Surgeon General Nominee Decidedly Anit-Gun


PDA






hotajax
March 13, 2014, 10:13 AM
Pres Obama's nominee for Surgeon General is being voted on in the Senate this week. If you are able, it may be a good idea to call your US Senator and urge them to vote against this nominee. His name is Dr. Vivek Murthy, and he has a confirmed record of anti-gun activity.

If you enjoyed reading about "Surgeon General Nominee Decidedly Anit-Gun" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gym
March 19, 2014, 05:40 PM
Here is a link from the NRA
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2014/nra-ila-oppses-murthy-appointment.aspx

climbskirun
March 19, 2014, 07:14 PM
All I can find is that he wants to look at gun violence as a public health issue, which is something I'm not entirely opposed to. I hope we can all agree that gun violence is bad, and taking a scientific approach to studying it can only produce good result as we're bound to better understand why it happens. Hopefully we can move away from stupid, irrational measures like magazine capacity restrictions or "assault" weapons ban, and towards measures that would actually be effective while not infringing on our constitutional rights.

Frankly, NRA has been counterproductive in this respect as they've lobbied heavily against funding more studies into true causes of gun violence. I'm not sure what exactly they're trying to achieve here.

I'm also unclear as to what a Surgeon General can possibly do to restrict RsKBA.

DT Guy
March 19, 2014, 07:29 PM
I think classifying 'gun violence' (what is that, exactly?) as a public health issue is a huge red herring. It allows the government, who will soon be our health care insurer, to weigh and investigate gun ownership in the light of 'health' costs, rather than the appropriate measures of liberty, personal freedom and individual responsibility.

With Obamacare rolling pell mell over many lives (including my family, I might add), a surgeon general might well have an expanded role in deciding what to oppose in the name of societal expense.

I've mentioned before that letting your insurance company write law (which is what governmental health care devolves into) is an invitation to limit gun ownership, real butter, motorcycles, fast cars, and sky-diving. Whenever you open yourself to being judged not just on the correctness and legality of your behavior, but the 'health costs' associated with it, you've begun a long, slippery slide into governmental control of every aspect of your life.

Larry

Ed N.
March 19, 2014, 09:20 PM
Studies of "gun violence" inevitably end up studying guns rather than violence, and therefore recommend gun control rather than violence control.

Frankly, I don't care whether violent crime is commited using guns, knives, hammmers, baseball bats, fists, or airplanes. If the Surgeon General wants to study causes of violence, focusing on mental illness perhaps, I'm all for it. But focusing on the tools used by violent people doesn't address the root of the problem and so it will be a waste of time and money and can only result in useless restrictions on the law abiding.

climbskirun
March 19, 2014, 11:32 PM
Surely you're not suggesting that the numbers of people killed by guns is even on the same scale as those killed by knives, hammers, or baseball bats. I think it's quite reasonable to study gun violence in particular in order to help us identify those who are likely to commit violence and thus shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms as uniquely destructive weapons.

beatledog7
March 20, 2014, 07:52 AM
I think it's quite reasonable to study gun violence in particular in order to help us identify those who are likely to commit violence and thus shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms as uniquely destructive weapons.

How does one determine who is likely to commit violence, with a firearm or otherwise? As soon as we bestow that power on some person or entity, that person or entity starts wielding it for political purposes.

Calling "gun violence" a public health issue is simply a marketable precursor to proclaiming that some other constitutional right must be violated because not doing so would pose a public health risk. Imagine someone who has the HIV virus or some other "uniquely destructive" communicable disease being required by law to wear a bright red hat or some other readily identifiable "scarlet letter" so that those who wish to avoid exposure can do so.

Do you want to live in such a world?

kwguy
March 20, 2014, 09:34 AM
How can a behavior really be a 'health issue'? Is stealing cars a health issue? Or other types of behaviors? I think not. They are behavior issues. Calling them health issues just gives them another means to attack our firearms rights.

DT Guy
March 20, 2014, 10:27 AM
Again, do you want your insurance agent writing laws to 'protect' you?

Do you want the government to declare EVERY hazard in this world a 'health risk' and use that to gain some jurisdiction over it?

Do you really (REALLY) think any such 'research' would be scientific, in the strict sense? I know that most of the stuff I've seen that addressed firearms as a 'health issue' was flawed, and written to an agenda.

Again, NO. Firearms are not cancer, and violent criminals are not lupus.


Larry

hso
March 20, 2014, 10:46 AM
Surely you're not suggesting that the numbers of people killed by guns is even on the same scale as those killed by knives, hammers, or baseball bats.

Check the most recent FBI Uniform Crime Report and long guns, which semiauto rifles are a subset of, actually fall behind knives, blunt instruments, and hands/feet. (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls) You'll see that rifles are reported as used in 322 homicides in 2012 vs. 1,589 knives, 518 blunt objects, and 678 hands/feet. Since the attempts to regulate so-called "assault weapons" are of prime concern to us and of prime interest to the Antis the fact that they're statistically insignificant from a risk standpoint is clear reason for us to worry about anyone with a stated agenda like this.

ChaoSS
March 20, 2014, 10:55 AM
All I can find is that he wants to look at gun violence as a public health issue, which is something I'm not entirely opposed to. I hope we can all agree that gun violence is bad, and taking a scientific approach to studying it can only produce good result as we're bound to better understand why it happens. Hopefully we can move away from stupid, irrational measures like magazine capacity restrictions or "assault" weapons ban, and towards measures that would actually be effective while not infringing on our constitutional rights.

Frankly, NRA has been counterproductive in this respect as they've lobbied heavily against funding more studies into true causes of gun violence. I'm not sure what exactly they're trying to achieve here.

I'm also unclear as to what a Surgeon General can possibly do to restrict RsKBA.
No, I don't agree that gun violence is necessarily bad. Sometimes, it saves the lives of good guys.

Maybe they should look into criminal violence rather than gun violence. Just a thought.

Arkansas Paul
March 20, 2014, 11:01 AM
I'm also unclear as to what a Surgeon General can possibly do to restrict RsKBA.

I think it's quite reasonable to study gun violence in particular in order to help us identify those who are likely to commit violence and thus shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms as uniquely destructive weapons.

You answered your own question there.
He launches studies to study "gun violence" which doesn't exist. It should be called "criminals who commit violent acts while using guns", but that will never happen because then there is something to blame other than the firearm and that's certainly not what they want.

Anyway, hypothetically he launches the study then as you put in your words, we can determine who is likely to commit violence and not give them guns.
You are actually suggesting that we take someone's 2A rights away because we think they MIGHT commit a crime.

Wow. Your first two posts sure were doosies.

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 11:03 AM
How does one determine who is likely to commit violence, with a firearm or otherwise? As soon as we bestow that power on some person or entity, that person or entity starts wielding it for political purposes.

Calling "gun violence" a public health issue is simply a marketable precursor to proclaiming that some other constitutional right must be violated because not doing so would pose a public health risk. Imagine someone who has the HIV virus or some other "uniquely destructive" communicable disease being required by law to wear a bright red hat or some other readily identifiable "scarlet letter" so that those who wish to avoid exposure can do so.

Do you want to live in such a world?

Well, we won't know until we study it, and perhaps we'll find some connection. Gun violence is clearly not random because so many of us have guns yet very few actually commit crimes using them.

And thanks for reinforcing my point: until we studied HIV enough, we had no idea what it is or how it actually transmits, so we effectively ostracized the sick from society. We now know enough to a) keep ourselves safe, b) treat those who are afflicted, and c) we have a vaccine that prevent infection (altho it's still impractical as it has to be taken daily, but we'll get there eventually, like we did with everything else).

