
A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S - denzil_correa
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21638140-gun-now-more-likely-kill-you-car-bangers-v-bullets
======
sosuke
I keep looking through the data,
[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf),
and it seems like cars still beat out guns by a good margin. They even say in
the article most of the gun deaths are by suicide. Just the few numbers I
grabbed says you're still 3 times more likely to be killed by or in a car. I
looked again at the article and they don't even list the numbers because it
conflicts with the story they WANT to have. The proper title is "The forecast
for ways you might die in the next 5 years if you remain in the 15-24 age
bracket shows a higher change of being killed by a gun, or killing yourself
with a gun, than by being killed in or by a car."

Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms 11,068

Accidental discharge of firearms 591

Discharge of firearms, undetermined intent 248

Motor vehicle accidents 35,303

Unless you're taking your own life: Intentional self-harm (suicide) by
discharge of firearms 19,990

~~~
vor_
> They even say in the article most of the gun deaths are by suicide.

It says "suicides, accidents or domestic violence." These are all vital
statistics in determining the deadliness of guns.

Gun advocates have been arguing here that suicides shouldn't be counted, which
doesn't make sense. Access to an effective suicide method is one more
consequence of a gun-owning society. It should be acknowledged, analyzed, and
discussed.

It seems as though advocates are arguing that the statistics should be
filtered to make guns appear less statistically deadly. That's nonsense. This
is a comparison of deadliness; a gun death is a gun death. Despite a decline
in gun ownership, gun deaths are trending _upward_ , and the NRA opposes
smart-unlock features like thumbprint identification that contrast with the
myriad safety controls placed on vehicles.

~~~
danielweber
If this were epidemiology, we would talk about "total morbidity." If I develop
a flu vaccine that 100% stops flu deaths but kills 10% of patients via heart
attacks, I have not improved the situation. A troll or person otherwise
committed to a narrative that my flu vaccine should be foist on everyone might
say "a flu death is a flu death" but it's not what matters.

About half of American households have access to a gun while about half of
suicides are done via gun. The US is within 10% of most other first world
countries in terms of suicide rate. The real world evidence is that if you got
rid of guns in an attempt to stop suicides, the strong majority of those who
want to commit suicide would find another method.

~~~
DanBC
> The real world evidence is that if you got rid of guns in an attempt to stop
> suicides, the strong majority of those who want to commit suicide would find
> another method.

What does "real world" evidence mean? Because real world evidence from England
(paracetamol pack sizes; switch to natural gas from coal gas; removing
coproxamol from general use) shows that many people do not find another
method.

~~~
danielweber
The real world evidence in the comment you replied to, from the paragraph that
you selected your quote from.

1\. About half of US households have access to gun, implying half do not.
Suicide-by-gun is about half the total suicide rate. With the assumption that
people kill themselves with a gun if it's available, the no-gun-in-household
suicide rate is very similar to the gun-in-household suicide rate.

2\. The fact that the US is within about 10% of most other first-world
countries in terms of suicide rate. Unless you want to argue that something
especially good about the US's mental health system such that only Luxembourg
ought be in front of it.

If the US turned into Canada (meaning: essentially no guns and a suicide rate
0.92 of the US) then more than 80% of gun suicides would find another way.

~~~
DanBC
You seem to be saying that there are two groups of equal size (people who
complete suicide by gun and people who complete suicide by other methods) and
then saying that if you remove access to guns that all or most of the gun
group would just switch to the other group and that the total number would
stay the same.

Don't think that an attempted suicide by gun is the same as an attempt using
another method. Guns are a very lethal method of suicide. Other methods of
suicide are not as sure. This might explain the differences in completed
suicide numbers for men and women (more men die to suicide) and rates of self
harm (very many more women self harm) -- men might be using more lethal
methods.

Some members of the "want to use a gun as a method of suicide group" would use
a different method and would complete suicide. But certainly not all that
group. Some would use a less fatal method and attempt suicide but not die.
Others would find help before attempting suicide.

For a tiny US example: look at the Taft and Ellington Bridges in Washington
State. They were both used by people to complete suicide, although more people
used Ellington. After a number of people dying to suicide in a short number of
days a suicide barrier was put up. People did not switch to the other bridge,
even though it was close.

[http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/csr/](http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/csr/)

Again: look at the rates of completed suicide in England after switching gas
supplies; after removing coproxamol from general use; and after reducing the
amount of paracetamol. All of these resulted in permanent drops in the suicide
rate.

~~~
danielweber
_You seem to be saying that there are two groups of equal size (people who
complete suicide by gun and people who complete suicide by other methods)_

I think you might be misreading me. The reason it's important that gun-suicide
and non-gun-suicide are about the same size is that about equal number of
households have guns and don't have guns.

