1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Lemon Merchant, Apr 2, 2018.

  1. Estebonrober

    Estebonrober Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2017
    Messages:
    3,104
    Gender:
    Male
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thetrace.org/2017/06/physics-deadly-bullets-assault-rifles/amp/


    Projectile weapons work by transferring kinetic energy to a target, which ripples out as a shockwave through tissue as the bullet plows through the body, leaving a cavity in its wake. The amount of energy a bullet radiates into a target is determined by a simple formula taught in high school: It’s the product of one half the projectile’s mass times the square of the velocity. The energy delivered to the target increases geometrically along with increases in mass, and exponentially with increases in velocity. The larger a projectile’s surface area, the greater its ability to transfer its energy to the target, instead of simply penetrating straight through.


    I mean we can get into the exact metric I’m looking for but I know you guys understand my premise here. I’m not a firearms expert. I did not spend years killing people in Iraq. My kids spend one day a term going through mass shooter training though. So I do still get to have an opinion on the nightmare that is American mass shootings.
     
  2. Commodore

    Commodore Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    11,367
    Well the main point of contention on that issue is whether or not those who aren't "in the business" of selling guns should have to bear the cost of doing background checks on those they sell guns to. One solution I see to this would be for the government to just eat the cost of those background checks and let people who aren't actual firearm dealers and just want to get rid of some guns to do those background checks for free.

    I think that would eliminate a lot of resistance to closing the so-called "gun show loophole".

    I wasn't trying to say you aren't allowed to have an opinion, nor was I trying to make you look stupid or anything like that. I know you aren't a firearms expert, which is why I tried to word my post in a way that was more informative than argumentative. I did say a while back that one of my reasons for participating in this thread so much was to educate as much as I am able to on the subject of firearms.
     
  3. Bugfatty300

    Bugfatty300 Buddha Squirrel

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,892
    Location:
    Mexico
    NC requires a permit for anyone to take possession of a handgun. There's virtually no compliance outside of formal transfers.
     
  4. IglooDude

    IglooDude Enforcing Rule 34 Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    21,574
    Location:
    Igloo, New Hampshire
    Everyone is allowed to have an opinion, of course. But I think scrutiny of proposed solutions, especially as you note you're not familiar with firearm technology, is reasonable and perhaps even helpful, don't you agree?
     
  5. hobbsyoyo

    hobbsyoyo Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    22,772
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The pale blue dot.
    What if it were easy? Like logging into a government website or app? If it is not a painful process to do, I do not think it is an unreasonable ask.

    And I think @Commodore's compromise on requiring checks but having the government subsidize that is a good idea.
     
    Birdjaguar and El_Machinae like this.
  6. Bugfatty300

    Bugfatty300 Buddha Squirrel

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,892
    Location:
    Mexico
    Better, but a lot people wouldn't bother because there'd be no way to enforce it and historically speaking most spree killers would pass a background check so we'd be in the same position.
     
  7. Estebonrober

    Estebonrober Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2017
    Messages:
    3,104
    Gender:
    Male
    The problem with this is highlighted by the next quote.

    Every possible idea that might help but does not resolve one problem or another is disregarded by enthusiasts. The real issue I have is that you all are outnumbered 4:1 and still manage to hold sway over congress. Also when a state legislature like Virginia decides to do something even small the response is armed insurrection.
     
    hobbsyoyo likes this.
  8. Bugfatty300

    Bugfatty300 Buddha Squirrel

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,892
    Location:
    Mexico
    I've offered my ideas of gradual changes rather than outright bans. I haven't touched a legal private gun in years. Guns are my profession, not an enthusiast.
     
    El_Machinae and hobbsyoyo like this.
  9. hobbsyoyo

    hobbsyoyo Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    22,772
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The pale blue dot.
    We should be studying the issue to figure out what kinds of controls are enforceable. I refuse to believe there really is no solution to this particular issue. Congress did finally lift the ban on researching gun violence, maybe that can carry over to researching smart ways to do gun control?
     
  10. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    43,357
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    everything below is quotes

    The common refrain is that Congress banned research on gun violence, but that’s not correct. The real obstacle is a lack of funding.

    In 1996, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) attached an amendment to the annual appropriations bill for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, stipulating that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” This has appeared in every CDC spending bill thereafter.

    The Dickey amendment does not ban research; it bans the CDC from advocating gun-control policies. Those are two distinct things.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...de2128-2c4d-11e8-8ad6-fbc50284fce8_story.html

    Congressional leaders reached a deal to fund research on gun violence for the first time in more than 20 years

    The deal — still pending final approval as congressional negotiations continue over a must-pass, end-of-year spending bill — would send $25 million to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health to study gun violence, with each agency receiving $12.5 million

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...und-gun-violence-research-first-time-since-s/
     
  11. hobbsyoyo

    hobbsyoyo Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    22,772
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The pale blue dot.
    That reporter is being pedantic! Edit: Eh, I guess that kind of is their job. I get mad when Judy Woodruff uses poor phrasing and subtly shifts the meaning of something that someone has done while reporting the news. It doesn't happen often and it usually only happens with relation to complex situations but it's frustrating nonetheless so I shouldn't rag on that reporter for clarifying.
     