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 11:04 AM
How can a behavior really be a 'health issue'? Is stealing cars a health issue? Or other types of behaviors? I think not. They are behavior issues. Calling them health issues just gives them another means to attack our firearms rights.

Behavior *is* a health issue, because mental health is, y'know, health-related.

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 11:06 AM
Check the most recent FBI Uniform Crime Report and long guns, which semiauto rifles are a subset of, actually fall behind knives, blunt instruments, and hands/feet. (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls) You'll see that rifles are reported as used in 322 homicides in 2012 vs. 1,589 knives, 518 blunt objects, and 678 hands/feet. Since the attempts to regulate so-called "assault weapons" are of prime concern to us and of prime interest to the Antis the fact that they're statistically insignificant from a risk standpoint is clear reason for us to worry about anyone with a stated agenda like this.

Why did you omit handguns? Besides, I already stated that banning any firearm, including "assault" rifles, is stupid and unlikely to produce results we want because most gun violence is committed by handguns, which also happen to be my favorite type of firearms.

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 11:08 AM
You answered your own question there.
He launches studies to study "gun violence" which doesn't exist. It should be called "criminals who commit violent acts while using guns", but that will never happen because then there is something to blame other than the firearm and that's certainly not what they want.

Anyway, hypothetically he launches the study then as you put in your words, we can determine who is likely to commit violence and not give them guns.
You are actually suggesting that we take someone's 2A rights away because we think they MIGHT commit a crime.

Wow. Your first two posts sure were doosies.

We already don't allow possession of firearms for convicted fellons, domestic abusers, or drug addicts. Do you disagree with those 2A restrictions?

Arkansas Paul
March 20, 2014, 11:14 AM
We already don't allow possession of firearms for convicted fellons, domestic abusers, or drug addicts. Do you disagree with those 2A restrictions?

Convicted felons is an entirely different conversation than prohibiting someone who is likely to commit violence, as you suggested we should do in post # 6.
Proving that you are a criminal and us thinking you might at some point be a criminal are two things that are worlds apart.


But I have no problem answering your question as to whether I disagree with the above 2A restrictions.
I have a problem prohibiting non-violent people from owning firearms.
I am against prohibiting all felons because some things are felonies that pose no physical threat to anyone. For instance Martha Stewart can't own a firearm. To me that's silly.
Now a violent criminal, I have no problem with him/her being prohibited from ownership. That will get mixed opinions here and the favorite argument is "If someone is too dangerous to own a weapon they shouldn't be released from prison." I actually agree with that statement, but that's not the way it works in reality and I'm not sure there is a fix for it.

kwguy
March 20, 2014, 11:26 AM
Behavior *is* a health issue, because mental health is, y'know, health-related

Sure, but not all gun violence is due to mental health issues? To call gun violence in general a health issue is an attempt to put power into the hands of medical folks when it concerns gun ownership. I guess armed robbery with knives or ball bats or whatever is also a 'health issue'.

Not all bad behavior is related to mental health issues, and 'gun violence', or rather, the violence in general that is committed by jerks with weapons ranging from fists to guns and worse, is not a 'health issue'.

Arkansas Paul
March 20, 2014, 11:28 AM
^ Agreed.
Sure there are some mental health issues at play with many of the recent mass shooters. That is fact, but they are a very small percentage of the issue.

The VAST majority of people who assault and murder need to be in prison, not a mental health facility.

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 11:31 AM
Convicted felons is an entirely different conversation than prohibiting someone who is likely to commit violence, as you suggested we should do in post # 6.
Proving that you are a criminal and us thinking you might at some point be a criminal are two things that are worlds apart.


But I have no problem answering your question as to whether I disagree with the above 2A restrictions.
I have a problem prohibiting non-violent people from owning firearms.
I am against prohibiting all felons because some things are felonies that pose no physical threat to anyone. For instance Martha Stewart can't own a firearm. To me that's silly.
Now a violent criminal, I have no problem with him/her being prohibited from ownership. That will get mixed opinions here and the favorite argument is "If someone is too dangerous to own a weapon they shouldn't be released from prison." I actually agree with that statement, but that's not the way it works in reality and I'm not sure there is a fix for it.

If we had a reliable psych evaluation (which we currently don't) that would provide a statistically significant indication that a person may use the firearm to harm self or others, I'd be OK with adding them to the list of people who can't posses (or may be required to jump thru additional hoops as a safeguard for society at large).

David E
March 20, 2014, 11:38 AM
Why did you omit handguns? Besides, I already stated that banning any firearm, including "assault" rifles, is stupid and unlikely to produce results we want because most gun violence is committed by handguns, which also happen to be my favorite type of firearms.
Yet, you seem eager to bestow that power to a confirmed, ardent anti-gunner!

We already don't allow possession of firearms for convicted fellons, domestic abusers, or drug addicts. Do you disagree with those 2A restrictions?

Don't know what a "fellon" is, but it has already been addressed well. Still, not all felons are violent.

Many charged with "domestic violence" never hit anyone. Some had a fight with their brother 20 years ago and were charged with MISDEMEANOR "domestic violence and can no longer legally own a gun.....because of a misdemeanor charge that's 20 yrs old!

As far as drug addicts, you'll have to define that better.

kwguy
March 20, 2014, 11:41 AM
If we had a reliable psych evaluation (which we currently don't) that would provide a statistically significant indication that a person may use the firearm to harm self or others, I'd be OK with adding them to the list of people who can't posses (or may be required to jump thru additional hoops as a safeguard for society at large).

Pretty dangerous there. 'What is statistically significant'? 99.9 percent? Even then I'd hate to be that last .1 percent that fell through the cracks.

Arkansas Paul
March 20, 2014, 11:42 AM
If we had a reliable psych evaluation (which we currently don't) that would provide a statistically significant indication that a person may use the firearm to harm self or others, I'd be OK with adding them to the list of people who can't posses (or may be required to jump thru additional hoops as a safeguard for society at large).

That is a dangerous road my friend. One that is guaranteed to be abused on a large scale.

I'm a psych major and am neck deep in studying this stuff right now. I don't think there will ever bee a psych evaluation that is even close to 100% reliable. Diagnoses are based nearly solely on what the patient tells you. As long as that is the case, accuracy will be all over the place.

or may be required to jump thru additional hoops as a safeguard for society at large

I'm not willing to trade freedom for the illusion of security. A man a lot smarter than I once said people who are willing to do so deserve neither.

Eb1
March 20, 2014, 11:42 AM
If you'd like to watch "Minority Report" it is on YouTube.

Spats McGee
March 20, 2014, 11:45 AM
If we had a reliable psych evaluation (which we currently don't) that would provide a statistically significant indication that a person may use the firearm to harm self or others, I'd be OK with adding them to the list of people who can't posses (or may be required to jump thru additional hoops as a safeguard for society at large).
Kind of like the No-Fly list? No, thank you.

First, we're talking about a a fundamental, individual right. Here's the funny thing about rights: sometimes, they're just not up for grabs by popular vote. I would no more put my 2A right on the line like that than I would any of my 1A, 3A, 4A, or other constitutional rights.

Second, who gets to decide what definitions to use? It wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental illness. (No, this is not intended to send this thread down a discussion of that hot-button topic.) If there were such an evaluation, I believe that the hardcore anti-gun folks would soon be pushing the idea that the desire to own a gun indicates a desire to act out aggression, and would therefore be a disqualifier.

Finally, statistics. Always be sure to dig down into the "Definitions" section. The link provided by hso indicates "murders," but I've seen a great many sources that conflate "murders" with "homicides." There's a world of difference between the two. I'm as interested in who got killed and how, as I am about how many people got killed. How many of those UCR-reported murders were turf disputes between gang members? How many of them were committed by folks already prohibited from firearms possession?