If about 10% of households had access to a gun, and about 10% of suicides were
done via gun, I'd say the same thing: access to guns isn't the significant
driver of suicide completion.

> But certainly not all that group

Sure, certainly not all. I agree some people would stop. My guess is that
around 10% or so.

The problem I have with the thesis that "most people won't switch to another
method" is that it leads to a world where the United States is supposed to
have an amazingly low suicide rate compared to most other first-world
countries. And the thing that is stopping the US is a hot-button political
issue, _especially_ because most of the people who are inclined to try and get
rid of the guns would _disagree_ that the United States has an especially good
mental health system compared to Canada, the UK, Germany, Denmark, Iceland,
France, and Finland.

You can point to a bunch of small effects, but you want to apply them to the
big picture. Well, why isn't the big picture a lot different? If the US had
twice the suicide rate of most other countries, I think you'd be right.

------
apetresc
From the article:

> By contrast, safety features on firearms—such as smartguns unlocked by an
> owner’s thumbprint or a radio-frequency encryption—are opposed by the
> National Rifle Association, whose allies in Congress also block funding for
> the sort of public-health research that might show, in even clearer detail,
> the cost of America’s love affair with guns.

Can someone explain the NRA to me? At this point they come across as cartoon
villains, senselessly evil for no apparent purpose. Why can car companies be
persuaded to invest in safety features but somehow the NRA works against its
own interests to make guns as dangerous as possible? I feel like I must be
missing some side of the story, because from the stuff I read, they're
literally twirling their mustachios while cackling right now.

~~~
mseebach
Accepting the premise that it's a good thing that the population at large can
own guns, their argument is that they're thinking a few steps ahead:

If smartguns become popular, the government can then outlaw non-smartguns
without too many people caring (they can still own and fire guns).

Then the smart-stuff is leveraged to "enhance" security - transferring
ownership, for an example, could be made subject to a government permit, which
can then be used, explicitly or implicitly - imagine a "no fly list" for guns,
with the same opacity - to prevent large groups of people to own guns (well,
specifically, to fire them).

Further not-very-fantastical "enhancements" could include remote-disabling of
guns, initially for law enforcement use, but quickly extended to much broader
use.

All this, of course, while the criminals (who are already obtaining guns
illegally) keep using "dumb" guns and aren't affected by this.

These are the simple, practical reasons - there's also the ideological reason
founded on the historical reason for the 2nd amendment: A government can't
turn on it's own people if said people is armed. If the government can
effectively control the guns of the people, that stops being a factor.

~~~
apetresc
Is the "keep the government in line" thing really a reason that anybody
actually believes anymore? Like, if things got so bad that the government was
"turning on its own people" with weaponry, somebody really thinks some guys
with guns from Wal-Mart are going to be what stops them?

~~~
philwelch
Honestly? It's not a far step away from the kind of firepower they lost to in
Vietnam and Iraq.

~~~
ashark
A US government worth overthrowing by armed insurrection _and that couldn 't
be overthrown some other way_ would practically by definition be willing and
able to engage in some _really_ nasty practices to put down a domestic
rebellion. Like, filling-mass-graves nasty. Shooting at them wouldn't help.

Sympathy from the armed forces and various forms of political pressure,
foreign and domestic, would be far more helpful than a few deer rifles, and if
you've got that your private arms aren't really necessary. A domestic
rebellion wouldn't win by shooting enough people, it'd win when the tactics
necessary to stop it were beyond what the government and/or military were
willing to do.

Guns are much more useful when:

1) the enemy is foreign (killing enough people actually _might_ make them go
away), and/or

2) your position doesn't actually have popular support so other means are
unavailable to you, and/or

