
America's gun problem, explained - hackuser
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-states-america
======
dpc_pw
Gun related deaths per 100k in US: 10.5
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-
related_death_rate)

Suicides using gun per 100k population: 6.7
[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm)

So already more than half of the original number is not what you would expect.

As a person that moved from Europe, I don't see any gun problem in USA. I see
severe economical problems, social problems, racial tensions, ideological
tensions. Mass shootings do happen, but they are like airplane crashes -
exciting for media and common folks, but rather rare.

For comparison in US cancer death rate per 100k is : 166.4
[http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/deathrates/deathrates....](http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/deathrates/deathrates.html)

When was the last time when "cancer problem in US" reached Hacker News?

~~~
Delmania
"Mass shootings do happen, but they are like airplane crashes - exciting for
media and common folks, but rather rare."

In 2015 alone, there have been 355 mass shootings as of the time of this
posting. Since 2013 there has been on average one mass shooting a day.

How is that rare?

~~~
dpc_pw
As counted by anti-gun subreddit, that includes anything even remotely
reassembling "mass-shooting" (like robberies, gangs etc.). Not to mention it's
not even a credible source by definition...

By other sources and definitions it's much, much lower.

[http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-have-
beco...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-have-become-more-
common-in-the-u-s/)

------
joshmn
And here's the solution: Turn in your guns.

Disclaimer: I'm a gun owner, and an avid hunter. At one point in my life I
shot for competition. I still think that we need to turn in all guns. I
personally know too many people with guns who _don't_ need them, instead they
have them because they think it's cool, or because it's a "constitutional
right."

Sorry, but I think the constitution was written when we didn't have a problem.
Most of these peoples are also religious in one way or another (you can infer
which way they lean, and you'll probably be correct) — but don't you dare tell
them that it's also a constitutional right to choose to follow no religion.
Because that's sacrilegious.

I was also raised catholic.

~~~
DefaultUserHN
The US government is based on the idea that power is always corruptable, so
the way to counter that is to divide and istribute the power.

The 2nd Amendment isn't there so you can protect yourself against criminals.
You already got the government (the police force) for that. It is also not
there so you can go hunting (though you can use it for that).

The 2nd Amendment is there to divide and distribute half the power to the
people and half to the government.

Did you know that the Ten Amendments, are the second part of the Constitution?
The first part of the Constitution gives power to the government, while the
second part of the Constitution gives power to the people.

Your ancestors fought and died so that 50% of the power will be given to the
people. So that the document will be divided into two parts: the Constitution
itself (for the government), and the Bills of Rights aka the 10 Amendments
(for the people).

So why do you want to abolish your part of the constitution and give all the
power back to the government?

It's would be as illogical as Congress deciding to abolish all its power and
give them all to the Executive Branch.

The point of the Constitution is to divide and distribute power between the
branches, between the federal and the states, and between the government and
the people.

~~~
hackuser
> The 2nd Amendment is there to divide and distribute half the power to the
> people and half to the government.

1) According to whom? I've heard people say that but I know no basis for it.

2) Has this ever happened in the history of the United States, where private
citizens asserted power over government through violence (and who were not
criminals)? Even the Civil War was an insurrection by a government.

3) Most importantly, it seems like a terrible idea to have issues decided not
by votes and laws, but by violence, killing, and who has bigger guns. It
sounds like the opposite of civilization - anarchy and barbarism - and the
problem democracy and rule of law are meant to solve.

4) The founders, and I believe almost all Americans intend that power should
come from votes, and issues should be decided by law, in court.

~~~
hga
As for 1, I'd suggest reading this book: [http://www.amazon.com/That-Every-
Man-Armed-Constitutional/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/That-Every-Man-Armed-
Constitutional/dp/0945999380)

As for 2:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_\(1946\))

As for 3, no one is suggesting it become a routine method. Heck, the early
20th Century Imperial Japanese political culture of assassination and what it
led to is a stark object lesson (particularly stark as I finish reading this
right now: [http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-
Downfall-1945-1947/...](http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-
Downfall-1945-1947/dp/1591143160/))

As for 4, your history lessons must have skipped this event:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War)

Overall, it's rather interesting you can't conceive of the deterrent effects
of a well armed populace. Surely our 21st Century experiences in the sandbox
suggest something....

