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

161–170 of 373 posts

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

#161

Post by tptacek »

jakeogh wrote: post #147
tptacek wrote: post #117

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. 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.

Our ability to print everything will only improve. If you're an an-cap, there's a coherent argument to be made here, but if not, your argument proves too much.

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

#162

Post by AnthonyMouse »

mikeyouse wrote: post #155
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The "controlled borders" between the US and its neighbors are each more than a thousand miles across, and I'm led to believe that most of those in favor of gun control are sour on the effectiveness of securing them with a wall or other such measures.

Moreover, contraband flows toward the places where it's prohibited. If certain firearms went from not prohibited to prohibited then they would flow in rather than out.

And I'm not saying a national ban would have no effect, only that it would have a similar effect to a state-level ban -- regular people would follow the law, and then you might get e.g. fewer firearms suicides (but more non-firearms suicides). But if you expect gangs to stop arming themselves because of "borders" or national law, just look at Mexico.

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

#163

Post by ryeights »

aalleavitch wrote: post #118
racnid wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's true, but only so because democracy is the best option we have, i.e., it is the "least bad".

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

#164

Post by tptacek »

wl wrote: post #148
tptacek wrote: post #117

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. 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…

I appreciate the attempt at a mic-drop here, but I actually responded to your comment with a link to a bill that was not merely "a few guns banned by name". Maybe you missed it; my response came a day or two after you wrote your comment. I'll hold on to my argument, thanks.

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

#165

Post by tomlockwood »

ryeights wrote: post #159
tomlockwood wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I dunno, maybe this is a super controversial opinion but I think it may be harmful to categorize a bunch of people who commit suicide as idiots. Particularly given that those people in America are more and more often veterans and men.

I also think that by some tragic circumstance or another a lot of those mentally ill people have no friends or family to support them. I'm happy to pay the government to care for those "idiots", to be frank.

What do you think?

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

#166

Post by wl »

tptacek wrote: post #164
wl wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I appreciate the attempt at a mic-drop here, but I actually responded to your comment with a link to a bill that was not merely "a few guns banned by name". Maybe you missed it; my response came a day or two after you wrote your comment. I'll hold on to my argument, thanks.

This is what you linked to:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/senate-bill/386...

Were you thinking of something else? Because I really don't see how it supports your argument.

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

#167

Post by everdev »

dx87 wrote: post #18
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…

Another way I've seen statistics misused when advocating for gun control is bringing up the high number of "mass shootings" any time an event makes the news. The majority of "mass shootings" are gang violence, but gun control advocates will bring it up when there is a school/mall/etc. shooting to play on people's fears and make them believe that almost every day there is someone killing a bunch of kids in a school. I…

> The majority of "mass shootings" are gang violence, but gun control advocates will bring it up when there is a school/mall/etc. shooting to play on people's fears and make them believe that almost every day there is someone killing a bunch of kids in a school.

I think the difference is gang shootings typically take place in rough neighborhoods. When you enter a high crime area you're aware of an elevated risk. Innocent bystanders do get killed but it's probably a much lower percentage than the gang members. As horrible as it is, gangs are somewhat consenting to this level of violence by initiating it.

Terrorism and mass shootings are horrific because they typically take place in previously safe areas and claim almost exclusively innocent bystanders.

If you have children in school, they now practice "Code Red" drills where they lock the classroom and hide to simulate an active shooter.

Wether your pro or anti-gun no one wants the reality we have now where kids grow up with this kind of fear.

While the number of deaths from terrorism are far lower, the fear is probably far higher because kids grow up thinking/knowing it could happen anywhere.

I think for this reason people focus more on these mass shootings and how to prevent them.

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

#168

Post by jMyles »

tomlockwood wrote: post #96
jMyles wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 rela…

> 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? What other aspect of the discussion do you feel undermines the point that owning a gun actually measurably reduces personal liberty via death? What hard hitting facts do you think are missing here?

1) As best I can tell, owning a gun doesn't increase the risk of becoming a victim of violence.

2) Many decisions in life come with risks: the decision to own a car or swimming pool puts you much closer to the most frequent causes of death for people under the age of 35. But people make rational decisions to do these things anyway and then mitigate the risks in ways that they see fit.

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

#169

Post by ryeights »

tomlockwood wrote: post #165
ryeights wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I dunno, maybe this is a super controversial opinion but I think it may be harmful to categorize a bunch of people who commit suicide as idiots. Particularly given that those people in America are more and more often veterans and men. I also think that by some tragic circumstance or another a lot of those mentally ill people have no friends or family to support them. I'm happy to pay the government to care for those…

Note that I said 'accidentally injured' in my original comment; obviously suicide is a different matter entirely. This might actually be a controversial opinion, but I believe people who want to end their lives have a right to do so.

Barring that, we already have measures in place (e.g. involuntary hospitalization) for the acutely suicidal. For others, why stop at taking away their guns? Take away their kitchen knives, Tylenol, and spare rope while you're at it. Hell, throw them in a padded cell so they aren't tempted to visit any bridges or tall buildings. Taking away guns doesn't treat the actual problem.

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

#170

Post by tomlockwood »

jMyles wrote: post #168
tomlockwood wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? What other aspect of the discussion do you feel undermines the point that owning a gun actually measurably reduces personal liberty via death? What hard hitting facts do you think are missing here?

1) As best I can tell, owning a gun doesn't increase the risk of becoming a victim of violence. 2) Many decisions in life come with risks: the decision to own a car or swimming pool puts you much closer to the most frequent causes of death for people under the age of 35. But people make rational decisions to do these things anyway and then mitigate the risks in ways that they see fit.

Neither of these undermine the point that liberty and self-defence are actually lowered by gun ownership.
Post reply on HN