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

231–240 of 373 posts

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

#231

Post by mcphage »

anon9001 wrote: post #195
everdev wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'…

> Is this a real risk in parts of the country where old people need serious fire power to defend themselves? I don't think the way to reason about this is based on "serious fire power" vs some other kind of weapon that you feel is more acceptable. All guns can be lethal. If grandma feels unsafe, she might get a gun. I can understand how older people might want firepower when they know they can't physically fend off a…

> If you accept grandma's right to be armed, would you rather she use a more or less dangerous gun?

The idea that any gun would have made my grandma more safe is ludicrous to me. Giving my grandmother a gun would have either made her less safe, or way way less safe.

> If people are allowed to have guns, they should be allowed to have any gun and any gun attachment that improves their safety.

She was allowed to have one, but the only attachment that would have improved her safety is no gun.

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

#232

Post by finnthehuman »

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…

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

The level of fear instilled into the population is wildly disconnected from the realities of risk and we've known this for decades. Whether it's the security theater at the airport, modern day duck-and-cover, or whatever the 6pm news is scaring old people with this week; the line of reasoning that goes something like "we taught people to fear risk X, the way to alleviate the fear is to reduce the likelihood of X" is the most asinine bullshit in the world.

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

#233

Post by [deleted] »

felipelemos wrote: post #34
robcohen wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a horse that has been beaten to death. It’s well established what militia means. Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

Should "Unorganized" militia counted as "regulated" militia?

[deleted]

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

#234

Post by finnthehuman »

enraged_camel wrote: post #88
jdkee wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. “Well regulated” in the context of the 2A means in good working condition. The militia, which is every male between the ages of 18 and 45, shoukd have a working weapon. Legal “regulations” has nothing to do with it.

>>“Well regulated” in the context of the 2A means in good working condition. This is the first time I'm hearing of this "good working condition" definition.

Definitions and case law surrounding 200 year old text aren't immediately intuitive from the layman's reading.

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

#236

Post by pnako »

tomlockwood wrote: post #199
pnako wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean losing to insurgencies for years?

Are you talking about the wars where for example maybe conservatively 100000 Iraqis have died while about 5000 coalition troops have? Is that how you see winning going down for american gun owners, too?

Winning is not about body counts; it's about reaching your strategic objectives.

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

#237

Post by anon9001 »

mcphage wrote: post #231
anon9001 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this a real risk in parts of the country where old people need serious fire power to defend themselves? I don't think the way to reason about this is based on "serious fire power" vs some other kind of weapon that you feel is more acceptable. All guns can be lethal. If grandma feels unsafe, she might get a gun. I can understand how older people might want firepower when they know they can't physically fend off a…

> If you accept grandma's right to be armed, would you rather she use a more or less dangerous gun? The idea that any gun would have made my grandma more safe is ludicrous to me. Giving my grandmother a gun would have either made her less safe, or way way less safe. > If people are allowed to have guns, they should be allowed to have any gun and any gun attachment that improves their safety. She was allowed to have o…

I suppose it depends on what type of grandma you have :)

Maybe with training, your grandma could enjoy plinking targets and also be safer in her home?

There are grandmas that love hunting and spending time at the range.

It'd be nice to live in a world where nobody ever commits acts of violence. Unfortunately, we banned violence long ago, and it seems that criminals are still doing it anyway. The next best thing we can do is be prepared.

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

#238

Post by distances »

anon9001 wrote: post #237
mcphage wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you accept grandma's right to be armed, would you rather she use a more or less dangerous gun? The idea that any gun would have made my grandma more safe is ludicrous to me. Giving my grandmother a gun would have either made her less safe, or way way less safe. > If people are allowed to have guns, they should be allowed to have any gun and any gun attachment that improves their safety. She was allowed to have o…

I suppose it depends on what type of grandma you have :) Maybe with training, your grandma could enjoy plinking targets and also be safer in her home? There are grandmas that love hunting and spending time at the range. It'd be nice to live in a world where nobody ever commits acts of violence. Unfortunately, we banned violence long ago, and it seems that criminals are still doing it anyway. The next best thing we ca…

Then again, comparing New World statistics to Europe ans Asia, it seems pretty clear that personal gun ownership isn't the only option for staying alive.

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

#239

Post by chillwaves »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #162
mikeyouse wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. A…

The demand would drop and so would gun manufacturing. There would be less guns on the street and more effective securing/training of legal guns/owners.

Clearly there is a spectrum of choices that can be made, some more effective than others. As mentioned, state borders have effectively zero restriction in movement and should be taken in context with any criticism of local gun laws.

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

#240

Post by kasey_junk »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #228
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

Agreed. A 9 MM rifle vs a 9 MM pistol both semiautomatic the main difference is accuracy and thats due to barrel length. You wont magically get bullets out faster. I feel like anybody wanting to pass gun laws in congress should take basic firearms courses. It takes a lot for me to be in the range as a newcomer and just shoot. I am convinced the issue isnt guns its the culture / mental state of the person with the gun…

This is literally untrue. 9mm ammo comes out of a longer barrel at higher velocity than out of a shorter.

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html

Post reply on HN