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

361–370 of 373 posts

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

#361

Post by tomlockwood »

CompanionCuuube wrote: post #348
tomlockwood wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a terrible defensive choice. It is unlikely to be available if needed, and doesn't work well at short-moderate range. Longer ranges are too far for credible self defense. Also, the lethality is limited; you're going to need to get lucky to stop someone from stabbing the fuck out of you. I did talk about range. I did talk about deterrence rather than stopping power. > There are a whole lot of sketchy people…

> OK. I think you heavily overestimate your own level of knowledge and understanding on this topic. This comment of yours is just another example of that when you ask "Do you need an assault rifle (I didn't mention semi-auto rifles) to defend against meth heads with knives?" Is it your understanding that any of the firearms being discussed are assault rifles? That's pretty damning.

> Is it your understanding that any of the firearms being discussed are assault rifles?

AR-15 stands for assault rifle 15 lol

So I'm guessing you're pro gun control - considering you're ok with the control of assault rifles? Just an example. Lets control some of the most dangerous guns. No miniguns please. Also tighter controls on handguns.

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

#362

Post by tomlockwood »

CompanionCuuube wrote: post #349
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…

> Lets reduce gun deaths. They are tragic and often unnecessary. And we can do that by addressing the motivations behind them through social programs. > Also, fear of The Other, Technically, what was demonstrated in that comment was closer to hatred than just fear. There's more than enough gun nuts out there who wish that gun owners would shoot themselves.

> And we can do that by addressing the motivations behind them through social programs.

Lets do those, and gun control.

> Technically, what was demonstrated in that comment was closer to hatred than just fear.

I think guns are neat, and if I move back out to the country I'll probably own one.

> There's more than enough gun nuts out there who wish that gun owners would shoot themselves.

Not me, though.

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

#363

Post by tomlockwood »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #355
tomlockwood wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what I'm hearing you say is that you feel an american insurgency will be effective and persistent. Where is the confederacy?

You may recall they did manage to put up quite a fight once upon a time. But an insurgency requires a sufficient number of people who feel strongly enough to take up arms. I think if you did a poll today you'd find that the pro-slavery contingent is well below the threshold.

> You may recall they did manage to put up quite a fight once upon a time.

If I recall correctly they both lost and lost their rights - whether we consider those rights the right to own slaves or leave the union.

> But an insurgency requires a sufficient number of people who feel strongly enough to take up arms.

Not true. "The accidental guerilla" by David Kilcullen is a great book on this idea. I'm wondering though for what reason you feel the confederates felt less strongly than gun owners do today.

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

#364

Post by tomlockwood »

jMyles wrote: post #359
tomlockwood wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say this supposedly major critique isn't represented in the data. The everytown article you seem to be mentioning recommends tighter gun controls.

, yes, we know that the best funded arms restriction organization in the world recommends tighter gun restrictions. Obviously. I have to say: I think that you have stopped making sense or putting in any effort to this discussion so I'm just going to move on.

In 2016 a meta-analysis of 130 studies across 10 countries also found them to be effective. I think one of the strongest predictors of suicide is gender - but I'm not sure you'd find many gun control advocates advocating for gender based controls. But I suppose since the studies sometimes don't explicitly call out the correlation between gender and suicide that their methodology and conclusions must be... invalid???

I fully acknowledge and think it is an absolute tragedy that veterans can't access the support services they need, and I think that problem, and the problem of mental health issues in America could be mostly addressed by a better healthcare system.

For many of the gun suicides and some of the murders though, better gun control is effective.

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

#365

Post by kasey_junk »

masonic wrote: post #338
iudqnolq wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It passed the Assembly in a bipartisan manner, but the governor was a republican (Reagan). It was also introduced by a republican (Mulford). I didn't mean to excuse the Democrats who supported it, they were racist opportunists, I merely wanted to point out the CA Republican party dropped its principled support for 2nd Amendment Rights as soon as the people they would be protecting didn't look White like them.

It passed the Assembly in a bipartisan manner It passed both houses with over 2/3rds majorities , and neither was Republican controlled... so your attempt to make it a partisan thing is confusing.

It’s fairly straight forward, Republicans have traditionally been anti gun control. But when push came to shove they abandoned that position when it meant allowing black men to be armed.

That said the GOP was much less strident in their gun worship back then generally.

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

#366

Post by masonic »

kasey_junk wrote: post #365
masonic wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It passed the Assembly in a bipartisan manner It passed both houses with over 2/3rds majorities , and neither was Republican controlled... so your attempt to make it a partisan thing is confusing.

It’s fairly straight forward, Republicans have traditionally been anti gun control. But when push came to shove they abandoned that position when it meant allowing black men to be armed. That said the GOP was much less strident in their gun worship back then generally.

Name one gun control measure opposed by CA Republican assembly members or senators that term. One.

CA Republicans of that era were not anti gun control.

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

#367

Post by CompanionCuuube »

tomlockwood wrote: post #296
CompanionCuuube wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if you bought a strawman into your comment. Or maybe we don't have to imagine. How many people do you know who brought a gun into their house solely for protection against someone with a gun?

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.

The same amount that should laugh off "learning" that percentage of black population makes their family more prone to dying of gunshot wounds.

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

#368

Post by CompanionCuuube »

tomlockwood wrote: post #361
CompanionCuuube wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OK. I think you heavily overestimate your own level of knowledge and understanding on this topic. This comment of yours is just another example of that when you ask "Do you need an assault rifle (I didn't mention semi-auto rifles) to defend against meth heads with knives?" Is it your understanding that any of the firearms being discussed are assault rifles? That's pretty damning.

> Is it your understanding that any of the firearms being discussed are assault rifles? AR-15 stands for assault rifle 15 lol So I'm guessing you're pro gun control - considering you're ok with the control of assault rifles? Just an example. Lets control some of the most dangerous guns. No miniguns please. Also tighter controls on handguns.

If you were intending to be a parody of a gun control zealot, unaware of the subject proposing to be regulated as well as what regulation already exist, you have done a wonderful job. AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle 15, and assault rifles are already heavily controlled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

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

#369

Post by tomlockwood »

CompanionCuuube wrote: post #368
tomlockwood wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it your understanding that any of the firearms being discussed are assault rifles? AR-15 stands for assault rifle 15 lol So I'm guessing you're pro gun control - considering you're ok with the control of assault rifles? Just an example. Lets control some of the most dangerous guns. No miniguns please. Also tighter controls on handguns.

If you were intending to be a parody of a gun control zealot, unaware of the subject proposing to be regulated as well as what regulation already exist, you have done a wonderful job. AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle 15, and assault rifles are already heavily controlled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

> AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle 15

That's the joke. I thought the "lol" I put at the end of that phrase would really sell that fact.

> assault rifles are already heavily controlled.

Awesome! Perhaps we can better control other guns for which self-defence is not a valid justification.

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

#370

Post by tomlockwood »

CompanionCuuube wrote: post #367
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.

The same amount that should laugh off "learning" that percentage of black population makes their family more prone to dying of gunshot wounds.

Except if we're trying to identify demographic issues, poverty and gender both explain the correlation better than race.

The correlation between guns and gun violence and injuries undermines any claim that owning a gun increases liberty or enables self-defence.

Post reply on HN