David E
March 20, 2014, 11:49 AM
If we had a reliable psych evaluation (which we currently don't) that would provide a statistically significant indication that a person may use the firearm to harm self or others, I'd be OK with adding them to the list of people who can't posses (or may be required to jump thru additional hoops as a safeguard for society at large).
Would you characterize yourself as a progun person?

Because it's odd that a progunner would advocate the revocation of God-given rights, such as the 2A, for such a broad, loosely deigned group of people. Tell me, what makes you immune to being included in any yet-to-be-defined group? If you've been paying attention to history, the answer is "absolutely nothing."

Now, if that's ok with you and you'd give up your guns at the whim of some appointed surgeon general, then I submit that you never were progun. (But possibly an anti-gun troll, since these are your very first posts here on THR)

Arkansas Paul
March 20, 2014, 11:51 AM
Pretty dangerous there. 'What is statistically significant'? 99.9 percent?

Actually in the psychology field, its a hell of a lot less than that.
Generally to reject the null hypothesis (basically saying there is no relationship between 2 variables) your p-value is generally set at 0.05, meaning that the rejection region is anything inside of 5%. Usually this is partitioned off to either side of a distribution, putting a 2.5% region to either extreme.

So there is a 5% window of error to be statistically significant.
This is the norm. Sometimes it is slightly higher or lower depending on what is being studied.

kwguy
March 20, 2014, 11:52 AM
^^ ouch. Even worse.

Arkansas Paul
March 20, 2014, 11:54 AM
Would you characterize yourself as a progun person?

Of course he's pro gun, BUT.............................. :banghead:

(But possibly an anti-gun troll, since these are your very first posts here on THR)

I'm wondering about that myself.
Not quiet enough to make up my mind yet though.

kwguy
March 20, 2014, 11:57 AM
^^ 'we just need a little common sense here'... No one needs a weapon used by soldiers... Blah blah lol!

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 12:15 PM
Of course he's pro gun, BUT.............................. :banghead:



I'm wondering about that myself.
Not quiet enough to make up my mind yet though.

Pro-gun, pro-science, and in favor of measures that maintain our rights while reducing gun violence to at least close to those of other developed countries.

I don't claim to know the answers, and it's obvious that things we tried (weapon bans, microstamping, etc) simply don't work. All I'm dying is: we need to study this in greater detail to better understand it so that we can some day hope to come up with a solution.

Feel free to dismiss me but the reality is that if *we* don't come up with a workable solution, likes of Sen Feinstein will. We have a problem, and ignoring it and dismissing it won't make it go away.

Arkansas Paul
March 20, 2014, 12:23 PM
Pro-gun, pro-science, and in favor of measures that maintain our rights while reducing gun violence to at least close to those of other developed countries.

First you want to deny certain people their rights because they might one day be violent.

Then you say you are in favor of measures that maintain our rights while reducing gun violence.

Apparently "rights" does not mean what you think it means. When you have a "right" to do something, that can't be taken away based on the whim of someone who is afraid of what you might do one day.

And I don't dismiss you. You are certainly free to your opinion as well as I am.
But I will vehemently and if necessary forcefully oppose any restriction on law abiding citizens without due process.

Spats McGee
March 20, 2014, 12:23 PM
Pro-gun, pro-science, and in favor of measures that maintain our rights while reducing gun violence to at least close to those of other developed countries.

I don't claim to know the answers, and it's obvious that things we tried (weapon bans, microstamping, etc) simply don't work. All I'm dying is: we need to study this in greater detail to better understand it so that we can some day hope to come up with a solution.
A much wiser man than I once said that laws will only affect those already inclined to obey them. Violent felons cannot reasonably be expected to obey new gun control laws. The mentally ill cannot reasonably be expected to obey new gun control laws. Disarming the millions of law abiding gun owners will not make them, or anyone else, safer.

Feel free to dismiss me but the reality is that if *we* don't come up with a workable solution, likes of Sen Feinstein will. We have a problem, and ignoring it and dismissing it won't make it go away.
Appeasement has a long history of catastrophic failure.

kwguy
March 20, 2014, 12:23 PM
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it - Thomas Jefferson

I don't really think we need to be like other 'developed' countries. We could give up ALL of our rights, and have curfews, and no cars, and all kinds of stuff that makes us safer, but I don't want that.

There is no such thing as a 'zero defect world'.

I had to take that quote, because it explains my point perfectly.

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 12:40 PM
I don't really think we need to be like other 'developed' countries. We could give up ALL of our rights, and have curfews, and no cars, and all kinds of stuff that makes us safer, but I don't want that.

There is no such thing as a 'zero defect world'.

I had to take that quote, because it explains my point perfectly.

Somewhere between perfect safety and perfect anarchy lies the sweet spot. I don't claim to know where it's at, and we as a civilization have spent a few millennia trying to find it. Wherever it may be, however, your dismissal of any attempt to make our world better because it can't be made perfect is, frankly, simplistic if not outright defeatist.

Ed N.
March 20, 2014, 12:41 PM
Pro-gun, pro-science, and in favor of measures that maintain our rights while reducing gun violence to at least close to those of other developed countries.



Why are you focusing on "gun violence" rather than "violence?" I can agree that criminal violence is often a result of, or a form of, mental illness. Do you really think that gun violence is a different mental disease all its own? If so, why?

If we were able to reduce violence in general, wouldn't violence with guns also diminish?

If we were able to demonstrate that the criminally violent were statistically more likely to come from a particular grouping of people (gender, race, age, political party, pick whatever you like), would it be acceptable to restrict this group's ownership of guns? That would be no different than imposing restrictions based upon your hypothectical psych evaluation, and in fact it might be more effective because an individual would not be able to spoof the determination.

The only reason to study gun violence apart from violence in general is if you intend to address the issue by controlling the guns rather than the violence.

And frankly, I don't care about "other developed countries." Their demographics, their history, their laws and constitutions, their economies, their geography, etc., etc., are all different. There are simply too many uncontrolled variables to draw anything meaningful regarding the occurence of violence.

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 12:45 PM
Why are you focusing on "gun violence" rather than "violence?" I can agree that criminal violence is often a result, or a form of, mental illness. Do you really think that gun violence is a different mental disease all its own? If so, why?

If we were able to reduce violence in general, wouldn't violence with guns also diminish?

If we were able to demonstrate that the criminally violent were statistically more likely to come from a particular grouping of people (gender, race, age, political party, pick whatever you like), would it be acceptable to restrict this group's ownership of guns? That would be no different than imposing restrictions based upon your hypothectical psych evaluation, and in fact it might be more effective because an individual would not be able to spoof the determination.

The only reason to study gun violence apart from violence in general is if you intend to address the issue by controlling the guns rather than the violence.

And frankly, I don't care "other developed countries." Their demographics, their history, their laws and constitutions, their economies, their geography, etc., etc., are all different. There are simply too many uncontrolled variables to draw anything meaningful regarding the occurence of violence.

Because gun violence is more deadly and results in greater number of deaths, injuries, and broken families than everything else combined?

I don't think we need to follow any particular country's example or "solution", just saying that risk of homicide in USA probably should be closer to that of e.g. Canada than Somalia.

Arkansas Paul
March 20, 2014, 12:47 PM
I don't think we need to follow any particular country's example or "solution", just saying that risk of homicide in USA probably should be closer to that of e.g. Canada than Somalia.

If you took out the places in the U.S. with the strictest gun control laws our numbers would be closer to Canada than Somalia.

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 12:53 PM
If you took out the places in the U.S. with the strictest gun control laws our numbers would be closer to Canada than Somalia.

Again: you falsely assume I'm somehow in favor of gun control when nothing could be further from truth.

