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

#151

Post by melling » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:30 AM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #141

melling wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 establ…

It’s surprising that Justice Stevens didn’t understand that when he wrote it in May of this year.

Is it possible that he did and you’re missing something?

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

#152

Post by tomlockwood » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:33 AM UTC

mlyle wrote: post #144

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…

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.

Ok! Is there perhaps a less messy way to do it than a gun?

Also I think people, particularly men, seem to think they're pretty immune to mental illness or fits of emotion. That's another belief that lacks a basis. Whether you die because you had a bad month or because a toddler found your gun, or your partner was angry at you, you'll still be dead.

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

#153

Post by ryeights » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:34 AM UTC

tomlockwood wrote: post #150

ryeights wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That depends entirely on you and your family's level of responsibility around firearms. Unless you act like an idiot with regards to guns, you are unlikely to be accidentally injured by them. That is what I mean by 'least common denominator': people shouldn't be denied firearms because certain people can't be responsible with them.

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

#154

Post by bsanr2 » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:35 AM UTC

kasey_junk wrote: post #43

remarkEon wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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

It’s a common contention of the gun advocacy community that it’s ignorance that drives awb, but that flies in the face of the evidence that veterans are disproportionately represented in elected officials, police officers are consulted when drafting the legislation & its a subject that is easily researchable. I think it’s more likely that the people who are politically motivated around this issue represent the extrem…

Right. The point that gets missed is that the contention is often less about the nuances of any particular firearm's capabilities and more about the common intentions of their use. EVERY gun is violent in the hands of someone trying to commit violence. Yet, mass shooters (who kill people in a particularly cruel manner, randomly, and that which is difficult for the average person to guard against) gravitate to assault rifles, for whatever reason. So people want them banned. Will that stop mass killings, from a functional perspective? Probably not. But it does remove a step in the psychic progression from normalcy to a massacre. Since the whole problem is a dysfunction of our collective processing of the lives we face, maybe the disruption to that flow a ban would represent is enough. Some say we're afraid of the big scary rifle; I say, sure, and a mass shooter feels empowered by it.

As an addendum, I have to imagine that GRAs enjoy this debate, because as long as we're stuck on it, we don't have to talk about how access to handguns increases the successful suicide attempt rate.

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

#155

Post by mikeyouse » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:35 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #120

chillwaves wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 na…

We have open borders between states and mostly controlled borders between countries. Regardless, the guns flow out of the US, not into it.

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

#156

Post by tomlockwood » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:36 AM UTC

yongjik wrote: post #149

ryeights wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> your government is run by dangerous criminals ready to take you and your freedom by brute force.

Even more interesting to me is the idea that the American government has such a hold over the patriots in the military that they could be commanded to enforce tyranny.

Or, that owning an assault rifle is some antidote against the best funded military in the world, which has been fighting armed insurgencies for years.

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

#157

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:36 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 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?

That you don't see pictures of the Mini-14 on the evening news as an exemplar of something to be prohibited when they're trying to drum up support for new laws.

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

Which is to say the significant majority of all rifles. So straight forward but not sane, because it would be enormous overreach rather than anything that could actually pass or survive judicial review.

But then the compromise is inherently ridiculous because there is no meaningful distinction to be made between an ordinary hunting rifle and a "military" rifle, and instead of accepting that they proceeded to insist on meaningless distinctions.

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

#158

Post by tomlockwood » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:39 AM UTC

ryeights wrote: post #153

tomlockwood wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That depends entirely on you and your family's level of responsibility around firearms. Unless you act like an idiot with regards to guns, you are unlikely to be accidentally injured by them. That is what I mean by 'least common denominator': people shouldn't be denied firearms because certain people can't be responsible with them.

Awesome. Sounds like you're in favour of reasonable gun control via strict license requirements and tests. You know - to make sure irresponsible idiots don't get them.

We agree.

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

#159

Post by ryeights » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:42 AM UTC

tomlockwood wrote: post #158

ryeights wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends entirely on you and your family's level of responsibility around firearms. Unless you act like an idiot with regards to guns, you are unlikely to be accidentally injured by them. That is what I mean by 'least common denominator': people shouldn't be denied firearms because certain people can't be responsible with them.

Awesome. Sounds like you're in favour of reasonable gun control via strict license requirements and tests. You know - to make sure irresponsible idiots don't get them. We agree.

Sort of. I don't believe its the government's job (nor position) to protect idiots from themselves, so I would not support such regulations.

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

#160

Post by ryeights » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:47 AM UTC

yongjik wrote: post #149

ryeights wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a fair take. However, history shows us that, for every nation, the probability of those two statements becoming true approaches 1 as time progresses. The fact remains that there exist criminals in society who would harm my family and I for personal gain or pleasure if they had the chance, and I would like to have the means to defend myself from them.