Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 373 posts

Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze

#31

Post by randogogogo »

susijdjdjxa wrote: post #4
rayiner wrote: post #3

Gun violence research is a good example of how science can be skewed to make different political points. For example, one of the new tactics gun control advocates have adopted is lumping homicides and suicides together into “gun deaths” even though the policy implications of the two things are quite different. (Suicides accounting for the large majority of “gun deaths,” but bans on semi-automatic rifles and high capa…

I’m a little confused on your overall point here - are you saying that it’s only good to reduce gun homicides, not suicides?

I think the poster is saying they don't like that some people conflate gun deaths with gun murders and use that as a justification for gun control.

Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze

#32

Post by remarkEon »

kasey_junk wrote: post #28
dx87 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way I've seen statistics misused when advocating for gun control is bringing up the high number of "mass shootings" any time an event makes the news. The majority of "mass shootings" are gang violence, but gun control advocates will bring it up when there is a school/mall/etc. shooting to play on people's fears and make them believe that almost every day there is someone killing a bunch of kids in a school. I…

The vast majority of gun violence of all types, suicides, gang murders, mass shootings, domestic violence etc. are committed with hand guns. Hand gun ownership popularity is at a high in the US across many demographics. But assault rifle bans are the most popular form of gun control, probably because of the popularity of hand guns.

>probably because of the popularity of hand guns.

I think it's more that most of those advocating for these rifle bans have limited or no experience with any firearm, let a lone rifles. Most of these things just look scary to people who are unfamiliar with them, even though they'd be functionally equivalent to rifles with wooden stocks and wooden foregrips.

Edit: clarifying word

Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze

#33

Post by kasey_junk »

vorpalhex wrote: post #27
kasey_junk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s actually likely an inverse relationship to this. Suicides are more likely to be successful where guns are prevalent compared to where they are hard to get. Meanwhile homicides are rare so no matter what tool you have access to you can get it done. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

The US and UK suicide rates are extremely comparable, and the UK has far fewer firearms. Let's not even touch on Japan.

No they aren’t. Most recent data suggests that the US has twice the suicide rate of the U.K.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide...

Japan & Korea are interesting _because_ they are outliers.

Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze

#34

Post by felipelemos »

robcohen wrote: post #19
minikites wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>gun rights derive from the Constitution Many people conveniently leave out the "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment.

This is a horse that has been beaten to death. It’s well established what militia means. Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

Should "Unorganized" militia counted as "regulated" militia?

Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze

#35

Post by ryandrake »

sohkamyung wrote: post #13
larnmar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, shouldn’t the Center for Disease Control spend its time and focus on things that could reasonably be argued fall under the heading of “disease control”? By all means, gun violence research should be conducted by, say, the Department of Justice. Like many policies in the US at this stage, the goal appears not to be good governance but simply “pwning the other side”.

Quote from this website [1] ===== “Gun violence is America’s most preventable disease. I say that because it’s almost entirely preventable and the numbers of people affected are so high.” Judy Schaechter, MD, MBA University of Miami Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine ===== [1] https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/disease-gun-violence

You could say a similar thing about car accidents. Does that make car accidents a disease?

Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze

#36

Post by surge »

bluedino wrote: post #26
dx87 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way I've seen statistics misused when advocating for gun control is bringing up the high number of "mass shootings" any time an event makes the news. The majority of "mass shootings" are gang violence, but gun control advocates will bring it up when there is a school/mall/etc. shooting to play on people's fears and make them believe that almost every day there is someone killing a bunch of kids in a school. I…

One thing I don't get is Mother Jones excludes shootings that result from domestic violence, drug deals and gang activity.

Probably because those shootings are probably in high gun control areas like Chicago, NJ, CA where laws are strictest, so it shows that gun control doesn't really work to stop those, and those deaths are usually the result overwhelmingly of handguns, not AR-15's or "assault style rifles" which are just semi-automatic rifles that look militaristic and no one would freak out about if they had wooden stocks. In this case, the numbers don't help their agenda.

The most effective forms of gun control should be focused on guns used in the majority of crime, which are handguns, but that's not the discussion that's being had because the gun debate is media driven, which is centered around mass shootings (greater shock factor, better ratings), which statistically are the rarest and of least concern by numbers (I think gun death/homicides by rifle https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

AR-15s are also very popular because they're a platform you can take an AR-15 lower, and or buy a cheap one and build up slowly over time until you have a very nice and accurate rifle. They look militaristic because their metal exterior but when people say they're identical functionally to hunting rifles, they're not lying when it comes to the part that handles firing the bullet.

I'll also leave people with this: https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/1138520780042465280

Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze

#37

Post by chillwaves »

surge wrote: post #36
bluedino wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I don't get is Mother Jones excludes shootings that result from domestic violence, drug deals and gang activity.

Probably because those shootings are probably in high gun control areas like Chicago, NJ, CA where laws are strictest, so it shows that gun control doesn't really work to stop those, and those deaths are usually the result overwhelmingly of handguns, not AR-15's or "assault style rifles" which are just semi-automatic rifles that look militaristic and no one would freak out about if they had wooden stocks. In this cas…

Probably need some evidence to back up your claims about their motivation.

Gun control on the state level will not stop the flow of guns across state borders. It's dishonest of you to suggest otherwise. Speaking as a gun owner.

Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze

#38

Post by robcohen »

brewdad wrote: post #25
robcohen wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a horse that has been beaten to death. It’s well established what militia means. Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

So we should be confiscating guns on one's 45th birthday? Probably not all that effective, but it's a start I guess.

Alternatively, you can just repeal the second amendment. I’m unsure why anti-gun advocates don’t just argue this. The constitution can be changed. Justice Stevens argued this in an op-ed: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opin...

Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze

#39

Post by ip26 »

virmundi wrote: post #24
ryeights wrote: post #2

While I am an opponent of gun control I will be glad to see this change go into effect. Ethical research shouldn't be constrained by politics, and the optics of the policy weren't great anyway...

The CDC has a history of anti gun bias. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/...

They also have a history of anti malaria bias.

Public health agency finds that guns kill people, recommends fewer guns, news at 11

Re: United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze

#40

Post by milquetoastaf »

robcohen wrote: post #19
minikites wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>gun rights derive from the Constitution Many people conveniently leave out the "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment.

This is a horse that has been beaten to death. It’s well established what militia means. Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

Right but what about the "well-regulated" part?
Post reply on HN