You keep talking about how gun control doesn't work, as if that's something I dispute. I don't. Let's stop with distractions and strawmen and focus on the topic at hand: gun violence is real, it's a significant public health issue (surely you don't dispute the numbers of people who get killed/injured by firearms), and we know next to nothing about its causes (and no, slogans and pithy quotes don't equal real, factual knowledge).

Why is everyone so afraid of learning?

Ed N.
March 20, 2014, 12:56 PM
Because gun violence is more deadly and results in greater number of deaths, injuries, and broken families than everything else combined?


Not necessarily true, and it ignores that reducing violence with guns would just increase other forms of violence (that's been Britain's experience, BTW).

Still - would not reducing violence in general reduce violence with guns? Please go back to my above posts and consider the other questions I posed, most importantly whether you think that violence with guns is really a separate mental disease, with a different treatment method, than violence in general. If so, why?

Arkansas Paul
March 20, 2014, 01:01 PM
Again: you falsely assume I'm somehow in favor of gun control when nothing could be further from truth.

You plainly posted that you would be in favor of denying gun rights to individuals who have committed no crimes whatsoever simply because someone thinks they MIGHT commit a crime.

But nah, you're not in favor of gun control. :banghead:

And now, I'm starting to dismiss you.
And agree that you're a troll. I tried to give the benefit of the doubt. David was right.

Spats McGee
March 20, 2014, 01:06 PM
Again: you falsely assume I'm somehow in favor of gun control when nothing could be further from truth.
I disagree. You may not consider yourself to be "in favor of gun control," but based upon your earlier posts, I do. You've already stated:
If we had a reliable psych evaluation (which we currently don't) that would provide a statistically significant indication that a person may use the firearm to harm self or others, I'd be OK with adding them to the list of people who can't posses (or may be required to jump thru additional hoops as a safeguard for society at large).
In other words, you're willing to let the gov't screen people to see who gets to exercise this fundamantal, individual right, and who does not. I'm rather unwilling to play "Mother, may I?" when it comes to Constitutional Rights.

. . . .Let's stop with distractions and strawmen and focus on the topic at hand: gun violence is real, it's a significant public health issue (surely you don't dispute the numbers of people who get killed/injured by firearms), and we know next to nothing about its causes (and no, slogans and pithy quotes don't equal real, factual knowledge).
If all you want to do is go on the numbers, then we have to have a conversation about Autmobile Violence and Swimming Pool Violence, too.

Your claim that "gun violence is real, it's a significant public health issue," doesn't make it so. Even if the statement is true, "public safety" can, at times, be an absolutely horrible reason for enacting policy. This is one of those times.

Why is everyone so afraid of learning?
We're not afraid of learning, but we already know a few things critical to this conversation. For example, we know that gun control doesn't prevent the mentally ill or violent felons from getting guns. We know that increasing the number of gun control measures on the books won't change that. We know that doing so will only cost more innocent lives.

Arkansas Paul
March 20, 2014, 01:12 PM
Why is everyone so afraid of learning?

We're not afraid of learning.
We're afraid of the government trying to "help" us or "keep us safe".

zxcvbob
March 20, 2014, 01:15 PM
We already don't allow possession of firearms for convicted felons, domestic abusers, or drug addicts. Do you disagree with those 2A restrictions?

Just for the record, yes I do. It wasn't a problem at all until 1968, which suggests to me it was a politically-manufactured problem, and now 2 generations later people think it was legit.

Walkalong
March 20, 2014, 01:21 PM
Why are you focusing on "gun violence" rather than "violence?" Exactly. Violence is violence. 99% of folks who say they want to decrease "gun" violence, are simply anti gun. Obviously we should look at ways to decrease violence perpetrated by people. The tool(s) used are irrelevant if what you really care about is reducing the violence. People commit violent acts, not objects.

David E
March 20, 2014, 01:26 PM
Feel free to dismiss me but the reality is that if *we* don't come up with a workable solution, likes of Sen Feinstein will. We have a problem, and ignoring it and dismissing it won't make it go away.
You are operating under the extremely naive assumption that Fineswine and her ilk give two craps about ANY gun rights!

Until you understand that total disarmament is their true goal, ("if I could've gotten the votes, then Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would've done it.") then I do dismiss you.

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 01:30 PM
Not necessarily true, and it ignores that reducing violence with guns would just increase other forms of violence (that's been Britain's experience, BTW).

Still - would not reducing violence in general reduce violence with guns? Please go back to my above posts and consider the other questions I posed, most importantly whether you think that violence with guns is really a separate mental disease, with a different treatment method, than violence in general. If so, why?

I don't think it necessarily is different, nor do I think that individuals prone to violence should be treated differently just because they used guns or bats (in fact, you may argue that latter are possibly even more psychotic, but let's not get distracted).

Also, we need to narrow down what we study in order to be manageable. After all, we don't study sickness in general, we focus on specific, most deadly diseases (cancer or hear disease) as priority because addressing those would yield best results for overall health prospects.

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 01:38 PM
You are operating under the extremely naive assumption that Fineswine and her ilk give two craps about ANY gun rights!

Until you understand that total disarmament is their true goal, ("if I could've gotten the votes, then Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would've done it.") then I do dismiss you.

I don't give a crap about her either, so I guess we're square.

You would make a more meaningful, constructive contribution to this debate if you tried to make an argument on merits and facts rather than trying to come up with most condescending insults and most creative ways to disparage my character. Note that I did not, at any point, attack the person or character of anyone posting here, even when they failed to extend similar courtesy to me.

I came to this thread for a civilized, grown up debate and not to engage in middle school playground antics.

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 01:48 PM
I disagree. You may not consider yourself to be "in favor of gun control," but based upon your earlier posts, I do. You've already stated:

In other words, you're willing to let the gov't screen people to see who gets to exercise this fundamantal, individual right, and who does not. I'm rather unwilling to play "Mother, may I?" when it comes to Constitutional Rights.


If all you want to do is go on the numbers, then we have to have a conversation about Autmobile Violence and Swimming Pool Violence, too.

Your claim that "gun violence is real, it's a significant public health issue," doesn't make it so. Even if the statement is true, "public safety" can, at times, be an absolutely horrible reason for enacting policy. This is one of those times.


We're not afraid of learning, but we already know a few things critical to this conversation. For example, we know that gun control doesn't prevent the mentally ill or violent felons from getting guns. We know that increasing the number of gun control measures on the books won't change that. We know that doing so will only cost more innocent lives.

Well, you got me there: I do believe that violent criminals forfeit some of their civil rights, one of which is possession of firearms. If that makes me a gun grabber, then so be it.

And I'm glad you trotted out the "automobile/swimming pool violence" canard because we do study those things intently and have over the years come up with a number of improvements to make them safer (tho they'll never be perfectly safe, and that's fine). We have crumple zones, roll cages, airbags, collapsible steering columns, etc.

You seem to think I know what the solution would be, but I don't. In fact, nobody does because we don't even know what the actual problem is - all we see is a symptom. Until we study the matter more closely, we're tapping in the dark, and everyone's guess at a solution (and that includes those who think that e.g. adding microstamping on a hammer would somehow make us safer) is just as valid. Without facts, it's just opinions, and we know what those are like...

Sam1911
March 20, 2014, 01:52 PM
But "gun violence" is a complete non-entity. There is not violence perpetuated BY guns or BECAUSE of guns, or in some clear way, especially exacerbated by guns.

We study different kinds of illness because they are CAUSED BY wildly different factors, from viruses to bacteria to deficiencies, congenital defects, and many other factors. Studying illness as though every illness was HIV, or every illness was chicken pox would not tell you anything about how to fight the vast majority of illnesses.