  12. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    43,357
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    Well, I don't think it's pedantic, it's accurate. Congress is trying to fund gun violence research now. Plus, a few shifts in the words you use show that you are hip to what's actually going on. See also: magazine vs. clip, battle rifle vs. assault weapon, silencer vs suppressor.

    I'm a biologist, and stem cells was a loooooong discussion. The States didn't 'ban' human embryonic stem cell research, they just refused to fund it with federal dollars. Strictly so. In comparison, Canada banned the research. So the difference with banning and 'refusing to fund' was actually really important.
     
  13. hobbsyoyo

    hobbsyoyo Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    22,772
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The pale blue dot.
    It's both though. Now I'm being pedantic but whether Congress did not approve funds or outright banned the research doesn't matter much when the end result is the exact same. But he is technically correct and I appreciate the precision.

    The situation is different because there is actually a natural market for biomedical research that exists outside of government funding. The same isn't really true of gun research but I could be wrong on that.
     
  14. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    43,357
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    Well, providers of insurance have the motivation. If an insurance agency was 'on the hook' for damage from a shooting (such as when homeowner's insurance is), then they'd want to know what changes to recommend (or insist upon) in their insurance contracts.

    This is why countries with national health insurance have an 'obvious' motivation for funding large-scale studies that cannot be commodified. In the States, because you have competing insurance agencies they individually don't really have incentive to run the studies. Hence, NIH (etc.) does so much real research and insurance agencies don't. It's not just a subsidy, it's correcting a market failure.

    BUT, that's because funding some types of research hard. Funding the research just puts you out-of-pocket on information that then the other insurance agencies make use of. But some research is easy, and obvious to do.

    A ban on research would mean that insurance agencies would not be allowed to, even if they wanted to. I mean, it's pedantic, but it's also accurate. We have a ban on hESC research up here, even if insurers would want it done.
     
  15. Commodore

    Commodore Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    11,367
    And it's entirely reasonable too. Government agencies should not be in the business of advocating for policies that would limit Constitutional rights.

    Also, I never liked the idea have having the CDC involved in this issue anyway. It implies that gun ownership is some sort of disease and gun owners are somehow "sick" and need to be "cured". Studies of gun violence would be more appropriately handled by law enforcement agencies such as the FBI or ATF.
     
  16. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    43,357
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    Well, it's part of the collective defense. If guns are hurting people, then it makes a lot of sense to figure out what is causing the guns to hurt people. Like any unknown system, there could be a few obvious tweaks that make a big difference
     
  17. IglooDude

    IglooDude Enforcing Rule 34 Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    21,574
    Location:
    Igloo, New Hampshire
    I get it, generally. But they don't seem to be thought of when the question of, say, reducing the rates of rape and sexual assault in our society comes up, or, if one is more focused on the objects being the problem, of reducing DUI/DWI rates. Calling it and treating gunshot wounds as a public health issue when there's no other sorts of assaults - other than perhaps STDs - that qualify for the same treatment would seem to make it as ideological a move as framing the issue itself as "gun safety" versus "gun control".

    Personally I'd suggest starting with better data collection, though; has the CDC had much luck in working with the FBI and state and local law enforcement on such things previously? Data that everyone (or anyway, everyone without an axe to grind, and neither Lott nor Bellesiles seems to qualify) could trust would be a great starting point.
     
  18. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    43,357
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    That is kind of whataboutism. If you have good ideas on how to conduct research along those other dimensions, then it's worth looking at those data. But without looking at the data, you just don't know if there are good any ideas available.

    As I said, homeowners insurance providers have incentive to reduce the number of gun incidents that they are on the hook for. And since I was talking about low-hanging fruit, one could presume that maybe they have already looked 4 for them.

    With regards to other safety threats, there are constant experiments with regards to early family intervention, improved nutrition access, and other things that affect criminality. I've long stated that people who want to protect their second amendment rights should probably be donating to mental health research organizations. Because it's the occasional mixing of mental health concerns with a firearm incident that creates most of the political momentum.

    It's a well-spent dollar. Worst case, you're helping people. Best case, you're decreasing the frequency in the long run of events that politically grind down the Second Amendment tolerance
     
  19. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    36,253
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    I guess we should leave that up to the paid lobbyists. :p
     
  20. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    22,925
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    We've already tried this. "Gun rights advocates" will not allow the collection of good data because it will inevitably show that gun ownership is the main determinant of gun violence; thus, reducing gun violence means reducing gun ownership.
     

Share This Page