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

#211

Post by JamesBarney » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 9:20 AM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #122

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…

> 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…

For those who are curious.

All firearms: 10,265

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

#212

Post by masonic » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 9:26 AM UTC

iudqnolq wrote: post #60

kasey_junk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ve forgotten the single most important factor. When it comes to intentional deaths by firearm, mass shootings target white children at a much higher per capita number. If white teenagers were getting killed by gun murders at even the rate of black kids killed by cops we’d have a national ban.

See the fact California started heavily restricting gun ownership once black people started exercising their Second Amendment rights (and that happened under a Republican government) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party

  under a Republican government

Actually, Democrats controlled the Assembly, and the Mulford Act didn't move until it had a majority of Democrat cosponsors.

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

#213

Post by masonic » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 9:31 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.

Similarly, having a syringe in your house correlates to increased death risk by opioid poisoning, so... ban syringes?

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

#214

Post by tomlockwood » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 9:35 AM UTC

jMyles wrote: post #208

tomlockwood wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Numerous studies and meta-analyses have shown that gun ownership, even when controlled for other factors, produces an increase of gun deaths in a household of 3x. What would be sufficient proof to satisfy you of this fact?

Having perused the EveryTown material on this topic, which I (perhaps wrongly) assume contains the most convincing material, I see that a major critique of this methodology remains unanswered: that the increased risk of completed suicide is so tightly coupled with military servitude that the role of guns cannot be convincingly established in either the univariate or multivariate analysis. What do you say to this?

Are you talking about this everytown, which again proclaims the 3x risk of gun deaths?

https://everytownresearch.org/firearm-suicide/

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

#215

Post by tomlockwood » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 9:39 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #205

joshuamorton wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a particularly compelling argument. It suggests we should never attempt to solve any problem, because other smaller problems will continue to exist and we need to solve them to.

That's not the argument at all. Rather it's that if you address the root cause, which you need to do anyway, then you don't need to worry about mitigations. If your house has a gas leak and someone says "don't turn on the light, it's dangerous" then even if they're right, the real solution is to do something about the gas leak, not to sit in darkness and do nothing while your house is full of gas. And once the gas is…

Luckily for gun control advocates the rate of firearm injuries also sharply increases for households that own guns, too. So while yeah, there may be other issues with mental health, gun training, domestic violence etc, you can significantly reduce deaths and injuries by removing guns - which people often have because they think having a gun will reduce those.

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

#216

Post by knolax » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 9:41 AM UTC

everdev wrote: post #167

dx87 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Inno…

> As horrible as it is, gangs are somewhat consenting to this level of violence by initiating it.

I'm going to preface this by saying I have no opinion on gun control.

Gang members don't live in neighborhoods inhabited exclusively by other gang members (I doubt they make up the majority in any neighborhood). The people who live in these neighborhoods never consented to this, and it's much harder for them to move than to avoid public areas so imho gang violence is just as bad if not worst than any other type of shooting.

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

#217

Post by joshuamorton » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 9:41 AM UTC

surge wrote: post #200

joshuamorton wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erm, the post your responding to distinguishes, correctly between an ar-15 and m-16. You're attempting to correct someone who, by all accounts, appears to know more about firearms than you do. It's also simply false that the only differentiating factor of "danger" to a weapon is whether or not it is semi or fully automatic. If an ar-15 were no more dangerous than a Glock pistol, you wouldn't need an ar-15 to defend f…

He doesn't tho, he compares an AR-15 to an AK-47 and says an AR-15 is designed to broken down in the jungle (that's the M-16, which was what was used in Vietnam, they conflated the two, trying to disingenuously frame AR-15's as a war weapon used by the military). Rifles are superior for self defense at a distance. So in the "wild hog" scenario, best to pick them off from a tree, or before they get close. In a more re…

> He doesn't tho, he compares an AR-15 to an AK-47

No, he points out that an AK-47 has a wooden stock.

