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

#141

Post by Turing_Machine » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:20 AM UTC

melling wrote: post #94

rayiner wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blaming the NRA is popular, but people leave out that the academic tide turned against the 1960s view as well: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html > There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of se…

There’s more in the Atlantic version of the article: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/john-paul-... “ Colonial history contains many examples of firearm regulations in urban areas that imposed obstacles to their use for protection of the home. Boston, Philadelphia, and New York—the three largest cities in America at that time—all imposed restrictions on the firing of guns in the city limits. Boston e…

> Colonial history contains many examples of firearm regulations in urban areas that imposed obstacles to their use for protection of the home.

None of the Bill of Rights applied to the states until the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, after which it was held to be "incorporated to the states". State and local laws from the colonial period are not relevant.

During the same period, several states had established churches, but I see no one arguing that the First Amendment still permits that.

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

#142

Post by everdev » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:20 AM UTC

stevenicr wrote: post #52

kasey_junk wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it's because it's easier to divide and conquer with 'big scary assault rifles meant for the battlefield' - it helps gather some people who are in the middle, and agree with Heller in that people should be able to defend themselves especially at home... if you say assault rifle bad - no one needs one to hunt with - you get some people nodding... so it's easier to pass and claim a victory lap. I saw a definitio…

> Frankly if the grandma next door needs to use a weapon, I would hope that she is not limited by regulations such as that - I would like her to have as good of a grip and sighting options as absolutely possible. I'd rather her have an easily controllable SBR type of weapon, expandable stock and maybe 30 rounds of 22 winmag - this would be much safer for her and for the neighbors I think if something went down... JB's double barrell shotgun suggestion would not be the best protection for many grandmas, imho.

Is this a real risk in parts of the country where old people need serious fire power to defend themselves? Maybe it is and I just haven't been exposed to it. For me, I'd feel more nervous with someone with deteriorating memory and eyesight handling a lethal weapon next door.

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

#143

Post by Ididntdothis » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:21 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…

If the first amendment was written that way I think we shouldn't just ignore the phrase "well-educated". Otherwise you can choose to ignore other sections too. Either all words have meaning or they don't. You can't pick and choose.

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

#144

Post by mlyle » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:21 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…

I think people have the right to kill themselves if they want. It's not in the same category as involuntarily losing your life through someone else's deliberate action.

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

#145

Post by Turing_Machine » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:22 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 .

> Do you think people advocating gun control haven't considered these numbers?

I think the overwhelming majority of them are ignorant of them, yes. Do you have data that shows otherwise? If so, perhaps you should present it.

> but just that their arguments are so boring.

Calling a fact "boring" is not a refutation of it.

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

#146

Post by nl » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:24 AM UTC

bb611 wrote: post #71

ryandrake wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Regardless of whether you classify it as a disease, the CDC does in fact track and research car accident deaths and injuries: https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.ht... Additionally there are two federal agencies (NHTSB and NTSB) that regulate the various elements of vehicular safety at the national level, on top of state DMVs and transportation departments. By comparison, the federal BATFE is ba…

Additionally, CDC funds and publishes research of motor vehicle safety[1].

Their seat belts topic is a good example: https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/pubs.html

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/

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

#147

Post by jakeogh » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:25 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #117

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…

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 mar…

Ultimately, you are agruing for DRM. Note that the State Separtment is _still_ (after the court loss) trying to claim ITAR on firearm CAD's.

Our ability to print guns will only improve. Hand waving it away as something you dont think matters wont change it.

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

#148

Post by wl » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:26 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #117

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…

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 mar…

> The original AWB proposals were sane and straightforward: they intended to regulate any semi-automatic long gun with a detachable magazine.

The last time I saw you in a discussion like this, I asked you for a source and all you could give me was a draft bill with a few guns banned by name. No general ban on semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. I think you're wrong on this. You should stop repeating this unless you can back it up.

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

#149

Post by yongjik » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:28 AM UTC

ryeights wrote: post #136

tomlockwood wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Personally I see it the opposite way: America's infatuation with guns reflects a world where your fellow citizens are wild animals to be fended off with lethal threat, and your government is run by dangerous criminals ready to take you and your freedom by brute force. This is a world built upon the lowest common denominator of civilization.

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

#150

Post by tomlockwood » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:28 AM UTC

ryeights wrote: post #136

tomlockwood wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> So we should curb people's rights to self defense because some people might hurt themselves with the tools involved?

Guns don't help with that goal. Having a gun makes you more likely to die of gunshot wounds, either self-inflicted or by others.