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

#51

Post by benjohnson » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:44 AM UTC

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…

>>gun rights derive from the Constitution.

For me, I would say that the 2nd amendment reflects the natural right to self defense that all humans have.

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

#52

Post by stevenicr » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:45 AM 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.

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 definition recently that said assault rifle bans.. any rifle with at least one 'military type accessory' - that wording is part of the charade. I'm guessing a forward grip, maybe a red dot would be in that?

Frankly if the grandma next door needs to use a weapon, I would hope that she is not limited by regulations such as that - I would like her to have as good of a grip and sighting options as absolutely possible. I'd rather her have an easily controllable SBR type of weapon, expandable stock and maybe 30 rounds of 22 winmag - this would be much safer for her and for the neighbors I think if something went down... JB's double barrell shotgun suggestion would not be the best protection for many grandmas, imho.

so maybe 'because of the popularity of hand guns' is that in a way, in that people in the middle want them.. I think some people will read that as in 'the popularity' is causing lots of shootings and that makes gun control popular.

maybe. all situations are different not an exhaustive suggestion(s) thought processes atm. ymmv.

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

#53

Post by ryeights » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:46 AM UTC

kasey_junk wrote: post #22

ryeights wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Suicides accounting for the large majority of “gun deaths,” but bans on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines will have little effect on suicides. Likely red flag laws as well. At the risk of sounding grim, if you're looking to commit suicide, a 12-gauge shotgun (very common for bird hunting) is probably your best bet. Nobody's looking to ban those.

It’s actually likely an inverse relationship to this. Suicides are more likely to be successful where guns are prevalent compared to where they are hard to get. Meanwhile homicides are rare so no matter what tool you have access to you can get it done. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

To be clear, I agree with that assessment. My point is that banning standard capacity magazines and semiautomatic rifles will have little effect on suicide rates, since they aren't a very good choice for committing suicide in the first place.

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

#54

Post by remarkEon » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:50 AM UTC

kasey_junk wrote: post #43

remarkEon wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>probably because of the popularity of hand guns. I think it's more that most of those advocating for these rifle bans have limited or no experience with any firearm, let a lone rifles. Most of these things just look scary to people who are unfamiliar with them, even though they'd be functionally equivalent to rifles with wooden stocks and wooden foregrips. Edit: clarifying word

It’s a common contention of the gun advocacy community that it’s ignorance that drives awb, but that flies in the face of the evidence that veterans are disproportionately represented in elected officials, police officers are consulted when drafting the legislation & its a subject that is easily researchable. I think it’s more likely that the people who are politically motivated around this issue represent the extrem…

I'm not sure what this has to do with my point. Veterans generally don't support more gun control (I am one), but you're right that political motivations can cause weird bedfellows. Anyway, I wasn't really talking about politicians as it were ... more the general public.

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

#55

Post by stevenicr » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:53 AM UTC

kasey_junk wrote: post #43

remarkEon wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>probably because of the popularity of hand guns. I think it's more that most of those advocating for these rifle bans have limited or no experience with any firearm, let a lone rifles. Most of these things just look scary to people who are unfamiliar with them, even though they'd be functionally equivalent to rifles with wooden stocks and wooden foregrips. Edit: clarifying word

It’s a common contention of the gun advocacy community that it’s ignorance that drives awb, but that flies in the face of the evidence that veterans are disproportionately represented in elected officials, police officers are consulted when drafting the legislation & its a subject that is easily researchable. I think it’s more likely that the people who are politically motivated around this issue represent the extrem…

when "police officers are consulted when drafting the legislation" - they could have their own protection interest in mind more than yours.

When they choose to carry 'high capacity magazines', SBRs (real pia to get for non-leo) - and other weaponry, it is understood these things help them be safer...

If grandma is not allowed to be safer because random bad guy - you have to wonder, or should maybe.

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

#56

Post by thawaway1837 » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:55 AM UTC

randogogogo wrote: post #31

susijdjdjxa wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think the poster is saying they don't like that some people conflate gun deaths with gun murders and use that as a justification for gun control.

The OP’s argument is basically completely irrelevant to the actual point. If we banned any research that could be misinterpreted or abused because they are on political issues, we’d might as well ban all research...at the very least, research on climate change, vaccinations, health effects of pollution, research on deaths due to obesity, causes of obesity should be banned immediately. But if we go back a few centuries it gets a lot worse, because almost all science today, especially that which went against what the church believed, should have been banned by this logic.

That being said, the OP’s specific point is also really bad. If gun control leads to reduced deaths, but the reduced deaths are entirely due to reduced suicides (they’re not...but hypothetically), that would still be an argument in favor of gun control, not against.

It may not be a good solution to reducing the mass murder of toddlers, but hey, we won’t know that until we actually do the research on it. Which is the whole point.

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

#57

Post by Pinckney » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:56 AM UTC

robcohen wrote: post #19

minikites wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>gun rights derive from the Constitution Many people conveniently leave out the "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment.

This is a horse that has been beaten to death. It’s well established what militia means. Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

You quote the militia act, but congress doesn't get to define the words of the constitution through ordinary legislation. If it worked that way then they could just as easily pass a law defining "arms" as only muskets, "speech" as only spoken words, and "unreasonable search" as only a search conducted without reasonable suspicion.

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

#58

Post by ryeights » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:56 AM UTC

Ididntdothis wrote: post #45

sigzero wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meaning what? The SCOTUS has ruled several times that the individual right to bear arms is separate from the "militia" statement and both are covered in the 2A.

Why is the phrase "well-regulated militia" in there then? Is it just fluff that can be ignored?

Well, you can read the Supreme Court opinion to find out exactly why: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opi...

In short, the clause is there as a justification/motivation, and not a precondition, for the right to bear arms.

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

#59

Post by jki275 » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:58 AM UTC

benjohnson wrote: post #51

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…

>>gun rights derive from the Constitution. For me, I would say that the 2nd amendment reflects the natural right to self defense that all humans have.

Yes -- gun rights do not "derive from the Constitution", the Constitution codifies natural rights -- and that goes far beyond self defense.

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

#60

Post by iudqnolq » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:58 AM UTC

kasey_junk wrote: post #47

surge wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because those shootings are probably in high gun control areas like Chicago, NJ, CA where laws are strictest, so it shows that gun control doesn't really work to stop those, and those deaths are usually the result overwhelmingly of handguns, not AR-15's or "assault style rifles" which are just semi-automatic rifles that look militaristic and no one would freak out about if they had wooden stocks. In this cas…

You’ve forgotten the single most important factor. When it comes to intentional deaths by firearm, mass shootings target white children at a much higher per capita number. If white teenagers were getting killed by gun murders at even the rate of black kids killed by cops we’d have a national ban.

See the fact California started heavily restricting gun ownership once black people started exercising their Second Amendment rights (and that happened under a Republican government)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party