the outcomes do add to the 60k deaths) is not a big number as compared to all crimes where a gun could have been used in defense (hence 0.9% is a low number).

I see your point about how gun experts, which could also include gun owners, should at least be included in deciding policy. As a counter example I will posit that gun owners have failed to put forth any meaningful policy changes. The second amendment still failed to created a well regulated militia, gun deaths are still rampant, mass shootings are still a mostly US problem in the developed world, and the NRA which is supported by most gun owners still is pushing for less gun control.

I think most reasonable people will agree that things like hunting can be treated separately from other uses of firearms by civilians. If there is more nuance to this, we can talk about that. But gun control debate often gets lost in nuance. Who cares about bump stocks when you can buy the AR-15 to attach it to without doing many or any background checks? Who cares about the rate of fire or magazine size when you can go to your pawn shop, buy a 22 and blow your brains out in the parking lot? Repeal the second amendment, give a 30 year cooling off period, then start with new legislation, with data from the past 30 years.

[barsonme]

(I hope you don't mind me quoting parts of your comment—it helps me categorize stuff.)

> You say 60k deaths from guns is bad

Well, 30k. And I'm not saying the 4 deaths are okay, I'm saying it's not an epidemic and, statistically, schools are safe. But, I'm still not sure how that part of your comment logically proves much.

> As a counter example I will posit that gun owners have failed to put forth any meaningful policy changes...pushing for less control.

I'd suggest that gun owners have always had to play catch-up. For example, consider the '94 AWB. It was rammed through as a halfway, last-minute measure that pitted gun owners against each other and has left a bad taste in many of their mouths. The general feeling is if they give an inch, "the other side" will take a mile. It's evident if you compare and contrast the positions groups like GOA and NRA take on bills.

I'd also posit that defense of one's self _from_ the state is an underlying reason for the 2nd amendment. Considering the massive (over 350 million) number of firearms in the US and entrenched gun culture, I'm of the opinion the amendment is fine in that respect.

> I think most reasonable people will agree that things like hunting can be treated separately from other uses of firearms by civilians.

As it should. I think where we disagree is on the type and scope of difference.

> But gun control debate often gets lost in nuance. Who cares about bump stocks when you can buy the AR-15...[or] buy a 22 and blow your brains out in the parking lot?

Granted, an AR-15 is not necessarily more dangerous than "any old rifle." It's simply a platform that encompasses different calibers, gas systems, etc. But, good gun control could help stymie sales to prohibited persons. Is it any better, though, if instead of purchasing a $200 pawn shop gun the person hangs himself? When I had a family member dealing with that issue we were told that, essentially, those who _want_ to commit suicide _will_. Have we achieved much if we've simply caused those people to change methods?

Anyway, as an aside, I appreciate the dialogue. It's not too often this topic can be discussed without name calling and such or without degrading into "muh rights" versus "think of the children."

[IgorPartola]

On my side of the aisle, the feeling is that gun rights groups take a mile with every opportunity they get. While some states, like Connecticut, have enacted slightly stricter gun control measure, federal laws have been more and more relaxed as the likes of NRA lobby and bully congress. Again, I don’t believe gun owners and especially organizations that represent them have done anything to make me safer in this country. All they managed to accomplish is to stoke the fire around gun ownership to the tune of rising profits for gun manufacturers. Because of that I support the idea that they aren’t responsible actors and should not be a major voice in the debate. Basically self regulation didn’t work.

Again, if we are talking about gun experts, Wayne LaPierre ain’t one.

As far as the second amendment, yes there are a lot of guns in this country. But, I still posit that it failed:

1. We don’t have a well regulated militia. We have a bunch of individuals, often times with poor training.

2. The individual gun owners are not doing anything to keep the State free. There have been no instances where there was even an attempt to form the well regulated militia it talks about.

3. Even if a major threat to the State showed up, within or without, in a modern world hand guns and semi automatic rifles would not stand up to modern military tech. That fight is over before it starts.

Notice that the second amendment does not talk at all about personal safety, hunting, or anything like that. It basically says that for the purposes of having a civil defense force, individuals can own guns. So in my view it doesn’t even apply to most cases of gun ownership.

