[grecy]

Not once does the author dare to compare homicide rates to other developed countries.

You're almost twice as likely to be killed by a gun because you live in the United States vs. the next developed country (Finland). You're 2.6 times as likely to be killed than the next country, Canada.

Something is very wrong here.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...

[diego]

Author here, see my previous post plotting homicides vs gun ownership across countries: http://diegobasch.com/homicides-vs-gun-ownership

Yes, the average American (not necessarily you, it varies a lot depending on where you live) is more likely to be killed by a gun than the average person in Finland. That is completely irrelevant to my post. It's not a competition among countries, it's about making the US better. "Daring" has nothing to do with it.

[grecy]

> It's not a competition among countries, it's about making the US better.

But you conclude there is no need to fix the current problem. Comparing America to other Developed countries clearly shows there is.

[GVIrish]

Yes we should probably take action, but that doesn't mean banning guns or making tougher gun laws is necessarily the correct action. If you want to compare to other developed countries, Switzerland has a high gun ownership rate (about 45 guns per 100 people vs 88 per 100 for the US) yet their gun homicide rate is one-seventh what it is in the United States. So if it were just about guns one would think that Switzerland would have a lot more gun murders.

Gun deaths in the United States have been declining for the since the 90's in spite of loosening of gun laws. We need to be studying those factors so that we can craft better policy.

Don't get me wrong, clearly if less people have guns less people can shoot other people. But if you really want to improve society you've got to get at the root causes of violence rather than just attacking the tools.

[grecy]

I didn't say anything about taking away guns.

I simply said it's very clear there is a problem and something needs to be done about it.

[ahlatimer]

Where did the author conclude there was no need to fix the current problem? My understanding of the article is that there is no clear answer to the problem, given that every potential solution has loads of potential side effects, some of them with the potential to outweigh the positives of the original solution. That doesn't mean it doesn't need to be fixed; just that the fix should be driven by rational thought and understanding rather than emotion.

[diego]

Exactly. All I said is that I don't know if there are any fixes to the problem that wouldn't cause potentially worse problems. That's why I mention iatrogenics: unintended side effects of a cure that are more damaging than leaving a disease alone.

[grecy]

> I don't know if there are any fixes to the problem that wouldn't cause potentially worse problems

Again, comparison to other developed countries proves there are.

[diego]

Why? What country is close enough to the US in size, heterogeneity and number of guns so that you can make a fair comparison?

Edit to answer to the comment below: think what you want. Don't try to convince me. I'm skeptical, you're not. Write to your legislators instead of here. Write your own blog posts.

[neilk]

I think you missed the point. Gun control might be a good idea, but not because it will reduce the likelihood of psychopathic spree killings.

Psychopathic spree killings are such a low-probability, extreme event that there's almost nothing you can do, at a public policy level, to influence them. Your monkey brain may protest that this simply cannot be (as mine does), but our monkey brains are wrong.

Instead we need to look for significant trends. Or consider that our actions might cause other harms more often, which is especially likely when our actions are driven by low-probability events. Basing public policy on such extreme events is not just stupid, it's immoral.

And yet, that's exactly the job of the media. The media works, by and large, by telling individual stories to provoke general sympathy or outrage. This is a good thing when that story is representative of a larger problem. What we have now is random phenomena driving larger political discussions.

[Steko]

"Psychopathic spree killings are such a low-probability, extreme event that there's almost nothing you can do, at a public policy level, to influence them. "

This is completely false. Being rare doesn't mean there aren't things that can make it even more rare. Many countries have taken steps that make these events far less likely.

[neilk]

You're right - I misspoke there. The OP was more careful, and discussed "iatrogenic" harms (an analogy to medical harms that arise from an attempt to treat a problem).

So, I'll revise what I'm saying to this: if you have a measure that you want to take that is only justified by such extreme events, it's probably not a good idea.