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

#251

Post by daxorid » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:11 PM UTC

kasey_junk wrote: post #28

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 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.

The tinfoil hat interpretation is that rifles are far more effective in both battlefield (full barrel) and urban warfare (carbines) than sidearms, and confiscating them removes the last chance any populace has against its own government. Such that it's in the interest of despotic regimes to do so.

Private ownership of battle rifles (c.f. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq insurgency) are pretty much the only (valid) defense against the "Lol you think you can fight a war against an adversary with drones and nukes?" argument.

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

#252

Post by galangalalgol » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

ISL wrote: post #89

remarkEon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and no one would freak out about if they had wooden stocks. Yeah, this. It's sort of developed into a moral panic because so many in the media grow up in urban centers on the east coast and don't have much contact with firearms. The reporting becomes pretty tainted, and in some cases hilariously inaccurate.

The majority of people live in urban centers. One of the biggest difficulties in modern America is bridging the urban/rural divide: My father, living in a rural area, purchased a shotgun for home defense -- when 911 was accidentally dialed, the sheriff's response time was roughly 30 minutes. Their primary political concerns revolve around taxes and regulation. Sometimes a bear walks through the neighbor's yard. At ou…

Virginia had. Lot of success with limiting the number of purhases per month to cut back on strawman purchases. It made a statistical drop in gun violence. To truly combat that or mass shootings we need to address the why, not the how. And that isn't better psych car and red flag laws. Psychologists admit freely they can't distinguish between those who will harm people in mass shootings and the multitude of others with similar personalities. It has to be about asking what in our society prompts people to harm themselves or others and reducing those stressors. Again, why, not how or who.

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

#253

Post by tptacek » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:16 PM UTC

wl wrote: post #166

tptacek wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You've just linked to a bill that effectively allows the attorney general to designate any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine an "assault weapon". There's not a barrel shroud to be found in it.

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

#254

Post by tptacek » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:16 PM UTC

c0nducktr wrote: post #188

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…

Instead of replying with a bunch of counter arguments to some random person on HN, why don't you make a proposal? What is your idea? How should guns be regulated in America. I'm fucking tired of this same "we need to do something" argument all the time, with nobody ever actually saying anything at all. Like no shit, something should be done. You got a idea? What is it?

I don't know why you think this would be difficult to respond to. Obviously, I think that states should be allowed to enact and administer laws that require licensure for possession of semi-automatic long guns.

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

#255

Post by bagacrap » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:17 PM UTC

stevenicr wrote: post #190

marticode wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars are heavily regulated. They have a visible registration plate on them, with a unique number associated to the owner. Operating one requires to be a license given after a test on both theory and operation. They need to be insured. All these are actually enforced by police. If you are arguing for all this to be equally applied to guns (as would be fairly rational) then congratulation, you are pro-gun control.

no - not at all - you are moving the goalposts from deaths of children and inanimate things that 'cause them' - to "all these things people have to do to drive cars" - that makes it even worse actually.. if you apply all that stuff to gun control - you see that there are still plenty of deaths caused by them, and plenty of people getting them, and using them illegally. the point was banning a thing because a few peop…

It's a pretty blatant false equivalency, after all cars are designed for transportation and only happen to be deadly weapons, whereas guns have no other purpose but to put holes in things. That said I'm cool with banning personal automobile ownership too. Two friends have died from them. I'd take the train for the rest of my life to undo that.

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

#256

Post by tptacek » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:17 PM UTC

c0nducktr wrote: post #185

tptacek wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

You can't feel the arguments from the gun-control crowd are any less boring than your arguments, right? It's been the same shit for ages. The whole debate is boring, crazy that we keep delving into it.

Considering that even some firearm maximalists don't appear to understand the history of the weapon they're defending or that of the FAWB, I dispute how "boring" my argument is.

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

#257

Post by tptacek » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:19 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #243

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…

> This is the Nelson Muntz of firearms regulations argument. The original AWB proposals were sane and straightforward: they intended to regulate any semi-automatic long gun with a detachable magazine. It was the 2A crowd, and particularly the NRA, that fought off gun control advocates to the absurd position they occupy now. This is a fair point. I think people underestimate the degree to which 2A advocates are playin…

I think a federal ban on semi-automatic rifles is a ridiculous, overreaching, and counterproductive goal. Hunters in Minnesota already require licenses; should Minnesota choose, those licenses should suffice to ensure access to semi-automatic rifles. I don't care what color those rifles are, but Minnesota might care about their magazine sizes. Montana might opt out of firearms regulation entirely; that also seems like a perfectly cromulent experiment to run in the laboratories of democracy.

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

#258

Post by MichaelSalib » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:27 PM 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…

What's the plan for when grandma develops dementia? The paranoia will make her unwilling to part with her beloved firearm...do we just wait until she murders a family member or home health aid?

That seems like a much more important question than bickering over precisely which firearm grandma should have as she slides into dementia.

https://khn.org/news/dementia-and-gun-safety-when-should-agi...

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

#259

Post by wl » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:45 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #253

wl wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You've just linked to a bill that effectively allows the attorney general to designate any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine an "assault weapon". There's not a barrel shroud to be found in it.

It's an I-Know-It-When-I-See-It standard that would not have survived legal challenge with carveouts for Jimmy's squirrel rifle and grandpappy's hunting rifle. Sure, it's not feature tests, but it's not any more rational. If the intent was to ban semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, that law does not do that. If you believe that this law is "sane and straightforward," what rational basis is there for banning some semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines while leaving others available at the whim of the Attorney General?

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

#260

Post by mlyle » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:45 PM UTC

tomlockwood wrote: post #215

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Luckily for gun control advocates the rate of firearm injuries also sharply increases for households that own guns, too.

Uh, ... wow. "Luckily?"

> you can significantly reduce deaths and injuries by removing guns - which people often have because they think having a gun will reduce those.

There may be better ways to reduce these than trying to remove the guns, though-- ways that mitigate and reduce harm and that don't impact personal liberties or the beneficial aspects of firearms.