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

301–310 of 373 posts

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

#301

Post by surge »

tptacek wrote: post #287
surge wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if they have a guy available with a machine gun, sometimes you have to improvise, so its nice to have the option. There are cases where a machine gun isn't in position to provide suppressing fire, or the guy with it got taken out, etc. It's besides the point, but yes I concede that its not ideal to use for that purpose. My arguments, just mean we agree more than we disagree. We just disagree how it should be han…

Read hunter forums debating MSRs vs. bolt-action rifles. You'll have no trouble finding hunters certain that MSRs are overtaking traditional hunting rifles simply because they appeal to undisciplined, unserious weekend warriors who are drawn to their military look-and-feel, and that arms manufacturers feed into that because traditional hunting rifles also last forever and the industry needs people to get on a continu…

No I liken an AR-15 to a Honda Civic. It's just a car, but you can modify them into some kind of Fast and Furious drift racing machine. So you can buy an AR-15 for $500 and upgrade it to a very nice $3000 rifle. But that doesn't change that the Honda Civic is a solid vehicle, accessible for its cost, and is something you can start out with at minimal cost and customize to your liking if you get really into it. Or the Toyota Hilux even. But law/policy wise, there's nothing practical you can say this is bad and makes it more lethal than another gun. It's just more likely to be the kind of gun an idiot would buy, which is the kind of person whose going to get angry at the world and go kill innocents, it'd just be another gun if you took that one off the market, because its going to be which ever gun is more popular with the casual person.

If you're serious about hunting, you'd get a bolt action, for the reasons described, because you want your first shot to be your only shot.

I agree on the weekend warrior thing. But that's why I honestly think while guns are a right, because history teaches that eventually people need to defend themselves. But they're also a responsibility, and places like Switzerland or people who are trained in the responsibility aspect of gun ownership are what you want.

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

#302

Post by tptacek »

surge wrote: post #301
tptacek wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read hunter forums debating MSRs vs. bolt-action rifles. You'll have no trouble finding hunters certain that MSRs are overtaking traditional hunting rifles simply because they appeal to undisciplined, unserious weekend warriors who are drawn to their military look-and-feel, and that arms manufacturers feed into that because traditional hunting rifles also last forever and the industry needs people to get on a continu…

No I liken an AR-15 to a Honda Civic. It's just a car, but you can modify them into some kind of Fast and Furious drift racing machine. So you can buy an AR-15 for $500 and upgrade it to a very nice $3000 rifle. But that doesn't change that the Honda Civic is a solid vehicle, accessible for its cost, and is something you can start out with at minimal cost and customize to your liking if you get really into it. Or the…

You've just read a whole thread of two people explaining to you why an AR-15 is more lethal than handguns.

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

#303

Post by DuskStar »

tptacek wrote: post #287
surge wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if they have a guy available with a machine gun, sometimes you have to improvise, so its nice to have the option. There are cases where a machine gun isn't in position to provide suppressing fire, or the guy with it got taken out, etc. It's besides the point, but yes I concede that its not ideal to use for that purpose. My arguments, just mean we agree more than we disagree. We just disagree how it should be han…

Read hunter forums debating MSRs vs. bolt-action rifles. You'll have no trouble finding hunters certain that MSRs are overtaking traditional hunting rifles simply because they appeal to undisciplined, unserious weekend warriors who are drawn to their military look-and-feel, and that arms manufacturers feed into that because traditional hunting rifles also last forever and the industry needs people to get on a continu…

> You haven't seen me anywhere advocate that we ban anything, let alone a particular semi-automatic weapon by name; in fact, the root of this long subthread is a comment from me saying the exact opposite thing

> I stated my policy preference elsewhere on the thread: give up on national firearms policy, back down on the maximalist Heller interpretation that says MSRs are off the table for state regulation, and allow states to license (on a presumption of must-issue basis) all semi-automatic long guns if that's what their citizens decide they want to do.

From the perspective of many, that's "allow guns to be banned". It'd be sort of like saying "back down from the maximalist Roe v. Wade position" or "back down from the maximalist Brown v. Board of Education position", and then getting mad when people accuse you of being anti-abortion or pro-segregation.

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

#304

Post by DuskStar »

chillwaves wrote: post #239
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would there be less guns on the street? Aren't the vast majority of those illegally obtained anyways? IMO the more likely response would be that all the guns that were previously stolen/criminally obtained legal guns would become fully automatic since there's no reason not to at that point. (Manufacturing cost difference is basically nil, and if you're already smuggling an illegal rifle might as well make it automatic)

Guns aren't exactly rocket science to make, and the plans are available online. Good guns, reliable guns, safe guns? Not so much, but why would the criminals in question care?