As for suicide stuff, I am not sure if you are familiar with some of the stats around it, but basically women are more likely to attempt suicide but men have a higher rate of success. The difference is that men tend to use more lethal methods, often times hand guns. In HN terms, guns reduce friction. Of course if someone is determined to commit suicide, they will. But the other thing is that most people are not. They will go through the steps but also look for an off ramp as they do. And the longer the steps, the more chance they have to change their mind. Suicide is a very complex issue with a large number of underlying causes, but I would argue that not having access to a firearm will in some cases give the person extra time to think before they go through with it.

Lastly, as for mass shootings, I would say that schools were safer in 2017 vs 2016, etc. but they aren’t at an acceptable level of safety in absolute terms. As a citizen I want my schools safer than this. Also, check this out http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.....

I also appreciate the dialogue. If only this had any real world effect :)

[barsonme]

> federal laws have been more and more relaxed as the likes of NRA lobby and bully congress.

How so? Also, keep in mind the _entire_ gun lobby spends less than Microsoft does each year. It's pitifully small compared to many other lobbying groups.

> Again, if we are talking about gun experts, Wayne LaPierre ain’t one.

Yeah. Although I don't recall bringing him up. :-)

> 1, 2, and 3

1. Sure, perhaps not "well-regulated" (whatever that means), but see #2

2. They are, because see #3

3. Not really. Consider the case of the middle east: two super powers—Russia in the late 70s/80s and the US ever since—haven't been able to "win" their wars in that area for the last 40 or so years. Why? Because ultimately you still need boots on the ground physically controlling the area. Sure, we could use our military prowess to turn the entire thing into a sea of glass, there's _zero_ benefit to that. Which is why we've lost over 4,000 soldiers instead of just bombing the place and calling it good.

Now consider if the US government turned on its citizens or if the US were attacked by another state. You'd end up with the same thing as the middle east, except for the US has many more firearms and, in case #1, the US government would be fractured: plenty of soldiers and police would not want to take the government's side. That's what plenty of people think about wrt "militia."

> Notice that the second amendment does not talk at all about personal safety...my view it doesn’t even apply to most cases of gun ownership.

This is part of the long debate about the 2nd amendment. You can reach different conclusions depending on how you interpret it. When it was written, firearm ownership was simply an assumed right. People owned guns and could protect themselves with them. Depending on how you parse the 2nd amendment's text you can reach different conclusions. That one comma could make a world of difference (historical details about gun ownership notwithstanding).

> but I would argue that not having access to a firearm will in some cases give the person extra time to think before they go through with it.

And so it seems the question is then: are there better ways that don't trample gun rights, and if not, is losing the gun rights worth the extra time it buys some individuals?

(As an aside, I'm not incredibly familiar with suicide, I just know what I was told by doctors when I had a close family member "go through" it, for lack of a better term.)

> As a citizen I want my schools safer than this.

I do too, but at 4 per 50 million (1 per 12.5 million) I'd consider it safer for my kids to attend school than, say, swim in pools or drive a car—both of which are considered routine and "safe" events.

Interesting link! I've always wondered what would happen to the rates of mass killings and such (the "high profile" incidents) if we'd focus on it less. It seems the 24/7 news stories only seem to inflame tensions and normalize it, increasing the propensity of it happening again and spreading fear of what is an otherwise rare occurrence (see: right-wing folk and terrorist attacks).

> If only this had any real world effect :)

We can dream, huh?

[IgorPartola]

> Depending on how you parse the 2nd amendment's text you can reach different conclusions. That one comma could make a world of difference (historical details about gun ownership notwithstanding).

And herein lies the crux. We are staking up to 30k lives a year on a comma. Also, historical context is important in that when the second amendment was written, a group of people with muskets could take on a government force. That's not the case anymore. Police now drive tanks and come at you wearing body armor. I agree that if there was a full scale uprising, with say all the liberals arming themselves to the teeth and going up against Trump's administration in a rebellion, the police and military might be at best divided on the issue. But still, there is no well regulated militia that currently exists.

So my point is that why not re-write the damn thing, taking into account modern tech and modern way of life? The second amendment is held as nearly holy by some, but at one point it was just written down on paper by a few people. It's not exactly a stellar piece of legislature that is above all scrutiny and reproach.