Similarly, your "gun violence" concept is like lumping together illnesses that cause nausea and trying to study ways to eliminate them as one. Well, that's inane because illnesses which cause nausea are myriad and have thousands of different forms and roots. The fact that nausea is involved is largely irrelevant to solving those illnesses.

You want to study gang violence? Fine. Makes sense. You want to study drug prohibition-related violence? Yeah, that has legs. Domestic violence? That's a real, discernible, concrete thing with specific roots and causes. Power-display/dominance or thrill violence? Yup. Robbery and other crime-related violence? Psychotic predatory violence? Uh huh! Sure, study that.

But "gun violence?" That ISN'T a thing. That's like the nausea I mentioned before. Just an avenue, irrelevant -- UTTERLY -- to the causes and solutions of the problem you say you want to study.

If you lump all these things into a heading of "gun violence," all that says is that you've focused on the thing you have a fixation about, a problem with, or a fear of, and mis-identified one possible avenue of the phenomenon as the problem itself.

That doesn't wash.

A guy who shoots his wife, or a guy who poisons his wife, or a guys who beats his wife to death -- all aspects of the same phenomenon.
A guy who knifes someone for their wallet, or shoots them for their car, or beats them for their shoes -- all the same basic criminal pattern.
A guy who gasses a crowd in a theater, or shoots 20 people in a theater? Same basic expression of his sickness and criminality.
A guy who blasts away at a group of a rival gang with his TEC-9, vs. cornering one member and beating him to death? All gang violence.

But by floating the leaky canoe of "gun violence" you're saying that the guy who shot his wife over an affair is part of the same phenomenon as the guy who shot a driver in a carjacking, or pulled off a mass-murder/suicide at a public place. No honest analysis of violence could conflate those phenomena.

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 02:00 PM
But "gun violence" is a complete non-entity. There is not violence perpetuated BY guns or BECAUSE of guns, or in some clear way, especially exacerbated by guns.

We study different kinds of illness because they are CAUSED BY wildly different factors, from viruses to bacteria to deficiencies, congenital defects, and many other factors. Studying illness as though every illness was HIV, or every illness was chicken pox would not tell you anything about how to fight the vast majority of illnesses.

Similarly, your "gun violence" concept is like lumping together illnesses that cause nausea and trying to study ways to eliminate them as one. Well, that's inane because illnesses which cause nausea are myriad and have thousands of different forms and roots. The fact that nausea is involved is largely irrelevant to solving those illnesses.

You want to study gang violence? Fine. Makes sense. You want to study drug prohibition-related violence? Yeah, that has legs. Domestic violence? That's a real, discernible, concrete thing with specific roots and causes. Power-display/dominance or thrill violence? Yup. Robbery and other crime-related violence? Psychotic predatory violence? Uh huh! Sure, study that.

But "gun violence?" That ISN'T a thing. That's like the nausea I mentioned before. Just an avenue, irrelevant -- UTTERLY -- to the causes and solutions of the problem you say you want to study.

If you lump all these things into a heading of "gun violence," all that says is that you've focused on the thing you have a fixation about, a problem with, or a fear of, and mis-identified one possible avenue of the phenomenon as the problem itself.

That doesn't wash.

We first started studying heart disease because we noticed that a lot of people died from heart failure. We've since learned of the myriad of different heart diseases and study them in detail, resulting in huge strides in treatments. Same goes for cancer: we now know of more strains and types of cancer even on a single organ, but you gotta start somewhere.

Similarly, we have a huge number of Americans dying from guns, and we have no idea why because we're somehow not allowed to study that in depth. I'm sure we can refine that target somewhere down the line but right now all we could do is guess, which is not sound science.

Sam1911
March 20, 2014, 02:02 PM
Similarly, we have a huge number of Americans dying from guns, and we have no idea why because we're somehow not allowed to study that in depth.

Hogwash. Just a silly thing to say.

To repeat:

A guy who shoots his wife, or a guy who poisons his wife, or a guys who beats his wife to death -- all aspects of the same phenomenon.
A guy who knifes someone for their wallet, or shoots them for their car, or beats them for their shoes -- all the same basic criminal pattern.
A guy who gasses a crowd in a theater, or shoots 20 people in a theater? Same basic expression of his sickness and criminality.
A guy who blasts away at a group of a rival gang with his TEC-9, vs. cornering one member and beating him to death? All gang violence.

But by floating the leaky canoe of "gun violence" you're saying that the guy who shot his wife over an affair is part of the same phenomenon as the guy who shot a driver in a carjacking, or pulled off a mass-murder/suicide at a public place. No honest analysis of violence could conflate those phenomena.

These things are all studied and understood quite well, though we've not found some kind of social shackles to apply that would stop folks in our big, heterogeneous nation from committing these acts. And probably never will.

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 02:14 PM
Hogwash. Just a silly thing to say.

To repeat:

A guy who shoots his wife, or a guy who poisons his wife, or a guys who beats his wife to death -- all aspects of the same phenomenon.
A guy who knifes someone for their wallet, or shoots them for their car, or beats them for their shoes -- all the same basic criminal pattern.
A guy who gasses a crowd in a theater, or shoots 20 people in a theater? Same basic expression of his sickness and criminality.
A guy who blasts away at a group of a rival gang with his TEC-9, vs. cornering one member and beating him to death? All gang violence.

But by floating the leaky canoe of "gun violence" you're saying that the guy who shot his wife over an affair is part of the same phenomenon as the guy who shot a driver in a carjacking, or pulled off a mass-murder/suicide at a public place. No honest analysis of violence could conflate those phenomena.

These things are all studied and understood quite well, though we've not found some kind of social shackles to apply that would stop folks in our big, heterogeneous nation from committing these acts. And probably never will.

Repeat it all you want but that won't make it true. How can you be so positive that there isn't a psychological/mental health connection between those? Hogwash, indeed...

Spats McGee
March 20, 2014, 02:15 PM
Well, you got me there: I do believe that violent criminals forfeit some of their civil rights, one of which is possession of firearms. If that makes me a gun grabber, then so be it.
I neither know, nor particularly care, what made you a gun grabber. I decline, however, to join in the fiction that you're pro-gun. Your suggestion that a psych test to screen folks for the possibility that they might, one day, commit a violent act with a gun identifies you as anti-gun-rights.

And I'm glad you trotted out the "automobile/swimming pool violence" canard because we do study those things intently and have over the years come up with a number of improvements to make them safer (tho they'll never be perfectly safe, and that's fine). We have crumple zones, roll cages, airbags, collapsible steering columns, etc.
We do, indeed, study them, and have all kinds of developments related to the products which make them safer. I'll concede that. As another example, we have studied fire prevention and safety in a fair amount of detail. As a result, public buildings typically have sprinkler systems, alarms, fire exits, and a host of other things that have done a pretty good job of preventing deaths by fire in public buildings. The difference between cars/swimming pools/public buildings is that we've taken the approach of "How do we make these things safer when emergencies happen?" The approach that you've advocated is, "Let's not let anyone have any keys/floaties/matches, until we can be sure they'll use them responsibly."

You seem to think I know what the solution would be, but I don't. In fact, nobody does because we don't even know what the actual problem is - all we see is a symptom. Until we study the matter more closely, we're tapping in the dark, and everyone's guess at a solution (and that includes those who think that e.g. adding microstamping on a hammer would somehow make us safer) is just as valid. Without facts, it's just opinions, and we know what those are like...
No, I don't think you know the solution. You're telling us that someone needs to study a problem that doesn't exist. The phrase "gun violence" is a catchy political slogan that doesn't mean anything. As Sam1911 put it:
But by floating the leaky canoe of "gun violence" you're saying that the guy who shot his wife over an affair is part of the same phenomenon as the guy who shot a driver in a carjacking, or pulled off a mass-murder/suicide at a public place. No honest analysis of violence could conflate those phenomena.

