United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year freeze • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by ISL » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:12 AM UTC

aidenn0 wrote: post #116

ISL wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've been contemplating bear spray to fill that role. Deployed in the confines of our home, it would put both us and any assailant in a world of hurt, but nobody has to die (and, if turned against us, we might suffer far less).

Even bird shot, fired from within our house, could easily kill our nearest neighbors. They're less than 10m away, and separated only by plate glass. The buckshot that my father has selected for home defense could easily reach them through their interior walls. I've already dealt with enough death in life.

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

#132

Post by mlyle » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:13 AM UTC

baroffoos wrote: post #125

rayiner wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, support for banning hand guns has collapsed: https://news.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun... . In 1959, 60% of people favored a handgun ban, to 36% opposed. By 2011 that had flipped to 73% opposed and just 26% in favor. People focus on rifles, which are responsible for relatively few deaths, because banning handguns is wildly unpopular. (Heck Kamala Harris owns a handgun.)

Rifles have none of the legitimate uses that gun advocates go on about so its a low reward but 0 loss situation to ban them. Unless someone is proposing you need to defend your house against a zombie invasion.

? The majority of hunting is performed with rifles, though shotguns and pistols do have roles. This includes semi-automatic rifles.

A big fraction of serious marksmanship is done with rifles, including multiple formats that depend upon semi-automatic rifles.

There are many collectors of curios & relics of military and sporting history, which are overwhelmingly rifles.

My brother kills trapped raccoons on his property with a rifle instead of drowning them because he feels it is more humane.

There's a ton of legitimate sporting use, some defense use, and they are used much, much less in crime than handguns.

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

#133

Post by nl » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:13 AM UTC

paggle wrote: post #102

pcwalton wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My stomach churned just reading that. If you want to make a point about death with dignity, consider some wording other than "he blew his head to pieces with a gun".

Care to explain why? My point was that, the availability of a painless way to die was a very big blessing for that man at that time. Do you disagree?

> Care to explain why? My point was...

Because the unsympathetic and blood thirsty description of his death distracted from your point.

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

#134

Post by baobrain » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:14 AM UTC

It's dismaying in the comment section to see people who are seemingly unaware of the Dickey Amendment straight up defending it. The Dickey Amendment banned the CDC from funding any research that may be used to advocate or promote gun control. And it was lobbied for by (who would've guessed) the NRA.

Pretty much all medical associations have called for the amendment's repeal. It's had a stifling effect on research into gun violence since 1996 because most research in this area is funded by the federal government.

This is nothing but good news and a blow to groups who want to stifle public knowledge to protect their own interests.

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

#135

Post by mlyle » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:17 AM UTC

hellisothers wrote: post #109

stevenicr wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

when "police officers are consulted when drafting the legislation" - they could have their own protection interest in mind more than yours. When they choose to carry 'high capacity magazines', SBRs (real pia to get for non-leo) - and other weaponry, it is understood these things help them be safer... If grandma is not allowed to be safer because random bad guy - you have to wonder, or should maybe.

Twice now “grandma” has been employed as a reason assault rifles should be legal. Come on, this has nothing to do with a fictional grandmother with a scopes rifle. It’s like some talking point gone awry.

A scoped rifle? vs. assault rifle? I mean, sometimes these concepts are combined, but generally a modern military-style rifle has iron sights or at most a reflex sight.

I think your comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding.

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

#136

Post by ryeights » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:17 AM UTC

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…

So we should curb people's rights to self defense because some people might hurt themselves with the tools involved? You can apply a similar line of reasoning to the banning of fast food and cars. Why should the people be held to the standard of their least common denominator?

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

#137

Post by yongjik » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:18 AM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #128

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?

ryeights gave a cite below, but consider this: If the First Amendment had been written as "A well-educated legislature being essential to the governance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed", you would argue, what, exactly? That only the legislature had the right to books? That only "well-educated" people had the right to books? No, you wouldn't. Neither would anyone…

This is a really weird argument, considering that the First Amendment is emphatically not written as such, and that's what this debate is about: maybe there's a reason why such a phrase appears in 2A but not in 1A, or maybe there's none, but you're begging the question.

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

#138

Post by Glyptodon » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:19 AM UTC

melling wrote: post #115

rayiner wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

I do agree that Heller is sort of a strange re-contextualization that seems to arise because nobody really wants to deal with citizens owning the full gamut of modern military arms even if that's the natural implication of the 2nd's wording.

Steven's essay isn't easy for me to buy into in multiple respects. Like even his starting premises are basically implying that the Revolutionary was prosecuted by a bunch of criminals who, horror of horrors, stockpiled weapons in theirs homes and churches, which, as much as I dislike the modern Tea Party BS, has also long been lionized as part of America's national identity.

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

#139

Post by mlyle » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:19 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #127

Turing_Machine wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Given that more people are killed with hands and feet than are killed with rifles of any kind, "assault" or otherwise, yes, it's an irrational fear. Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-... For 2018, the numbers are: Rifles: 297…

Do you think people advocating gun control haven't considered these numbers? Heart disease kills more people than crime of all sorts. We still generally want police departments. Is there some book or FAQ these arguments all get sourced from? They always seem to be the same ones. At this point, I'm not even annoyed that people disagree with me about firearms, but just that their arguments are so boring .

It seems a bit dubious to ban something that has legitimate uses and isn't even on the "leaderboard" in the murder category.

If you believe handguns should be banned, it is at least somewhat logically consistent of a position. But if you ban something that is a fringe edge-case in the statistics, we know a priori it will be minimally effective at best, and at worst those murders will be performed by other, more convenient means.

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

#140

Post by jakeogh » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:19 AM UTC

beefalo wrote: post #126

jakeogh wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gun use is overwhelmingly defensive.

citation needed

(1995) Kleck & Gertz estimates of 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year: https://americangunfacts.com/pdf/Armed%20Resistance%20to%20C...