| HN Mirror

> You're much more likely to be killed by an automobile than a mass shooting

My man! 3,424 people per Day are killed in car crashes. That is 1 million and 250 Thousand people every single year who die in wrecks. Here in America alone we lose over 100 people every single day--give or take a few.

mdemare 2473 days ago

You’re more likely to be murdered in the U.S. than to be killed in a traffic accident in the Netherlands.

My point being, there is a lot of room for improvement in _both_ numbers.

oh_sigh 2473 days ago

For certain definitions of "you". There are small subsets of the population which account for large percentages of homicides in the US, and they mostly kill each other(gangs).

I, personally, based on my demographics, activities, and location, have a very low chance of being murdered. Less than the average European. But probably more than a European of similar traits to me. But the odds at that point are so low it is really irrelevant in life.

*https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mass-shootings-2019-more-mass-s...

I agree that no fly lists are a bit much, but I’m 100% in favor of red flag laws.

RE: red flag laws, I don’t see them rising to the level of thought crime. For example, I do not think it is unreasonable to use a legal process involving a judge to take away guns (either temporarily or permanently) from unstable people who are making thinly veiled threats. Society should have that right, and I for one fully support it.

Equating mass shootings to basically the “well, terrorism is so rare you’re more likely to get crushed by your TV” scare tactic argument isn’t really fair. I’m sorry, 283* mass shootings in one year in one country is absolutely insane. It’s not a scare tactic, this is quite literally a mass shooting crisis.

Short of national background checks, assault weapons bans and a whole host of other common sense things that Republicans and the NRA will never let happen in the US, I think red flag laws involving a judge are worth giving a try.

This new trend on HN of hammering red flag laws is really hard to understand. These laws are not oppressive overreach. They are common sense, reasonable approaches to dealing with the greatest domestic threat we actually have.

MiroF 2473 days ago

> Equating mass shootings to basically the “well, terrorism is so rare you’re more likely to get crushed by your TV” scare tactic argument isn’t really fair. I’m sorry, 283* mass shootings in one year in one country is absolutely insane. It’s not a scare tactic, this is quite literally a mass shooting crisis.

Want to take a stab at how likely it is that you are in a school shooting, even if there were 280 shootings involving three or more people?

To be clear, I definitely support gun control. But I also support expanding medicare/medicaid and I'm probably going to fight more the second than the first when one is likely to save many more lives.

So basically: because the chance is statistically fairly low, let’s abdicate our responsibility to reduce the already absolutely insane number of mass shootings we have in this country, a problem that absolutely no other country has? That may not be exactly what you’re saying, but that’s the conclusion people are drawing here.

Real solid leadership.

By that same logic, let’s go bust out the 737 MAX’s! Hey, they only killed a few hundred people. But nah, must not be that big of a problem.

Come on.

That’s a disingenuous argument. Nobody is objecting to trying to reduce mass shootings. They are objecting to trying to reduce mass shootings by curtailing constitutional rights of millions of law-abiding gun owners. Even leaving aside the constitutional issue, that’s why the cost benefit analysis is important. It’s justified to try and address a low-probability issue if the solution is commensurately cost free. Gun control is not a cost free solution. It’s an enormously costly one.

So: “well, let’s just give up on preventing mass gun violence because it costs a money”?

No, mine is really not a disingenuous argument. It’s the same thing: you’re saying it costs money to prevent a small fraction of society being horrible maimed or killed with guns. Same for airplanes. Please explain why it it better for society to minimize low-probability deaths in plane crashes at extremely high cost, but not mass gun violence?

But back to the constitutional argument: no constitutionally recognized rights in the US are unlimited. In this case, yup, I’m completely in favor of curtailing gun rights in a limited fashion if it helps prevent this insanity. If that is a problem for you, go ahead and build a coalition to out-vote my broadly held position. You’re entitled to that.

Not cost as in money, cost as in depriving people of the freedom to own useful tools. Also, again, what’s with the appeal to emotion? “Sad?” Such words have no place in this debate. Cost-benefit analysis is how you should decide whether to spend other peoples’ money to do anything.

As to the constitutional point: the second amendment is not up for a vote. While gun rights aren’t “unlimited,” the second amendment must be interpreted consistent with the right of people to effectively resist government agents, and that means stuff like assault weapons bans are not constitutional. If you think those rights are misguided in the modern world, fine, gather up a coalition that can amend the constitution. You might find that difficult, because contrary to what you might think, belief in gun rights is the strongest it has been in half a century: https://images.app.goo.gl/9HJwcRLRrdxepDnUA. Even young adults are more pro-gun rights than the same cohort was when the first assault weapons ban was enacted in the 1990s: https://images.app.goo.gl/Vyc2UduAa9Mqehc68. In 1990, 2/3 of young adults said gun control was more important than gun rights, versus 1/3 saying gun rights were more important. Today, it is evenly split.