> that's the M-16, which was what was used in Vietnam, they conflated the two, trying to disingenuously frame AR-15's as a war weapon used by the military

The M16 is an AR-15. Like, it's the same platform, it's just that the M16 variant is automatic and uses nato rounds. The AR-15 was designed to be broken down in the jungle in vietnam, which is why the US army adopted it under the designation M16. This isn't really controversial[0], "The M16 rifle is a family of military rifles adapted from the ArmaLite AR-15 rifle for the United States military." But before it was designated the M16, the US Army procured standard, automatic, AR-15s. Early M16 and early AR-15s are practically identical, and early M16s were stamped as AR-15s, so yes, in the early 60s, the US military absolutely used AR-15s as a war weapon.

So yes, he's exactly right, and demonstrably better educated on firearm history than you are.

Its again worth noting that an AR-15 has a higher muzzle velocity, stopping power, and range than any handgun you'd be able to fire accurately. It's also easier to hit things with a rifle than with a handgun, not that it's particularly hard with a handgun, it's just much, much easier with a rifle. So I'll just reiterate, your argument that an AR-15 is no more dangerous than a Glock is nonsense. They absolutely are. They're meant to be, a Glock is a tool for self defense, an AR-15 is a marginally dumbed down military tool.

> unless you count velocity

Yes, the fact that you aren't counting velocity is strange. A single bullet from an AR-15 will knock you over. The same isn't true for your average 9mm.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

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

#218

Post by tomlockwood » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 9:44 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #180

tomlockwood wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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. Tyranny generally doesn't come overnight. There are plenty of things you can ask soldiers to do that they'll feel uncomfortable about but still do it, and then in eighteen months when it's time to reenlist they decline. A decade later you've got only…

So what I'm hearing you say is that you feel an american insurgency will be effective and persistent. Where is the confederacy?

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

#219

Post by tomlockwood » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 9:48 AM UTC

masonic wrote: post #213

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.

Similarly, having a syringe in your house correlates to increased death risk by opioid poisoning, so... ban syringes?

Imagine if you bought a syringe into your house to prevent syringe related deaths.

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

#220

Post by stevenicr » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 10:08 AM UTC

masonic wrote: post #209

stevenicr wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a mag full of 22 win mag is not really 'serious firepower' - I mean it is, but I think people would consider like a SCAR or M60 to be serious - and lots of people chuckle at someone using '22'... I think it depends on where you live, and how valuable you are in terms of theft and attractiveness. For examples - the super rich in Miami probably need more security than the richer in Beverly Hills. If you are attractive…

lots of people chuckle at someone using '22' President Reagan very, very nearly died from one ricocheted .22 round. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Ron...

I had not known that, appreciate the reference. Indeed I think a 22 or 22 win mag is probably good for most grandma situations - it could certainly stop a couple of bad guys that are not wearing plate armor.. easy to control recoil, so they won't be afraid of it going off, and they can focus on sending multiple rounds towards targets to stop them.

From what I've seen in the news and videos most of violent criminals around here have been tshirts and hoodies, generally 1 -4 people, although the group of kids that took a musician out recently over a van I think was 5 maybe 6 at once. 30 rounds of 22 would be better than trying to swat them with a heavy purse.

If your threat was high value target, or some kind of state entity, I would not count on a 22 to be the best choice. Some people have suggested winter coats and layers of cloth can impede a 22, maybe if it's hollow.. for grandmas in Minnesota and such I'd probably suggest training with and getting used to something that can run critical duty or critical defense ammo through it instead maybe.

Most of my older neighbors would do well with any low recoil round if the platform was easy to handle.

Which is one reason this assault style banning talk bothers me so much. It literally makes them more dangerous and puts them in more danger by regulation, which is not silly.

It gives the strong criminals an advantage and the weaker citizens a disadvantage in life threatening situations.

again, not an expert, doctor, lawyer, etc.. just been doing some research and trying to share some things I have found that may be surprising for those who have not. There is certainly more to know, ymmv.