Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by diego 4927 days ago
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.
1 comments
grecy 4927 days ago
> 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.

link
GVIrish 4927 days ago
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.

link
grecy 4926 days ago
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.

link
ahlatimer 4927 days ago
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.
link
diego 4926 days ago
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.
link
grecy 4926 days ago
> 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.

link
diego 4926 days ago
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.

link
RyanMcGreal 4926 days ago
> What country is close enough to the US in size, heterogeneity and number of guns so that you can make a fair comparison?

In terms of number of guns, no other country is. That's the point: other countries made decisions and implemented policies to severely restrict access to guns, and the predictable result today is that there are far fewer guns and much less gun violence.

The decision to restrict guns is a long-term decision - it won't reduce gun violence overnight, but it will reduce gun violence over decades.

link
grecy 4926 days ago
Size is irrelevant, these are per-capita statistics.

If heterogeneity was a factor, surely homicide rates would be climbing in countries like Canada and Australia that have the highest immigration rates in the Developed world[1]. They are not.

Number of guns is precisely the factor at the heart of the issue.

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

link