Sam1911
March 20, 2014, 02:18 PM
Look, I don't take as dim a view of your goals as others here are taking. I think I understand where you're coming from -- you're socially aware, concerned for your fellow man, and have come to face the question of what we're told is a very violent and dangerous society. You don't want to hide from uncovering the truth, whatever it may be, but to face hard questions boldly, come what may, and you trust that we'll come through better for the experience. I really do get that, and applaud it.

But, you've heard something that is not true. You've been fed a line of low-key propaganda and have accepted it -- that there is a "gun violence" factor in society that is somehow a thing unto itself. A thing which can be studied as a cohesive element, standing apart from messy and politically uncomfortable aspects of causality.

As you're brave, also be wise. Be discerning. Don't slip into the sloppiness of accepting someone else's disingenuous labeling like "gun violence." I'm sure if I tried to tell you that there is a big problem with "black violence" and we should study how to limit the violence that blacks bring to our society you would be appalled that I'd swallow such a cheap and obviously prejudiced, biased, and unenlightened distortion of reality.

That's what you've done here, and you should be very careful not to be led that way in the future.

Sam1911
March 20, 2014, 02:32 PM
How can you be so positive that there isn't a psychological/mental health connection between those? Hogwash, indeed...

I'm not sure if you're actually serious, but I'll assume so. The ONLY connection between all those phenomena is that someone is conducting violence against another. If you want to claim that all violence has some mental health facet, I might ... maybe ... be willing to hear you out, though my own observations and reading on the subject indicates something quite contrary.

But to claim that the instances where a gun is involved are somehow unique to each other (e.g.: the fit-of-passion wife killer and the carjacker let's say) then you've transferred some power or element of compulsion to the object itself in its ability to cause or influence action in a sentient being. That is not a scientifically valid way to approach research. It's a form of superstition and should be beneath all of us.

DT Guy
March 20, 2014, 02:34 PM
You want meaningful dialogue (I suspect you don't, but I'll play along):

Address the concept of the government writing 'health' based laws for any other constitutional freedoms.

Address the concept that 'gun violence' (an non-sequitur) is fundamentally different from other violence from a diagnostic viewpoint, and define how.

Address how accurate you consider a 'prediction' of future behavior to have to be to remove someone's fundamental rights from them, and justify the failure to adhere to the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard for same.

I suspect you're just another closet-grabber like Pizzapinocchle, but will play along.

Larry

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 02:43 PM
I'm not sure if you're actually serious, but I'll assume so. The ONLY connection between all those phenomena is that someone is conducting violence against another. If you want to claim that all violence has some mental health facet, I might ... maybe ... be willing to hear you out, though my own observations and reading on the subject indicates something quite contrary.

But to claim that the instances where a gun is involved are somehow unique to each other (e.g.: the fit-of-passion wife killer and the carjacker let's say) then you've transferred some power or element of compulsion to the object itself in its ability to cause or influence action in a sentient being. That is not a scientifically valid way to approach research. It's a form of superstition and should be beneath all of us.

I claim no such foreknowledge. All I'm saying is that we have enough gun-related violent crime to be able to study it and derive statistically meaningful data.

And if you're so sure that no link exists, then why not have the data confirm it for us so that we can forever put that to rest?

Sam1911
March 20, 2014, 02:48 PM
And if you're so sure that no link exists, then why not have the data confirm it for us so that we can forever put that to rest?WHAT data? How would such a claim even be framed? You do understand that you cannot prove a negative, right?

Further, read this: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124

When you combine bad science, with the almost limitless inability of the sorts of studies this would have to entail to prove or illustrate anything in a conclusive and valid way, and with a long-demonstrated aspect of bad faith, preconception, and bias in large swathes of the academic community in regards to this subject, there is no positive outcome we could look for.

Arkansas Paul
March 20, 2014, 02:56 PM
You want meaningful dialogue (I suspect you don't, but I'll play along):

Address the concept of the government writing 'health' based laws for any other constitutional freedoms.

Yeah, maybe we should take away the right to free speech because one might slander.
And no one NEEDS freedom of the press. They might commit libel.

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 03:01 PM
WHAT data? How would such a claim even be framed? You do understand that you cannot prove a negative, right?

Further, read this: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124

When you combine bad science, with the almost limitless inability of the sorts of studies this would have to entail to prove or illustrate anything in a conclusive and valid way, and with a long-demonstrated aspect of bad faith, preconception, and bias in large swathes of the academic community in regards to this subject, there is no positive outcome we could look for.

If you want to argue that studies may be biased, that's a valid argument to make, and there are things we can do to alleviate that. We can also make sure that the conclusions are tempered with considerations for human & civil rights etc.

What I can't comprehend is the denial that gun violence is an actual problem. That's sophistry at best and detachment from reality at worst.

Sam1911
March 20, 2014, 03:07 PM
GUN violence isn't a problem. VIOLENCE is a problem. Guns are just tools. They don't inform the violence itself. Violence existed long before guns -- and was by most accounts, far more widespread, brutal, and unchecked than it is today. We live in the safest times our species has known. And yet we still have some members of society that prey on others or harm others, or take from others, or seek to satiate internal lusts via others (see? Lots of causes...) and they use whatever the most effective tool is at the time.

In 1530, was there a "sword violence" problem? That's not a flippant question. Do you transfer animus to firearms ONLY, or do you grant the same powers to other weapons or objects?

(And, you didn't read the link, did you?)

Arkansas Paul
March 20, 2014, 03:11 PM
You're fighting a losing battle Sam.
Antis don't convert. Stop trying.

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 03:19 PM
You want meaningful dialogue (I suspect you don't, but I'll play along):

Address the concept of the government writing 'health' based laws for any other constitutional freedoms.

Address the concept that 'gun violence' (an non-sequitur) is fundamentally different from other violence from a diagnostic viewpoint, and define how.

Address how accurate you consider a 'prediction' of future behavior to have to be to remove someone's fundamental rights from them, and justify the failure to adhere to the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard for same.

I suspect you're just another closet-grabber like Pizzapinocchle, but will play along.

Larry

1) Public health and safety considerations curb your 1A right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

2) I'm not sure it is, but its scale (11,000+ homicides involving a firearm per year, roughly 20x the OECD average even after accounting for population size) warrants a deeper look and the data set is large enough so as to give us ability to derive statistically meaningful conclusions.

3) I don't claim to have an answer but I'd trust that trained psych experts and ethics commissions (and yes, our legislative bodies, colorful as they are) to come up with a workable solution that would stand up to our court system scrutiny.

Sam1911
March 20, 2014, 03:24 PM
1) Public health and safety considerations curb your 1A right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.No, they don't. You may yell "fire" in a theater. There may be legal penalties if you do so improperly, without cause/justification, and cause someone to get hurt. But there is not a curb on your RIGHT. Just responsibilities and repurcussions if your ACTION harms someone.

Just like with guns. You may own a firearm. You may shoot your firearm. If you do it improperly, and/or in the wrong place without justification, there may be legal repercussions. But your right is intact. (Or should be.)

3) I don't claim to have an answer but I'd trust that trained psych experts and ethics commissions (and yes, our legislative bodies, colorful as they are) to come up with a workable solution that would stand up to our court system scrutiny.Let's stick with "shall not be infringed," shall we? Freedom isn't "safe."

bainter1212
March 20, 2014, 03:25 PM
VIOLENCE is a big problem in our society. There are many ways to study causes of violence, but for some reason the gun is the only area of study which is categorized by the tool used.
Domestic violence? (Circumstance).
Gang violence?
(Circumstance)

Hmmmm....any other areas of violence which are defined by the tool used? Nope.
Even though fists are by far the biggest tools used in violence (if you include all circumstances outside of just deaths) somehow nobody is studying "fist violence".
That's because we have been fed the line that gun violence is actually a THING. Just the phrase "gun violence" leads one to automatically place all of the onus on the tool used.