3) foreign powers have the will and capacity to bomb the shit out of your
country if the government goes too far in its attempts to suppress your
uprising (this, or loss of military support for the government, are basically
the only reasons authoritarian states fail to stop revolutions in the modern
world)

~~~
jnbiche
>Sympathy from the armed forces and various forms of political pressure,
foreign and domestic, would be far more helpful than a few deer rifles, and if
you've got that your private arms aren't really necessary.

Actually, having closely studied the dissolution of a modern European country
(the former Yugoslavia) and seen the fallout from up close, it's not that
simple (at least not always).

What happened in that case was that although the Yugoslav government [1]
retained control of most of the heavy weaponry (artillery, tanks), and
although the succeeding republics (Croatia and Bosnia) were initially limited
to small arms belonging to local militia and hunters, the republics _did_ have
an abundance of active and retired officers with loyalty to their ethnic
homelands who were quick to raise and lead battalions of troops into the field
[2].

Those troops then went on to capture some heavy arms from the Yugoslav army,
and scored lots of small arms, and eventually heavy arms and aircraft, from
overseas allies.

Eventually, after lots of brutal warfare, ethnic cleansing, and in Bosnia,
genocide, the republics did gain their independence from Yugoslavia (with
significant help from the U.S. and other countries).

What was key in this case were the experienced military leaders who quickly
assumed charge in the succeeding republics.

I suspect a worst-case, nightmare U.S. scenario would look much the same, with
experienced military leaders taking control of ad hoc forces in their
respective states and/or regions, and then fighting with small arms until they
were able to capture heavy arms, receive outside help, or were
defeated/captured.

1\. Essentially, Serbia and Montenegro, plus ethnic Serbs elsewhere

2\. Slovenia's succession was a different story than that of Bosnia and
Croatia, for a variety of geographical, cultural, and historical reasons.

------
JTon
Scary title, but I think I'll mark this one up as a victory for auto safety.
Especially considering a good chunk of death by firearms are (tragically)
suicides.

~~~
collyw
As a European it seems blatantly obvious that your gun laws are absurd in the
States. (I am assuming you are from the States from the fact you see the
argument that way around, correct me if I am wrong).

~~~
throwaway90999
Most of the perceived absurdity comes from disingenuous framing of the issues.
Here are some examples:

Over half of all quoted gun deaths are suicides. [edit: removed mention of
suicide survivability as I don't have a reference handy. But remember: The
most likely person to shoot you is yourself.]

Let's remove suicide from the discussion and talk about violence. The primary
driver for violence is socioeconomic. The US has a huge wealth and education
disparity problem, exacerbated by a drug war which focuses primarily on the
lower economic classes. Most political rhetoric surrounding gun violence
focuses on denying lower-class individuals access to firearms and is
inexorably linked to institutionalized racism [ cite:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special#Economic...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special#Economic_class_and_racial_inequality)
]

What these stats don't show is the EXTREME socioeconomic skew involved in
violent crime. If we look at gun deaths by wealth quadrile we find that the
upper 40% have very, very few gun deaths -- on par with the nicer areas in
Europe. Our inflated gun death statistics come almost entirely from the lower
40%. That is, gun deaths are emblematic of America's class divide.

The right to self defense is a convenient target for politicians to score easy
wins. Constructively addressing the USA's violence problem is a very different
issue and frankly is almost entirely unrelated to firearm legislation.

~~~
vor_
> Let's remove suicide from the discussion and talk about violence.

Why? This is the second time I've seen that suggestion in these comments, and
I don't understand why suicides should not be counted as gun deaths.

~~~
ta75757
Because the fact that there is a very small chance that a person may kill
themselves with a gun does not mean the government should deny that person the
right to own a gun. And people with a history of mental illness are already
excluded from owning guns.

~~~
lkbm
This argument seems at odds with the claim that suicide constitutes the
majority of the deaths.

~~~
ta75757
How so?

~~~
vor_
I believe the point is that if the chance of suicide is very small, and the
mentally ill are forbidden from owning guns, it would seemingly be at odds
with the claim that "over half of all quoted gun deaths" are suicides.

~~~
ta75757
I don't see the direct connection between the suicide risk of a single gun
owner and the ratio of suicide to homicide in total gun deaths.

The claim regarding suicide vs homicide is easy to confirm
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States)).
It is not possible to predict every suicide, the best we can do is make an
approximation using obvious risk factors like hospitalization for mental
illness. There are millions of gun owners in the US, so yes the chance of a
suicide is small.

------
samsnelling
Including suicides seems unfair.

> The U.S. Department of Justice reports that approximately 60% of all adult
> firearm deaths are by suicide, 61% more than deaths by homicide. [1]

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Stat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Suicides_involving_firearms)

~~~
bryanlarsen
Just making suicide slightly more difficult dramatically reduces suicide
rates. It's difficult to stop someone determined to kill themselves, but most
suicides are impulse decisions, so removing the opportunity often prevents the
suicide. That's why suicide barriers on bridges actually reduce suicide rates
rather than changing the method.

~~~
geebee
I agree with you generally… but in this specific case, do regions with very
strong and effective gun control have dramatically lower suicide rates than
the US? My understanding is that suicide rates in Europe aren't dramatically
lower, though they do appear to be a bit lower in western europe and higher in
eastern… I can't tell if this might be handgun related, is the delta large
enough?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_ra...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate)

I don't have any information on the suicide rates by gun in each country,
though it would be useful information from a public health standpoint
(especially if, as you pointed out, the accessibility could be reduced).