MiroF 2473 days ago

Let me flip this on you: I care about people who are dying because they don't have healthcare, not your dumb political games on guns. Sure, you can spend a year agitating for laws that will ultimately save a few hundred of people throughout the country, meanwhile people routinely die because they aren't paid a living wage, can't afford basic medication to survive, and can't afford shelter.

If you're telling me I'm absurd to be focusing on that rather than a phenomenon that kills a few dozens of people, boy do I hope the people in charge aren't listening to you. I care about helping society, not posturing on an issue that is deemed "insane" or a "crisis."

It’s profoundly sad that preventing hundreds of people being shot to death per year in the US in mass shootings somehow doesn’t quality for “helping society”. To me, yes, that is absurd. This happens nowhere else. It is insane. It’s not posturing: this is batshit crazy.

And guess what, I’m also for expanded healthcare. I just don’t want that to have to include caring for even a fraction of the population having large chunks of their body blown apart.

MiroF 2473 days ago

Let's be clear that the "prevention" being suggested is monitoring high schoolers faces with AI tracking cameras to see if there are any signs of anger or discontent.

Yes, there are some prices too high to pay and that is certainly one of them.

Gun control? Yes, sure most of us can agree on that. But that's not the context that I was responding to you with.

>It’s profoundly sad that preventing hundreds of people being shot to death per year in the US in mass shootings

Tell that to the MILLIONS of Unarmed North Koreans and Chinese in death camps.

Saying it louder doesn’t make the point less ridiculous. Mass shooting deaths have never exceeded 80 per year. Nobody is panicked about West Nile fever anymore, but it still causes 100+ deaths per year. You’d think engineers would be resistant to such blatant emotional manipulation, but I guess not.

mcny 2473 days ago

Neil Degrasse Tyson tried to use reason. You can't use reason when it comes to things like this. Sure, on a macro level guns kill fewer people than cars do but there are smart people working hard to try to prevent deaths by cars*.

Sure, we could and should do better. For example, why doesn't any SUV come standard with built in car seats in the back for infants and children? I watched a ted talk from back in 2009 which asked this question but humans are irrational. They think clearly little Billy is safer if we spend $599 for a car seat.

If humans were immune to emotional manipulation then Google stock would crash because basically any advertising is emotional manipulation I think.

CBS quotes:

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson is facing criticism for a tweet comparing the number of people killed in two mass shootings this weekend to those who died in other ways during the same amount of time. Some perceived the tweet as insensitive, as at least 29 people were left dead and dozens injured in the wake of the tragedies.

"In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings," Tyson wrote Sunday afternoon. He then compared the "average" number of people who die in other ways across "any 48hrs."

"On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose… 500 to Medical errors, 300 to the Flu, 250 to Suicide, 200 to Car Accidents, 40 to Homicide via Handgun," he reasoned. "Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data."

> but there are smart people working hard to try to prevent deaths by cars*.

No. There really isn't. The solution is simple and every racer knows what it is: teach skid control and proper use of the brakes. That's half the equation right there; the other half is eye technique which would be more difficult to become proficient in But for God's sakes At Least stop telling people to "watch where you going"--which is certain "death" when the car starts to slide, and instead start telling them to "look where they want the car to go".

milesokeefe 2473 days ago

>why doesn't any SUV come standard with built in car seats in the back for infants and children

Not every SUV buyer has children at car seat age. Those children will outgrow the need for car seats, at which point the built in car seats are wasting space that could be a regular seat.

> Neil Degrasse Tyson tried to use reason. You can't use reason when it comes to things like this. Sure, on a macro level guns kill fewer people than cars do but there are smart people working hard to try to prevent deaths by cars*.

Not just cars. A result of the emotional manipulation surrounding mass shootings has resulted in attempts to ban semi-automatic rifles. But rifles are used in about the same number of homicides each year than there are deaths from people falling off ladders.

[0] https://www.axios.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-common-4211ba...

jfim 2473 days ago

> Mass shooting deaths have never exceeded 80 per year.

2017 had more than 80 deaths, with the Las Vegas (58 deaths) and Sutherland Springs (26 deaths) exceeding that total for those two events. These events are becoming more common and deadlier, as shown on this Axios chart [0].

You're right to point out that there are many causes of death that are more common, but rapidly increasing and unpredictable causes of death are typically covered more in the media, for better or for worse. It's why the 738 Max 8 was all over the news, even though car crashes are a more frequent cause of death.

You’re correct, I was looking at a chart that stopped at 2016. Nonetheless, the peak west Nile deaths were 280+, and the average is over 100, compared to under 100 for mass shooting deaths.

