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

321–330 of 373 posts

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

#321

Post by stevenicr »

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…

You know your grandmother better than I, so I have little doubt that you may be right. Certainly there are plenty of senior citizens that do not have the physical or and mental abilities to properly wield a weapon. I'd like to think that all of those are well taken care of with others protecting them in one way or another.

I have about a dozen grandmas in my neighborhood that are all physically and mentally doing very well. They don't need walkers or wheelchairs. some still work, some run businesses. They garden, the go out. Every single one of them can wield a shovel or a firearm if need be.

Sadly there is advice out there that puts them in more danger in a similar way that you describe with yours - I've heard popular advice repeated like 'you need a revolver that don't jam' - best thing is 'a double barrel 12 ga shotgun' - quite frankly I think that is terrible advice for most of them.

For many with the kind of physical limitations in our area, something like a GSG-16 .22 , a Mossberg 715 Pistol .22 , even a Walther Arms Uzi Tactical Rifle Semi-Auto .22 - these things would be easier to use, less fear of recoil, easier to keep on target of bad guys and less chance of inuring self, or bystanders / neighbors..

yet some of the GC ideas would limit access to exactly these kinds of safer features all in the name fear mongering 'military assault accessories' -

the grandma next door would be less safe being forced not to have access to these options and instead forced to use something will less control and options. That's simply truth.

again, it may not be true for every grandma in the world, but a majority of them (that are not bedridden / incapacitated etc), I think so.

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

#322

Post by stevenicr »

distances wrote: post #238
anon9001 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We can not compare America to Europe or Asia - there are too many differing factors.

A lot of people want to compare because money or gdp is similar or whatever - but they are all totally different.

I'd love to have the same kind of social safety nets that many Euro countries have, I think much of the US violence in related to the lack of stability in families that is a reflection of financial insecurities honestly.

Other things like the value of the drug markets here, and the quick access of Latin countries to here ( https://www.businessinsider.com/latin-america-is-the-worlds-... ) - make a huge difference. comparing stats about any other place is just apples and oranges.

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

#323

Post by mlyle »

tomlockwood wrote: post #317
CompanionCuuube wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Considering my argument has been about attempting to reduce gun deaths you might want to reconsider that assumption. However, lucky for you, I'm pretty sure that assumption would make it easier for you to dismiss my argument. I say lucky for you, but what I really mean to say is it'd be bad if you did that. Its a little turn of phrase that isn't literal and which is probably lost via text. Lets reduce gun deaths. The…

I spend a lot of time at and around a cabin up in the Sierras; sometimes with no means to contact law enforcement; and other times with law enforcement about 45 minutes out.

99.9% of people you might meet are decent folks.

But there's meth around, etc. I'm not a huge dude. I probably would have already been stabbed if not for carrying a firearm during some of the questionable encounters I've had up there.

What do you propose for my use case?

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

#324

Post by stevenicr »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #258
stevenicr wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I agree we need more plans for dementia, Alzheimer's and similar mental and physical defunks.. with guns and other rights as well.

There will likely come a point when people need to step in and take control of elderly people's finances, weapons, other possession, choices for nutrition and healthcare, all that.

There are people at many ages that are stripped of their rights for different reasons. I hope the world exposes more of these concerns. I recently helped with a site for exposing some people who used the law for taking over people's stuff - family pushed through a busy judge, took over her house and bank accounts, made her broke after a couple years then disappeared. She was left to the state to care for with no money, no house, everything - and she was quite capable of planning her future and retirement, but it was all taken.

I think there are many people who have had rights taken from them in unfair ways. In same cases states are moving to restore voting and gun rights who have served their time and such.

At the same time we need more tests for proving that people are mentally and physically fit enough to wield weapons, cars, and other things safely.

In some of those cases it may make sense to have special teams show elderly people how to use different weapons and different cars should the need arise. In other cases it could be deemed that they should not drive or try to defend themselves.

I'd like to think our society will take care of these older people so they never need to worry about transportation or fighting. We need to make a lot of changes for the future if this is to be however. Right now our society is set to leave a lot of old people to languish without good care and safety - and most just look the other way as they suffer.

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

#325

Post by tomlockwood »

masonic wrote: post #319
tomlockwood wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many people do you know that would be pleased to learn owning a gun actually makes their family more prone to dying of gunshot wounds? It is not possible to have liberty when you are dead.

You've made that claim several times on this thread alone but have yet to provide any supporting reference.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00029... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15522849 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12764330 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8371731 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8485675

How many references will be sufficient evidence?

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

#326

Post by tomlockwood »

briffle wrote: post #318
tomlockwood wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not only hearing you say "maybe" a lot about the effectiveness of gun ownership, but also that wars against internal foes are wildly unpopular, and that the military may decide to stop supporting the government. Agreed on all counts. Consider this though, we have repeatedly conducted studies that show bringing a gun into your house increases the chance of gun death. Maybe, perhaps, given the chance, gun ownership…

Oh boy, wait until you see the stats about what car ownership does to you and your families chances of dying in an automobile accident!

Can't wait to argue with all the car owners that say owning a car will help protect them against crime and car accidents, as well.