~~~
danielweber
Just eyeballing, I see a handful of strongly liberal European countries above
the US, and a bunch that are just below the US.

But this is a tough thing to compare, as you note. Suicide rate is
encompassing a whole _bunch_ of things. I'm tempted to compare against Canada,
where the suicide rate is only less by 1 per 100,000 people per year, but I
have no idea if I'm picking that out fairly.

[http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/9/07-043489.pdf](http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/9/07-043489.pdf)
suggests that the US is the only country where firearm is the preferred method
of suicide. A bit morbid to read but there you go.

------
jayess
According to the CDC, homicides by discharge of firearm was at about 11,000 in
2011. Death by motor vehicle accident was 35,000.

By contrast, 53,000 die from the flu, 27,000 from falls, 36,000 from
accidental poisoning, and 600,000 from heart disease.

Table 10:
[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf)

------
Trillinon
It's important to note that, according to the chart, both are on the decline.
Auto deaths are simply declining further.

Gun ownership is an important civil liberty in the USA, but one that comes
with danger.

The Economist is recommending a technological approach to mitigating that
danger. Research and development has been done in this department, and many
technologies have been applied to modern firearms. Better safeties that
prevent accidental discharge, better safes, ammunition that prevents over-
penetration, etc.

We have yet to see a simple and trustworthy technology that limits who can
fire a gun. When we do, it will start to be used.

For such a technology to work, the user needs to feel in complete control of
it. There can be zero risk that an authorized user won't be able to fire the
gun due to system failure or low battery.

Ultimately, though, no technological solution will prevent suicide. For that,
a different approach will be necessary, and I don't have an answer for that.

~~~
MrMember
>ammunition that prevents over-penetration

Ironically, many gun control advocates still argue against civilian ownership
of ammunition that doesn't overpenetrate. In some California cities hollow
point ammunition is illegal to buy. In New Jersey it is illegal to carry
hollow point ammunition outside the home. The Brady Campaign still to this day
calls hollow points "cop killer bullets" despite the fact that every law
enforcement department in the country uses them.

------
m_d
For some perspective, check out the CDC's "Leading Causes of Death":

[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-
death.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm)

------
ryandvm
Ignoring the click-bait headline implying that guns have _become_ more
dangerous than cars - what we actually see are that deaths from both have
declined. Car deaths slightly more quickly than gun deaths.

I find that incredibly encouraging. Nothing about guns or gun ownership has
changed dramatically in the United States over this period. Perhaps this
signals that the bizarre, and often fetishized, culture of violence in the
United States is on the wane. I hope so.

------
slipstream-
Google cache link to get around paywall:
[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fnews%2Funited-
states%2F21638140-gun-now-more-likely-kill-you-car-bangers-v-
bullets&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fnews%2Funited-
states%2F21638140-gun-now-more-likely-kill-you-car-bangers-v-
bullets&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.2239j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8&safe=active)

~~~
stevesearer
I understand that Hacker News is a sharing and discussion website and that it
sucks not being able to read the submitted stories, but it seems people here
are generally against paywalls and try to subvert them in any way possible. It
also seems that many people here also subvert non-paywall sites that monetize
their content using ads by installing various adblockers.

As a publisher myself, I'd be interested in hearing if there are any other
ways to monetize my website and content other than paywalls and advertisements
which people seem to dislike so much?

~~~
sosuke
Sponsored posts, sponsored events, sponsored custom takeovers don't fall into
ad blockers since they aren't being served by Akamai etc. If you're doing
products, affiliate links from your posts.

~~~
danielweber
"Don't sell your product; give it away and cram it with ads!"

~~~
stevesearer
I'm assuming this is snark, but print magazines actually do both by selling
the magazines themselves and filling them with advertisements.

~~~
sosuke
I read a lot of watch blogs, they do sweepstakes and brand reviews that I love
to read. [http://www.ablogtowatch.com/watch-giveaway-tudor-heritage-
ch...](http://www.ablogtowatch.com/watch-giveaway-tudor-heritage-
chrono-70330n-truefacet/)

------
logfromblammo
Comparing cause-of-death rates between automobiles and firearms is a lot like
comparing the median number of miles traveled riding in a car versus carrying
a gun.

Death is a possible unintended side effect of riding in an automobile. Death
is the explicit primary purpose of discharging a gunpowder weapon.

Thus, this is far more laudable accomplishment for automotive safety than it
is a deplorable statistic for gun owners. Cars now cause less deaths by
accident than a consumer product that is actually designed to kill things when
used correctly. Yay.