West Nile seems like a pretty unpredictable and scary cause of death. The media covers mass shootings more because reporters are overwhelmingly members of one party and gun control is a critical wedge issue in the culture war. West Nile isn’t.

*https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_th...

Your numbers are simply not accurate. And equating this to mosquito-borne disease is not reasonable. Mosquitoes aren’t being radicalized by the far right, they aren’t living in an increasingly polarized society, and they certainly don’t blow orange size exit wounds in people.

You’re right, I was looking at a chart through 2016. Looks like about 120 this year. Still, the average is under 80 over the same period over which west Nile killed 100 per year on average. And the peak this year is still below the 284 killed by west Nile in one year.

https://www.cdc.gov/westnile/statsmaps/preliminarymapsdata20...

There were 15 West Nile deaths in the US in 2019. It’s not even close to the same thing.

We don’t have full 2019 data. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Nile_virus_in_the_Unite...

> Since the virus has become widely established in the U.S., an average of 130 deaths a year occurred.

This is the new flavor of scare tactic.

I'm British, and I find it really weird that Americans apparently live in abject terror of the world around them. The notion that anyone in Britain would ever need a deadly weapon to defend themselves is completely alien here. We just ... don't.

otakucode 2473 days ago

The primary reason for a need for guns is to retain the ability for a violent uprising to overthrow an oppressive regime should one arise. One of the benefits of the American system is that it does not assume infinite beneficence and eternal benevolence on the part of the governing body. This is wise because we know history. It doesn't make sense to fear being shot simply because many people own guns. If it did, then it would make sense to be in constant fear of vehicular homicide because automobiles are everywhere. It is not possible to make it impossible for people to harm or kill one another. Humans are hard to keep alive, not to kill. What protects you is not the inability of your neighbors to kill you - they all can, and easily - or the legal system, it is social and the philosophical outlook of those around you. Those factors are scary to people so they often pretend to not see them, but they're really the only protection humans can ever have and it is what they actually rely upon to determine if they 'feel safe.'

Do those Americans who believe they need guns to form a militia genuinely think they could take on the US military in the need arose? In a battle between a thousand guys with AR-15s against a single M1 Abhrams tank my money would be on the tank.

mcny 2473 days ago

If there was a genuine need for such an uprising, I'd hope there would be people within the government and the military willing to support us.

I wouldn't want to be in the tank killing civilians because "I was following orders" won't work when all is said and done.

My understanding is that guns are not the main source of resistance against tyranny. It is the fact that an economy as complex as ours requires broad participation by many people with specialized skills. A dictator can't run the economy simply by mining blood diamonds or crude oil here. I imagine you need the backing of at least twenty percent of the population.

the_trapper 2473 days ago

Insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan have held up pretty well against the US military over all. Pervasive gun ownership in these countries prior to our involvement is a major part of this equation. I think a militia uprising in the US would fare even better because a substantial number of the members of said militia would have been trained by that very military they are fighting. I also believe that a substantial number of the National Guard units would be loyal to their state instead of a tyrannical federal government.

Let's also not forget that our country got its start by a scrappy group of farmers and tradesmen armed only with muskets and flintlock pistols that defeated the greatest world power at the time.

malandrew 2473 days ago

There’s also a good chance that some, many or even most soldiers in the military would end up on the side of the insurgency. They oath is sworn to the Constitution, not the federal government.

The US is much more dangerous than the U.K. Our murder rate is 10x higher. Besides that, there is a lot more rural land in the US, which makes hunting and defending against wild animals a real thing. Besides that, using guns to overthrow our government is kind of our shtick. We didn’t wait for Britain to up and decide to let us be independent when Britain felt like it.

> The notion that anyone in Britain would ever need a deadly weapon to defend themselves is completely alien here. We just ... don't.

I'm American, and Your Country is The Sole reason why we will Not give Up our right to defend ourselves against any Government--And most Especially our own. We Just... Won't.

A quick look around the Globe at Nations that Enslave and/or Torture their Citizens because they can, because the peope are unarmed--is really the only modern day reason we need to Never give them up.

The reason you aren't enslaved or tortured isn't because you have guns.

> The reason you aren't enslaved or tortured isn't because you have guns.

Of course Not... but it Is the reason We never will be.

prepend 2473 days ago

Countries have different belief systems and thus are different. The U.K. has a queen, with the best real estate in the country set aside for personal use.

While that seems really inefficient to me as a Frenchperson, I understand that British people like it.

I’ve categorized this in the category of things that I’ve noticed but am not interested in enough to work toward the explanation, but if I ever learn it I’ll remark “hmm, that’s neat, I never knew that.”

The U.K. has a queen, with the best real estate in the country set aside for personal use.

Most of the state-owned "crown estates" land is open to the public.

prepend 2473 days ago

Try taking a tour of Buckingham Palace. Compare it to the available of France’s “crown estates” :)