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

81–90 of 373 posts

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

#81

Post by paggle »

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…

Bill Gates' graphic isn't compelling except in the case of some cancer and traffic accidents. Most heart disease, almost all Alzheimer's, most cancer, etc. are just various ways that old people die. You're going to have to die in some manner, so reducing Stroke deaths is just going to mean more Heart Disease deaths a few years later on a person who got to live a full life.

Traffic accidents, earlier cancers, suicides, etc. take people who had much more quality life to be lived.

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

#82

Post by [deleted] »

glenstein wrote: post #62
freeone3000 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like the point is that different policies would affect suicides versus homicides, so grouping them into one category is not as useful as if they were separate.

It's just a weirdly nitpicky place to decide to start the conversation, just to state something that's already going to be obvious to anyone researching the subject, something that sure as heck seems to be coming from a place of not wanting the research to be done at all. A better way of stating the point without letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and thereby losing sight of the underlying need for further…

[deleted]

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

#83

Post by glenstein »

randogogogo wrote: post #31
susijdjdjxa wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Both can be independently valid justifications for gun control without involving any conflation of one for the other.

(I know that you're just elaborating on what the poster is saying rather than expressing your own views, so treat this as a reply to their comment rather than yours.)

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

#84

Post by jdkee »

Pinckney wrote: post #67
Ididntdothis wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the phrase "well-regulated militia" in there then? Is it just fluff that can be ignored?

Is pornography uncopyrightable because it's not a "science or useful art"? (I.8.8)

No. You are confusing patent law with copyright law. And first amendment law with copyright.

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

#85

Post by jMyles »

tomlockwood wrote: post #77
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…

> 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. That's assuming that the reason for lumping them together is an attempt to justify policy. One counter argument to gun control seems to be that gun ownership is a way to preserve liberty and defend the home. It…

> It has been repeatedly and consistently found that gun ownership leads to an increase in gun related injuries and deaths for the owners

This supposed factoid is frequently repeated in these sorts of discussions about gun-related data, but I have never been presented with convincing findings that support the thrust of this argument. Is this more true for guns than any other object? Is there such a strong casual relationship between proximity and firearms and subsequent injuries and deaths to overcome the other aspects of the discussion?

Every time it comes to actual hard-hitting facts, this argument seems to fall apart. Perhaps you can help me understand its basis better?

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

#86

Post by joe_the_user »

kasey_junk wrote: post #10
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…

Banning research funding is a decidedly more political act. One that people don’t have the opportunity to cut through. Also as an aside your point about existing data not correlating with homicide rates is particularly non compelling because it doesn’t normalize for firearm kind (handguns are more likely to be used in homicides than other forms of firearm) nor victim type (firearm ownership is massively correlated wi…

The subject "gun violence" seems like it has inherent presuppositions. Research on violence in the generic seems far more neutral.

Moreover, there hasn't been a ban on research on the subject of gun violence - it is simply that this is the first time money specifically for research on that topic has been allocated.

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

#87

Post by fulafel »

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…

Do you think emphasizing all-cause mortality is questionable in fields where that metric is used? I think these metrics can be better for scientific NPOV because they don't presuppose so much.

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

#88

Post by enraged_camel »

jdkee wrote: post #80
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.

No. “Well regulated” in the context of the 2A means in good working condition. The militia, which is every male between the ages of 18 and 45, shoukd have a working weapon. Legal “regulations” has nothing to do with it.

>>“Well regulated” in the context of the 2A means in good working condition.

This is the first time I'm hearing of this "good working condition" definition.

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

#89

Post by ISL »

remarkEon wrote: post #42
surge wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>and no one would freak out about if they had wooden stocks. Yeah, this. It's sort of developed into a moral panic because so many in the media grow up in urban centers on the east coast and don't have much contact with firearms. The reporting becomes pretty tainted, and in some cases hilariously inaccurate.

The majority of people live in urban centers.

One of the biggest difficulties in modern America is bridging the urban/rural divide:

My father, living in a rural area, purchased a shotgun for home defense -- when 911 was accidentally dialed, the sheriff's response time was roughly 30 minutes. Their primary political concerns revolve around taxes and regulation. Sometimes a bear walks through the neighbor's yard.

At our house in the city, on the other hand, I can throw five burritos and hit five other residences. I can't imagine firing that same shotgun in our house, as our windows and our neighbor's windows are in direct opposition. Police response times are quick, but we have people camping in the bushes across the street, a car break-in thrice a decade, and the occasional heroin addict passed out in the park, needle still in his arm.

These are two entirely different modalities of living, and we are trying to apply federal law to both. The second amendment is essential to our democracy, but it is increasingly difficult to argue with the growing calls to address gun violence as a public health threat. Nobody wants to get shot, everyone wants to live free and out from under the thumb of a tyrannical government. We can find a way.

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

#90

Post by pstuart »

melling wrote: post #30
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…

The entire 2nd Amendment claim is hotly debated, of course. Chief Justice Warren Burger’s epic rant: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo There’s also an excellent episode about the Second Amendment on WNYC. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/radio... When people tell you the Constitution is clear about gun ownership and that it’s settled, they are lying.

Gun advocates are easily "triggered" by any perceived threats to their toys.
Post reply on HN