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

#71

Post by bb611 » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 5:08 AM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #35

sohkamyung wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quote from this website [1] ===== “Gun violence is America’s most preventable disease. I say that because it’s almost entirely preventable and the numbers of people affected are so high.” Judy Schaechter, MD, MBA University of Miami Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine ===== [1] https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/disease-gun-violence

You could say a similar thing about car accidents. Does that make car accidents a disease?

Regardless of whether you classify it as a disease, the CDC does in fact track and research car accident deaths and injuries: https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.ht...

Additionally there are two federal agencies (NHTSB and NTSB) that regulate the various elements of vehicular safety at the national level, on top of state DMVs and transportation departments. By comparison, the federal BATFE is basically hamstrung on firearms regulation, and outside a few States so are its state level equivalents.

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

#72

Post by datashow » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 5:09 AM UTC

beart wrote: post #20

larnmar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, shouldn’t the Center for Disease Control spend its time and focus on things that could reasonably be argued fall under the heading of “disease control”? By all means, gun violence research should be conducted by, say, the Department of Justice. Like many policies in the US at this stage, the goal appears not to be good governance but simply “pwning the other side”.

The u.s. government has a history of departments performing work that would not seem to logically fit with their stated intention or primary focus. I don't think that alone implies a misuse of authority. For example, the secret service is in charge of protecting government officials but is also tasked with investigating forgery.

This could be a reasonable argument. Unfortunately it is not the one used by CDC officials. They are literally saying gun violence is a disease.

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

#73

Post by stevenicr » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 5:09 AM UTC

ip26 wrote: post #39

virmundi wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CDC has a history of anti gun bias. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/...

They also have a history of anti malaria bias. Public health agency finds that guns kill people, recommends fewer guns, news at 11

cars kill thousands of kids, recommend fewer cars swimming pools kill a thousand, recommend banning swimming pools drugs kill a thousand, make drugs illegal with huge jail terms. wait, that doesn't work.

why are there thousands of kids handling guns fine without accidents in rural areas and thousands getting killed by a few hundred in urban areas.

it's much more complex than just fewer guns, no private pool ownership, etc.

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

#74

Post by throwaway2048 » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 5:09 AM UTC

datashow wrote: post #66

ip26 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also have a history of anti malaria bias. Public health agency finds that guns kill people, recommends fewer guns, news at 11

How is malaria comparable to guns? Is malaria in the Constitution? Does Americans have a malaria culture?

If it did, im sure there would be plenty opining about the wonderful benefits of malaria, how it stops government tyranny from invading the swamps of our forefathers, and how you can always rely on it to dissuade thieves and criminals.

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

#75

Post by paggle » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 5:11 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…

Also, not all gun suicides should be prevented. My friend's grandfather was dying of Parkinson's and had a very horrible and unpleasant 3-6 months ahead of him. He blew his head to pieces with a gun. It was a massive quality of life improvement for him. Nobody in the family was really that upset -- they were glad that he didn't have to suffer, and he took care to do it in a way that none of his family had to discover the gruesome scene.

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

#76

Post by intopieces » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 5:12 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…

>I’d also point out that, at the end of the day, gun rights derive from the Constitution. Gun control is therefore not merely a policy choice to be made based on facts and data.

That it was written in the Constitution (which also counted black people as three fifths of a person and failed to enshrine voting rights) should not reduce the value the facts and data to "mere" status.

You are right about the statistics, though.

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

#77

Post by tomlockwood » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 5:14 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…

> 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.

That's assuming that the reason for lumping them together is an attempt to justify policy.

One counter argument to gun control seems to be that gun ownership is a way to preserve liberty and defend the home. It has been repeatedly and consistently found that gun ownership leads to an increase in gun related injuries and deaths for the owners - which undermines those arguments about liberty and home defence, regardless of the type of injury or death.

It's hard to defend anything or have liberty when you're dead.

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

#78

Post by throwaway2048 » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 5:14 AM UTC

dx87 wrote: post #18

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…

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…

They get lumped in because they are real mass shootings where tons of people die, but if you explain it as gang violence, it will be immediately ignored as something black/hispanic people do.

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

#79

Post by vorpalhex » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 5:15 AM UTC

kasey_junk wrote: post #33

vorpalhex wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US and UK suicide rates are extremely comparable, and the UK has far fewer firearms. Let's not even touch on Japan.

No they aren’t. Most recent data suggests that the US has twice the suicide rate of the U.K. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide... Japan & Korea are interesting _because_ they are outliers.

The US suicide rate per the CDC is 14/100k (2017). The UK suicide rate is 11/100k per the office of National statistics (2018).

I'm not sure why the Wikipedia page dramatically disagrees with the UK's own stats.

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

#80

Post by jdkee » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 5:15 AM UTC

minikites wrote: post #8

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 Many people conveniently leave out the "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment.

No. “Well regulated” in the context of the 2A means in good working condition. The militia, which is every male between the ages of 18 and 45, shoukd have a working weapon. Legal “regulations” has nothing to do with it.