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

271–280 of 373 posts

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

#271

Post by stevenicr »

bagacrap wrote: post #255
stevenicr wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it's certainly not going to be equal 100 100, but from my personal experiences it's something that jumps out as a similar type of tool / misuse / ban possible / restrict.

I have been seriously injured due to a large truck being misused, and calling for a ban of all cars would be one thing, saying that restrictions to that only 4 cylinder vehicle are available to citizens with other requirements could be a thing. I think lots in America would laugh at not being able to own an 8 cyl for example, only military or civil servants.

I'd like to go more into that, but I think to be more honest and equal about the rest of you comment, need to move to that more.

"guns have no other purpose but to put holes in things" - it's easy to point to this, and it's kind of true, but it's not really true.

many guns are made and sold and used just for skeet shooting or hunting (yes technically that's putting holes in things) and similar.

However most guns in America are used as a deterrant. Guards at courthouses, armored car guards, citizens with guns, etc. Every day hundreds of thousands of times a day, guns are used as a deterrent. The deter rapes and robberies and complete tyranny, and invasion every day.

Without them we would certainly have more rapes, robberies and murders.

In a fictional world of tradeoffs, I might take trains vs cars to bring some people back from the grave as well. I am sorry you have lost friends that way.

With that in mind, I also consider that without guns more people that we know and care for might have also met early ends. I have witnessed many semi-violent situations that only de-escalated because there was immediate threat of people with guns changing the situation, sometimes it was cops arriving to a scene, other times it was not.

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

#272

Post by CompanionCuuube »

minikites wrote: post #223
jakeogh wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1995) Kleck & Gertz estimates of 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year: https://americangunfacts.com/pdf/Armed%20Resistance%20to%20C...

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people... >In fact, Cook told The Washington Post that the percentage of people who told Kleck they used a gun in self-defense is similar to the percentage of Americans who said they were abducted by aliens. The Post notes that "a more reasonable estimate" of self-defense gun uses equals about 100,000 annually, according to the NCVS data.

Two numbers are similar. Obviously they must both be fictitious. Such a sound argument of the highest caliber.

Or maybe it was just money laundering for an ad hominem.

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

#273

Post by joshuamorton »

CompanionCuuube wrote: post #268
joshuamorton wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP claims that there is no correlation between gun ownership and homicide. That's a list of studies and meta-studies that directly refute that claim.

The Medium article covers why using that correlation to assume causation is a problem, using other experimental variables that were shown to have a correlation with homicides.

No it doesn't. Because there are other studies that back up the causal relationship. He's taken one that shows a clear correlation and explained why that's not enough to craft policy from, and that's true. But studies that show cross time correlation between homicide and gun ownership also exist.

It might not be the only cause, but it being a cause makes sense: another poster showed a news story of a man who had killed 3 black kids who were trying to break into his house. Had he not had a gun, it's unlikely anyone would have died (most home intrusions, even with armed assailants, don't end up killing anyone). Guns provide means for homicide that basically no other tool provides.

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

#274

Post by CompanionCuuube »

tptacek wrote: post #267
CompanionCuuube wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I'm amused that this is an actual argument. "We're not idiots who don't understand guns, if we had our way we would have had a ban for an overreaching category of firearms!"

It's easy to win arguments when you make them up yourself to knock down. That comment is responding to and inaccurately paraphrasing me. I'm right here. I suggest you rebut something I actually said.

Not inaccurate:

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

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

#275

Post by tptacek »

CompanionCuuube wrote: post #274
tptacek wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to win arguments when you make them up yourself to knock down. That comment is responding to and inaccurately paraphrasing me. I'm right here. I suggest you rebut something I actually said.

Not inaccurate: > The original AWB proposals were sane and straightforward: they intended to regulate any semi-automatic long gun with a detachable magazine.

It's interesting to see you write as if the very words in your quotation aren't there to compare with how you paraphrased them. A bold choice!

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

#276

Post by CompanionCuuube »

tptacek wrote: post #275
CompanionCuuube wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not inaccurate: > The original AWB proposals were sane and straightforward: they intended to regulate any semi-automatic long gun with a detachable magazine.

It's interesting to see you write as if the very words in your quotation aren't there to compare with how you paraphrased them. A bold choice!

Being truthful is not bold. Or maybe it is from your standpoint.

If you don't think that the category of semiautomatic longguns that have detachable magazines is not overreaching, then more power to you. Sorry, I mean bless your heart as they might say in the South.