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 03:25 PM
You're fighting a losing battle Sam.
Antis don't convert. Stop trying.

You, on the other hand, are a paragon of good listening and reasoned argument (and I'll ignore your "anti" slur because, frankly, I don't feel the need to prove myself to you or anyone else).

I participate in this debate in good faith, and I trust Sam is, too. I couldn't say as much for you or a number of other folk that decided to chime in. That Sam and I happen to disagree is not inherently bad, I prefer not to exist in the echo chamber you seem to find more preferable.

Arkansas Paul
March 20, 2014, 03:27 PM
Sure bainter. Haven't you hear about the outbreak of baseball bat violence?
Geez man, where have you been?

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 03:27 PM
VIOLENCE is a big problem in our society. There are many ways to study causes of violence, but for some reason the gun is the only area of study which is categorized by the tool used.
Domestic violence? (Circumstance).
Gang violence?
(Circumstance)

Hmmmm....any other areas of violence which are defined by the tool used? Nope.
Even though fists are by far the biggest tools used in violence (if you include all circumstances outside of just deaths) somehow nobody is studying "fist violence".
That's because we have been fed the line that gun violence is actually a THING. Just the phrase "gun violence" leads one to automatically place all of the onus on the tool used.

Gun violence results in over 11,000+ dead Americans each year. How many deaths are caused by fist violence?

Arkansas Paul
March 20, 2014, 03:28 PM
I don't feel the need to prove myself to you or anyone else

Yet you have exactly 20 posts and every single one of them is about proving why we should deny people the right to bear arms.
On a gun forum no less.

I think I'll go over to the cigar forum and tell everyone we should pass anti smoking laws. :rolleyes:

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 03:34 PM
No, they don't. You may yell "fire" in a theater. There may be legal penalties if you do so improperly, without cause/justification, and cause someone to get hurt. But there is not a curb on your RIGHT. Just responsibilities and repurcussions if your ACTION harms someone.

Just like with guns. You may own a firearm. You may shoot your firearm. If you do it improperly, and/or in the wrong place without justification, there may be legal repercussions. But your right is intact. (Or should be.)

Let's stick with "shall not be infringed," shall we? Freedom isn't "safe."

...and you can buy a gun in a private sale while not being allowed possession but there are legal repercussions, so what exactly is your point? Your right is intact, just comes with legal repercussions, correct?

Arkansas Paul
March 20, 2014, 03:38 PM
and you can buy a gun in a private sale while not being allowed possession but there are legal repercussions, so what exactly is your point? Your right is intact, just comes with legal repercussions, correct?

So are you for UBC?

bainter1212
March 20, 2014, 03:46 PM
Gun violence results in over 11,000+ dead Americans each year. How many deaths are caused by fist violence?

If you went back to the middle ages and announced that there needed to be a study on "sword violence" do you think anyone would have taken you seriously? A LOT of folks back then were killed by swords, but somehow nobody ever focused on that violence as a "sword violence" issue. That's because the very thought is asinine. Violence is violence, the tool used is largely irrelevant.

fallout mike
March 20, 2014, 03:54 PM
I was attacked by a guy with a knife once. And apparently I had it all wrong. I didn't realize until nowv that it was a psychological health issue and "knife violence" . If he would have been evaluated by the govt before being allowed to buy that knife he may have been denied. That would have prevented my face from getting cut and his wrecked arm. Just think, my govt could have prevented all that by a evaluation! Great insight you have there.

Arkansas Paul
March 20, 2014, 03:58 PM
^ Absolutely.
They would have known that he may one day cut someone and told him no.

Sam1911
March 20, 2014, 04:09 PM
...and you can buy a gun in a private sale while not being allowed possession but there are legal repercussions, so what exactly is your point? Your right is intact, just comes with legal repercussions, correct?No, that would be a violation of the law.

I was speaking of rights, exercised without breaking the law. You may yell fire in the theater, especially if there IS a fire in the theater and you need people to get out.

However, passing laws that prohibit people from being allowed to even have a weapon or a certain kind of weapon does indeed violate their rights, separate from any function of having broken the law or harmed someone.

Ed N.
March 20, 2014, 04:12 PM
1) Public health and safety considerations curb your 1A right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.


This old canard is becoming rather tiresome, but I'll address it anyway.

It's only a problem to yell "FIRE!" in a theatre if there's no fire. If there is, yelling may help sound the alarm and get people out and summon help.

Similarly, shooting someone without a need for self-defense is already illegal, but using a gun to stop a violent crime may save lives.

Restricting the right to possess a firearm would be akin to gagging all theatre goers to deprive them of the ability to yell "FIRE!" based on the presumtion that they might do so improperly.

IOW, the old "shouting FIRE" argument is silly.

BTW, I hope you're aware that violence, including so-called "gun violence" has been decreasing in the US even as gun ownership has been increasing. One could therefore make the argument that the "cure" to the "health problem of gun violence" is to ensure that more people have guns.

Alcoholism is another serious health problem. Do we study it by concerning ourselves with the easy availability of liquor? Do we suggest psych evaluations and background checks before we allow someone to purchase a bottle of Jack Daniels? Do we seek legislation to limit the number of beers in a case?

Sam1911
March 20, 2014, 04:13 PM
Do we study it by concerning ourselves with the easy availability of liquor? Do we suggest psych evaluations and background checks before we allow someone to purchase a bottle of Jack Daniels? Do we seek legislation to limit the number of beers in a case?
Prohibition tends to work out ever so well...

DT Guy
March 20, 2014, 05:23 PM
3) I don't claim to have an answer but I'd trust that trained psych experts and ethics commissions (and yes, our legislative bodies, colorful as they are) to come up with a workable solution that would stand up to our court system scrutiny.

Unless I flat out wasted six years of college studying psychology, I can completely, absolutely state that it is not possible to do so.

And you trust our legislature to achieve this miracle of pure science....how? They have an agenda, just like you do.

As I suspected, just an anti looking to troll; if I wanted to have these sorts of conversations, I'd go to Democratic Underground, or talk to my beagle.

Larry

ugaarguy
March 20, 2014, 05:44 PM
Climbskirun, you wanted data. All the data you want is available from the FBI in the form of their Uniform Crime Reports (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr).

However, I'll give you an article which was published by the very left leaning Slate magazine (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html) last year after the post Sandy Hook, Obama mandated, CDC report on so-called "gun violence" was released. Slate's talking points are:

1. The United States has an indisputable gun violence problem. According to the report, “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”
However, this ignores that some other developed countries have higher overall homicide rates. It also ignores that the overall violent crime rates are higher in many other countries, including the UK.

2. Most indices of crime and gun violence are getting better, not worse. “Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years,” the report notes. “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.” Meanwhile, “firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009.” Accidents are down, too: “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
The FBI UCR trends show that all violent crime, including murders, and including all violent crimes, have been steadily and significantly decreasing for at least the past decade. How do you explain this drastic decrease in violent crime, and drastic decrease in violent crimes committed with guns despite the fact that gun laws have become far more lenient in most states over the past decade? How do you explain that cities like Chicago have the highest murder rates in the US, and the highest rates of crimes committed with firearms despite having the most restrictive state and local gun laws in the US?

#3. Pretty much irrelevant.

#4. We'll skip this one for a moment because it ties in with #7.