I don't ever have an absolute need to own or use a gun, but it is practically
impossible to earn a profitable living without spending at least 40 minutes
_per day_ driving in my car, or riding in any other form of on-road
transportation.

I don't particularly feel like the jerkass riding on the hard shoulder at 50
mph to bypass a rush-hour jam is in any way comparable to someone who plinks
beer bottles--the ones they just emptied--off their back fence without
stopping to consider if there are neighbors living in that general direction.
They could even be the same guy. If so, I meet him far more often on the road.

Neither guns nor cars kill without an operator--not yet, anyway. If I am now
less at risk from an idiot behind a wheel than an idiot with his finger on the
trigger, that is unequivocally good news, because I encounter far more of the
former. But the article doesn't exactly break the statistics down by intent. I
suspect that rates of deaths by gun due to accident or operator negligence are
still less than deaths by vehicle due to accident or operator negligence.

So I still feel like guns are safer for me than the average person, because I
don't particularly feel like anyone has an actual desire to kill me
specifically, especially given my own disinclination toward suicide.

The article doesn't tell me anything meaningful. It seems to be presenting the
statistics in a very narrowly interpreted way to advance a particular
editorial point of view. The Economist might as well tell me how likely I am
to die from falling off a ladder while cleaning my gutters, and compare that
to deaths by food poisoning, except that there are far fewer passionate
advocates for pasteurization and ladder stabilization bars.

~~~
FeeTinesAMady
> Death is the explicit primary purpose of discharging a gunpowder weapon.

That isn't true for any target rifle, target pistol, or shotgun intended to be
used for skeet or trap.

~~~
logfromblammo
While you make a true statement, it is a non sequitur from my argument.

------
CapitalistCartr
Statistics don't work that way. It's not an even distribution. For instance, I
am not around gun violence at all, but I've seen and been involved in several
serious car accidents. I live and work in areas nearly devoid of gun crime. My
odds of being shot are vastly less than being injured or killed by an auto.

~~~
tthomas48
Good point. If you think about it, due to the distribution of guns and the
fact that the majority of gun deaths are suicides, accidents, or domestic
violence - living in a gun-free household should reduce your risk even more
dramatically than these statistics might suggest.

~~~
danielweber
About half of suicides are done via gun, and about half of households have
access to a gun.

There's nothing "dramatic" about reducing your chance of dying via suicide by
being in the second half. I don't want to say it's zero, because I'm sure
someone's life is spared by not having a gun around when the urge to suicide
pops up.

------
donatj
Depending on your source of numbers, 40-60% of gun deaths are suicide and
30-60% are gang related. That at most leaves 0-30% "preventable" shootings.
Gang member aren't going to use "smart guns" and I have the moral right to
kill myself.

~~~
dllthomas
_" I should have the legal right to kill myself."_

And of course, even if someone disagrees with that, getting rid of the gun is
more likely to change the method than the result.

~~~
quadrangle
I think the stats are that suicide by gun shows far more successful percentage
than most other attempts. And I believe there's evidence that thwarted
attempts often work out for the better. Essentially, if the only options for
suicide fundamentally required a persistent decision over time to carry out
rather than a spur-of-the-moment decision, there's an argument that it would
be better for society and for suicidal people overall.

~~~
dllthomas
Note that I didn't say there wouldn't be any improvement.

The statistics do show guns more effective than, for instance, overdose.
However:

1) it is still the case that the method is more likely to change than the
result; and

2) it is likely that means is not assigned randomly, and those more intent on
ending their life pick more lethal means - absent guns, some comparably lethal
means remain readily available.

~~~
quadrangle
I'm really not an expert here, but I heard an argument that guns aren't chosen
more in some sort of thought-out way like you describe. Instead, guns are
there already, and get used by people who realize that there is a gun and they
might even not make the attempt otherwise. Regarding suicide, I have much less
concern about guns as a method than I do about _any_ sort of lethal tool being
available on short notice instead of a situation that requires persistent
determination and waiting.

------
flintchip
Good, finally people can stop trotting out the inane adage "if you ban guns
you have to ban cars" whenever the gun control debate comes up.

~~~
ta75757
Cars are not a good example because people need cars. But alcohol is a good
example, nobody needs alcohol and plenty of innocent people die from drunk
drivers. Yet most people consider alcohol "normal" and the idea of restricting
it to home use only, for example, as absurd. But since these people didn't
grow up with guns they consider them "abnormal" and see no problem with
restricting them, since it doesn't affect them. This is why I think the
conflict is mainly cultural.