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

#277

Post by wl »

tptacek wrote: post #266
wl wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bann…

I was going to type out a rebuttal to this, because I think you're mischaracterizing a straightforward and somewhat technical proposal. But I realize that's besides the point. You don't like this proposal, which is fine. But you had no footing to make the argument that it didn't exist at all, or that it didn't back up my argument. Concede that, and I'm happy to keep discussing.

I wouldn't like proposals that banned semiautomatic weapons with detachable or high capacity fixed magazines, either, but I'd concede that such proposals make a rational distinction in potentially dangerous functionality. My problem specifically with this proposal as well as subsequent ones that include feature tests and the like is that they fail to make any rational distinction.

You're entitled to your opinion that the bill in question is a "sane and straightforward" approach in contrast to subsequent proposals that aren't because of irrational feature tests. I just don't think that's a defensible one. Giving the Attorney General and Secretary of the Treasury wide latitude to say "this semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine is ok but this other one isn't" is just as arbitrary as later feature tests. And if anything, this proposal is worse public policy: one administration could add every eligible semi-automatic rifle to the list and the next one could make the list empty.

Either ban semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines or don't. Maybe exempt rimfire from any ban or don't. If there's a rational distinction beyond that to be made, make it.

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

#278

Post by surge »

joshuamorton wrote: post #217
surge wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Well the velocity argument is a factor of it being a rifle, thus can hold a larger charge and are designed to because the bullets need to go further without losing accuracy due to gravity and air resistance, etc. This is a something it has in common with any hunting rifle. Yes you can knock someone down, certain hollow points can do that too.

Yes, we all know the AR-15's are made by the same people and 90% similar, but the part that matters, the part the ATF cares about, the part that makes it ready for military use or an assault weapon is whether its automatic or not. Take that away and its no more capable for military use then any other hunting rifle. You say its designed to broken down and repaired in the wilderness, that doesn't make it inherently more deadly or more military/assault style. So is a Glock, having a simple, reliable mechanism that's easily repaired and doesn't break down is a good feature to have, it doesn't make it militaristic, its a design a hunter would want who will spend days or weeks at a time in the wilderness (watch Meat Eater), or a safety feature as gun failures lead to accidental discharges, which is a factor on the range. It's not the first thing to be designed based on a need in the military, that applicability to civilians (like GPS) being designed to be easy to repair. The thing that makes an M16 militaristic is automatic fire, which a soldier needs for suppressing fire or hitting an enemy with multiple shots. Everything else you described is a feature of any other rifle. It's like saying a Humvee shouldn't be driven by civilians because the military uses Humvees and some have turrets (which are removed in the civilian version), when every other feature of the Humvee can be found in other civilian SUVs (just as every other feature of the AR-15 exists in other civilian use rifles). The aspects of the gun you're complaining about exist in other rifles that are not military rifles.

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

#279

Post by jakeogh »

minikites wrote: post #223
jakeogh wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1995) Kleck & Gertz estimates of 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year: https://americangunfacts.com/pdf/Armed%20Resistance%20to%20C...

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people... >In fact, Cook told The Washington Post that the percentage of people who told Kleck they used a gun in self-defense is similar to the percentage of Americans who said they were abducted by aliens. The Post notes that "a more reasonable estimate" of self-defense gun uses equals about 100,000 annually, according to the NCVS data.

(1997) 1.5M https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

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

#280

Post by tptacek »

wl wrote: post #277
tptacek wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to type out a rebuttal to this, because I think you're mischaracterizing a straightforward and somewhat technical proposal. But I realize that's besides the point. You don't like this proposal, which is fine. But you had no footing to make the argument that it didn't exist at all, or that it didn't back up my argument. Concede that, and I'm happy to keep discussing.

I wouldn't like proposals that banned semiautomatic weapons with detachable or high capacity fixed magazines, either, but I'd concede that such proposals make a rational distinction in potentially dangerous functionality. My problem specifically with this proposal as well as subsequent ones that include feature tests and the like is that they fail to make any rational distinction. You're entitled to your opinion that…

You can use the word "sane" to mean anything you want it to. As you well know, since you're the one who brought that long, detailed previous thread into this one, the meaning I'm giving it "not based on cosmetic features like grips and barrel shrouds". The basis for my argument is factual, and you should concede that, because you yourself set the tone and expectation of rigor on this thread, and you aren't living up to that standard.

That I'm not even advocating for that particular proposal is besides the point. You accused me of arguing in bad faith, and I am now pointing out that it's in fact you that are doing that now. It's an easy problem to correct; you simply have to say "I was wrong about that, let's move on".

Post reply on HN