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

111–120 of 373 posts

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

#111

Post by rayiner »

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.

The scope of the second amendment is surely debatable. But Burger’s “epic rant” expresses a view of the second amendment that’s not only rejected by Heller, but was wrong from inception. The idea of the Second Amendment as protecting a collective right is irreconcilable with the text: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm. See also: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html. Reading the contemporaneous works of the Founders leaves little doubt that the second amendment protects the collective right to self determination through the individual right to own weapons of war:

> Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops. - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

I’m not sure if the “collective rights” view is as shoddy as “penumbras,” but it’s surely more offensive to the Constitution to read a right out of it than to read rights into it.

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

#112

Post by cadlin »

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…

That Medium post isn't arguing in good faith either. He criticizes a bunch of graphs on Vox or Mother Jones, but doesn't bother engaging with any actual academic research. The news websites may be imprecise, but their underlying point isn't wrong.[1]

Similarly, if I were to argue that anti-gun control people deliberately argue in good faith, I wouldn't use a random Hacker News commenter as evidence, but would instead point to the fact that John Lott fabricated survey evidence[2].

[1]https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20130304061928/http:/www.cse.uns...

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

#113

Post by jakeogh »

ip26 wrote: post #105
datashow wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is malaria comparable to guns? Is malaria in the Constitution? Does Americans have a malaria culture?

The point is they both harm people; so it's no great surprise for a public health agency to have concerns about them.

Gun use is overwhelmingly defensive.

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

#114

Post by drchap »

kasey_junk wrote: post #33
vorpalhex wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

According your source in 2016 the US suicide rate was 13.7 per 100,000 people. The UK was 7.6, so about half.

But, France was 12.1 and Ireland 10.9, not much less than the US. I don't think we can conclude from this data that access to firearms accounts for all or even most of the difference.

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

#115

Post by melling »

rayiner wrote: post #111
melling wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The scope of the second amendment is surely debatable. But Burger’s “epic rant” expresses a view of the second amendment that’s not only rejected by Heller , but was wrong from inception. The idea of the Second Amendment as protecting a collective right is irreconcilable with the text: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm . See also: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html . Reading the contempora…

Justice Stevens has a better write up in the Atlantic about his issues with the Heller verdict.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/john-paul-...

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

#116

Post by aidenn0 »

ISL wrote: post #89
remarkEon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ou…

A shotgun is actually pretty reasonable Urban defense, particularly with lead shot that isn't too large.

Rifles are a big no no though. They can carry very far and overpenetrate.

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

#117

Post by tptacek »

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…

I'm really tired of this argument that people are irrationally afraid of black rifles and simply don't understand the machines they're purporting to regulate. These are devices that were designed to be field stripped by 18 year olds in a jungle. They're not that complicated.

The Mini-14 (for example) has a wooden stock, and looks like something out of Little House On The Prairie, in part because it was brought to market at a time where the M-16, a descendant of the Stoner AR-15 design, had acquired a reputation for dreadful unreliability. In an urban environment, it's just as problematic as an AR-15; what's your point?

Another almost perfectly unhelpful argument is the irrationality of assault weapons bans. This is the Nelson Muntz of firearms regulations argument. The original AWB proposals were sane and straightforward: they intended to regulate any semi-automatic long gun with a detachable magazine. It was the 2A crowd, and particularly the NRA, that fought off gun control advocates to the absurd position they occupy now. It's not some article of faith among gun control advocates that grips and barrel shrouds are actually important. The NRA is the reason we ended up here, and now they're telling us to stop hitting ourselves.

Also, another example of a firearm with a wood stock? The AK-47.

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

#118

Post by aalleavitch »

racnid wrote: post #97
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 anyone reading along at home: Gun rights do not derive from the Constitution, they derive from the natural right of a being to protect itself. The second amendment is codifed there to attempt to limit the power of the government to take away that right. Despite what you may have been told it is not a collective right (there's no such thing), it is an individual right. Just like every other right enumerated in the…

You give the individual too much credit. If the majority wanted to take away your guns, they would. The majority also can take away your right to self-determine, that's the entire basis of law and criminal punishment. If laws were based on fundamental moral truth they wouldn't change, and yet laws change all the time, that's one of the fundamental strengths of the US constitution (because time often shows laws to be unjust).

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

#119

Post by aalleavitch »

pstuart wrote: post #90
melling wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those toys let them imagine they have power. Take that away, and they might accidentally realize that they don't and get angry at the real boots stepping on their throats.

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

#120

Post by AnthonyMouse »

chillwaves wrote: post #37
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…

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.

Here's the trouble with that argument:

> Gun control on the national level will not stop the flow of guns across national borders. It's dishonest of you to suggest otherwise.

People smuggle drugs into this country at scale. The same people who are among the most likely perpetrators of homicides. If prohibiting possession has no effect and prohibiting importation is similarly ineffective then it's hard to see how a national prohibition would do much more than a state one.

Post reply on HN