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

#327

Post by tomlockwood »

mlyle wrote: post #323
tomlockwood wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering my argument has been about attempting to reduce gun deaths you might want to reconsider that assumption. However, lucky for you, I'm pretty sure that assumption would make it easier for you to dismiss my argument. I say lucky for you, but what I really mean to say is it'd be bad if you did that. Its a little turn of phrase that isn't literal and which is probably lost via text. Lets reduce gun deaths. The…

I spend a lot of time at and around a cabin up in the Sierras; sometimes with no means to contact law enforcement; and other times with law enforcement about 45 minutes out. 99.9% of people you might meet are decent folks. But there's meth around, etc. I'm not a huge dude. I probably would have already been stabbed if not for carrying a firearm during some of the questionable encounters I've had up there. What do you…

If your use case is staying safe and alive, and you already own a gun, my recommendation is that you seek out psychological support every now and then.

Obviously, this is difficult in a rural community, which is probably one of the factors that makes committing suicide by gun a much higher risk amongst men in rural communities than murder.

Also, regardless of whether police are 45 minutes or 10 minutes away, that's not going to help you during a meth-fuelled knife attack.

But, putting all that aside, a gun won't protect you if someone sneaks up on you.

If you're in a cabin in the sierras, you probably aren't encountering thousands of people, so your risk of getting stabbed is considerably lower than someone in a city.

If someone's far enough away from you a bolt-action is probably good enough to protect you. They're legal in Australia - you can own one if you pass the licensing requirements. Presumably you haven't shot anyone yet, so I'm pretty sure calibre isn't a concern.

So the real scenario you're worried about, in your mountain cabin in the Sierras, is someone being close enough to stab you, or too drug-addled or foolhardy to care about being threatened or shot with a 22 and not sneaking up on you.

My question to you is why you see that as more of a risk than suicide? Is addressing the use case of defence against violent crime worth the excess risk you are exposing yourself to? Not many people expect to be struck with depression, but it happens, particularly in rural communities - and there's a lot of evidence of that, too.

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

#328

Post by mlyle »

tomlockwood wrote: post #327
mlyle wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spend a lot of time at and around a cabin up in the Sierras; sometimes with no means to contact law enforcement; and other times with law enforcement about 45 minutes out. 99.9% of people you might meet are decent folks. But there's meth around, etc. I'm not a huge dude. I probably would have already been stabbed if not for carrying a firearm during some of the questionable encounters I've had up there. What do you…

If your use case is staying safe and alive, and you already own a gun, my recommendation is that you seek out psychological support every now and then. Obviously, this is difficult in a rural community, which is probably one of the factors that makes committing suicide by gun a much higher risk amongst men in rural communities than murder. Also, regardless of whether police are 45 minutes or 10 minutes away, that's n…

I completely disagree with your analysis, but it's not really worth debating.

> My question to you is why you see that as more of a risk than suicide?

If I decide to kill myself, then I've died with consent. Might happen eventually-- maybe I'll have a bad health diagnosis or something-- I'm not concerned about the "risk".

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

#329

Post by tomlockwood »

mlyle wrote: post #328
tomlockwood wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your use case is staying safe and alive, and you already own a gun, my recommendation is that you seek out psychological support every now and then. Obviously, this is difficult in a rural community, which is probably one of the factors that makes committing suicide by gun a much higher risk amongst men in rural communities than murder. Also, regardless of whether police are 45 minutes or 10 minutes away, that's n…

I completely disagree with your analysis, but it's not really worth debating. > My question to you is why you see that as more of a risk than suicide? If I decide to kill myself, then I've died with consent. Might happen eventually-- maybe I'll have a bad health diagnosis or something-- I'm not concerned about the "risk".

> I completely disagree with your analysis, but it's not really worth debating.

Ok! I think you're considerably overestimating the likelihood of needing to defend yourself with the type of gun you think you need. A bolt action 22 is enough for pretty much anyone, and we really need to weigh up whether the increased risk of handguns and assault rifles is worth their availability.

> If I decide to kill myself, then I've died with consent.

If you consider people with mental illness as being able to consent rationally, sure.

> Might happen eventually-- maybe I'll have a bad health diagnosis or something-- I'm not concerned about the "risk".

Like I said earlier, rural men are at very high risk of mental illness and suicide, regardless of having a bad health diagnosis. Suicide significantly increases in times of drought, by the way.

Owning a gun also significantly increases the risk of death by suicide. You'd be unequivocally less at risk of dying of gunshot wounds or suffering a gun-related injury if you didn't own a gun. Stay safe out there!

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

#330

Post by masonic »

tomlockwood wrote: post #325
masonic wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've made that claim several times on this thread alone but have yet to provide any supporting reference.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00029... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15522849 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12764330 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8371731 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8485675 How many references will be sufficient evidence?

None that you merely googled for. I'm looking for content that actually supports your specific claim.

1) a survey on firearms-related deaths that doesn't even look at in-home use or defensive vs offensive use.

2) A review of 26-year-old death certificates. Did you read this part? "Blacks, persons less than 35 years of age or older than age 100 years, and persons who died from external causes of homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury were oversampled in this survey."

3) Uses same cooked data as #2, study done by an anti-gun interest group (VPC).

4) Again uses the same cooked data from 26 years ago.

5) A thirty-year-old phone survey that doesn't even examine in-home gun use. Seriously?

So, no, none of those is "evidence" of anything. Now, how many of those were you previously familiar with vs just googling on "gun death home study

Post reply on HN