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

#305

Post by surge »

tptacek wrote: post #302
surge wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I liken an AR-15 to a Honda Civic. It's just a car, but you can modify them into some kind of Fast and Furious drift racing machine. So you can buy an AR-15 for $500 and upgrade it to a very nice $3000 rifle. But that doesn't change that the Honda Civic is a solid vehicle, accessible for its cost, and is something you can start out with at minimal cost and customize to your liking if you get really into it. Or the…

You've just read a whole thread of two people explaining to you why an AR-15 is more lethal than handguns.

On paper or in reality, because the deaths by rifles total is When you access risk, likelihood is a factor, you mitigate for risks that have a higher likelihood. If I'm worried about protection from being killed I'm more worried about a drunk driver than a meteorite even tho the meteor has a higher lethality. Handguns are lethal enough you get shot by one, the survival rate isn't significantly higher than a rifle especially considering you're statistically more likely to be shot by one. Stabbings tend to be more lethal than either, but and there are more people stabbed then shot by rifle (~1500-3000 in US per year), certainly more the case overseas. Missing forest for the trees.

Are we just being pedantic here? What are you arguing or is the point of argument if you don't want to ban guns or ban the AR-15 or military style weapons specifically? If you're arguing it just to argue I honestly don't see how that's constructive. I'm discussing this in the context of gun violence, in the context of the media hyper focusing on military style rifles when they're not the major cause of deaths, even in mass shootings (which are just as often or more often pistols).

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

#306

Post by tptacek »

surge wrote: post #305
tptacek wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've just read a whole thread of two people explaining to you why an AR-15 is more lethal than handguns.

On paper or in reality, because the deaths by rifles total is When you access risk, likelihood is a factor, you mitigate for risks that have a higher likelihood. If I'm worried about protection from being killed I'm more worried about a drunk driver than a meteorite even tho the meteor has a higher lethality. Handguns are lethal enough you get shot by one, the survival rate isn't significantly higher than a rifle esp…

You're repeating yourself. I addressed that argument already as well. If you want to rebut what I said, that's fine, but you can't just repeat the same point as if there hadn't been a response to it. Be specific about what your issue with my argument is. Or rest your case; it's fine if we just disagree.

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

#307

Post by CompanionCuuube »

sdinsn wrote: post #290
minikites wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't understand how people believing in alien abductions can be used to criticize gun ownership.

It's solid numerology. Like if you add up all the ASCII values for Bill Gates III, you get 666.

/s

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

#308

Post by tptacek »

DuskStar wrote: post #303
tptacek wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read hunter forums debating MSRs vs. bolt-action rifles. You'll have no trouble finding hunters certain that MSRs are overtaking traditional hunting rifles simply because they appeal to undisciplined, unserious weekend warriors who are drawn to their military look-and-feel, and that arms manufacturers feed into that because traditional hunting rifles also last forever and the industry needs people to get on a continu…

> You haven't seen me anywhere advocate that we ban anything, let alone a particular semi-automatic weapon by name; in fact, the root of this long subthread is a comment from me saying the exact opposite thing > I stated my policy preference elsewhere on the thread: give up on national firearms policy, back down on the maximalist Heller interpretation that says MSRs are off the table for state regulation, and allow s…

I don't care about this argument. This isn't a courtroom or a legislative hearing; we're discussing ideas. You'll have to address the things I'm actually saying instead of demanding that I answer for everyone else on my side of this debate.

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

#309

Post by DuskStar »

susijdjdjxa wrote: post #4
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…

I’m a little confused on your overall point here - are you saying that it’s only good to reduce gun homicides, not suicides?

There are two ways to reduce suicide - reduce the reasons to commit suicide, and increase the difficulty of committing suicide. As someone who views suicide as a bad choice - possibly the worst choice someone can make - I think the overall goal reducing suicide is good. But I don't think increasing the difficulty of suicide is the way to go about it.

Imagine a prison, where every prisoner is held within solitary confinement - no contact with others at all. A lot of prisoners commit suicide each year, and the warden needs to reduce this. Is putting every prisoner on suicide watch - removing shoelaces, toilet paper, strong sheets, anything that a prisoner could use to kill themselves - a moral option? After all, it would reduce suicide - sure, the desire for suicide might go up, but no one would be able to act on it, so suicides would go down! But to me... That's just prolonging torture, and that's NOT ok.

We've all got life sentences in this prison, and there's no hope of parole. I personally find life here on Earth to be great! But I can't support preventing people in worse situations from finding a way out. And when you reduce suicide by taking away a way out, instead of providing a better way...

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

#310

Post by CompanionCuuube »

mlyle wrote: post #260
tomlockwood wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

> Uh, ... wow. "Luckily?"

That is what one would say if they were grateful for the deaths, isn't it? Isn't it just a bonus that it happens to The Other?

Post reply on HN