5. Mass shootings aren’t the problem. “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths,” says the report. “Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” Compare that with the 335,000 gun deaths between 2000 and 2010 alone.
That's pretty straight forward. Mass murders make the news because they're exceedingly uncommon. They're much like plane crashes making the news because plane crashes are exceedingly uncommon, and they likewise make up a very tiny percentage of transportation related deaths in the US each year.

6. Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide. From 2000 to 2010, “firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States,” says the report. Firearm sales are often a warning: Two studies found that “a small but significant fraction of gun suicides are committed within days to weeks after the purchase of a handgun, and both also indicate that gun purchasers have an elevated risk of suicide for many years after the purchase of the gun.”
That's a fun little figure to throw out, but it's meaningless without comparison to the overall suicide rates in other countries. For example, Japan has the lowest rate of homicides committed by firearm of any developed country, and they have one of the lowest rates of suicides committed by firearm of any developed country. However, Japan has one of the highest rates of suicides by all means of any developed country. They have a far higher overall suicide rate than does the US.

Back to #4:
4. Handguns are the problem. Despite being outnumbered by long guns, “Handguns are used in more than 87 percent of violent crimes,” the report notes. In 2011, “handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents.” Why do criminals prefer handguns? One reason, according to surveys of felons, is that they’re “easily concealable.”
Actually, handguns are the solution:
7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” (emphasis mine)
So, even Slate concedes that firearms are the most effective way of defending one self from a violent crime. Handguns are the firearms most likely to be used in self defense, because they're easy to carry. So, we should actually be making it easier for law abiding citizens to legally carry handguns.

8. Carrying guns for self-defense is an arms race. The prevalence of firearm violence near “drug markets … could be a consequence of drug dealers carrying guns for self-defense against thieves or other adversaries who are likely to be armed,” says the report. In these communities, “individuals not involved in the drug markets have similar incentives for possessing guns.” According to a Pew Foundation report, “the vast majority of gun owners say that having a gun makes them feel safer. And far more today than in 1999 cite protection—rather than hunting or other activities—as the major reason for why they own guns.”
"Arms race" is some nice inflammatory language. The guns in drug dealing areas aren't the problem. It's the drug dealing criminals, who also happen to be illegally carrying firearms, that are the problem. See the distinction?

9. Denying guns to people under restraining orders saves lives. “Two-thirds of homicides of ex- and current spouses were committed [with] firearms,” the report observes. “In locations where individuals under restraining orders to stay away from current or ex-partners are prohibited from access to firearms, female partner homicide is reduced by 7 percent.”
That's a nice conclusion to draw if you have an anti-gun agenda. However, what this statistic really shows is that barring those under retraining orders from having guns does little to help. What it really shows us that if you take away one tool a truly violent and determined person with simply use the next most effective tool to commit the violent assault or murder.

10. It isn’t true that most gun acquisitions by criminals can be blamed on a few bad dealers. The report concedes that in 1998, “1,020 of 83,272 federally licensed retailers (1.2 percent) accounted for 57.4 percent of all guns traced by the ATF.” However, “Gun sales are also relatively concentrated; approximately 15 percent of retailers request 80 percent of background checks on gun buyers conducted by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.” Researchers have found that “the share of crime gun traces attributed to these few dealers only slightly exceeded their share of handgun sales, which are almost equally concentrated among a few dealers.” Volume, not laxity, drives the number of ill-fated sales.
This is actually surprisingly neutral. Of course the dealers that sell the most guns will have the most by volume that eventually end up in the hands of criminals, but that the percentage is equal to the already low national average of such instances.

David E
March 20, 2014, 06:09 PM
I don't give a crap about (Feinstein) either....

Except that you do.

You said:

but the reality is that if *we* don't come up with a workable solution, likes of Sen Feinstein will.

So clearly you think that WE must find a middle ground that Fineswine and her ilk can live with, else they will find one that we cannot.

That's naive, wishful thinking on your part and needs to be pointed out. They do not care one big about our gunrights. What makes you think they do?

That you take such umbrage at me and others pointing out real historical gun control facts and counter them with more unworkable gun control rubbish verifies you're an antigun troll.

I dismiss thee.

RetiredUSNChief
March 20, 2014, 06:19 PM
All I can find is that he wants to look at gun violence as a public health issue, which is something I'm not entirely opposed to. I hope we can all agree that gun violence is bad, and taking a scientific approach to studying it can only produce good result as we're bound to better understand why it happens. Hopefully we can move away from stupid, irrational measures like magazine capacity restrictions or "assault" weapons ban, and towards measures that would actually be effective while not infringing on our constitutional rights.

Frankly, NRA has been counterproductive in this respect as they've lobbied heavily against funding more studies into true causes of gun violence. I'm not sure what exactly they're trying to achieve here.

I'm also unclear as to what a Surgeon General can possibly do to restrict RsKBA.

I haven't had time to go through everything here, but I'll chime in a little on this one. Ignore me if this has already been addressed.

The issue with funding studies into this, where it concerns policies that can be used to influence or create new gun laws, is that the government is funding these studies. The government has no business funding studies into things which can be used to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.

As to "gun violence"...gun violence is nothing more than violence plus guns. If there are any studies which need to be done, they should be done on causes of VIOLENCE, period. This is how we "move away from stupid, irrational measures" with respect to gun dontrol laws...we focus the government on the actual PROBLEMS and not the TOOLS that any given problem child in society may use.

GEM
March 20, 2014, 06:43 PM
The recent meta-analyses of violence prediction show that no current general measure exists that can predict violence. The only predictor is a history of past violence. Any mass screening measure would produce a tremendous wave of false positive. Clinical interviews have been shown to be useless except in an extremely small set of highly disturbed individuals.

Any funding of research would go through a paradigmatic bias that would only fund negatively oriented research. A positive finding would have a very hard time being published in the current peer reviewed journals.

If some measure of gun control was not found to work - the conclusion would be that the measure would not be strict enough.

I personally heard Koper and Roth report how the AWB did NOTHING on any known crime indices. Our conclusion - it was stupid. Their conclusion and that of the DOJ discussant was the ban wasn't strict enough.

We do know the ban was a joke. It did not confiscate existing weapons and allowed weapons of equal efficacy still to be made (so I don't have a bayonet lug). Thus, it was suggested (and proposed) that total bans of semi rifles and confiscation of existing types should be done.

That's what you would get from federally funded research (probably under any GOP or Democratic administration). The scientific community is clearly antifirerams at the high end decision makers.

Jeff White
March 20, 2014, 07:02 PM
We can't solve the problem of violence until we stop trying to use the problem to further someone's political agenda.

There is no such thing as gun violence, knife violence, blunt object violence or any other kind of violence you can think of. There is only violence. Guns. knives, axes, clubs....they are all inanimate objects and cannot hurt anyone.

There are many causes of violence, but the tools used are never the cause. The cause is always a person who decides to harm another person.

People who are prone to violence and societies that condone the use of violence (and yes there are many sub-societies here in the US that accept violence as a way to solve problems) will be violent if they don't have access to a gun, knife, club axe or anything else but their bare hands.

Our tradition of private ownership of firearms has no relationship to the level of violence in this country and removal of them from society (which is not physically possible) would not bring our violence level down to that of the European or Japanese society.

No one wants to talk about the measures that would be necessary to lower the level of violence among certain subsets of the American population because it would mean making some admissions about our society that would not be politically correct and would go against the doctrine of certain political beliefs that aren't on topic here at THR.

I spent 25 years of my life dealing with criminals from being a patrol officer to running the jail. There are cultural and economic factors that cause our rate of violent crime to be high. Those cultural things are not racial. There are just as many violent crimes in neighborhoods populated mostly by whites as there are in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. The common denominator is lack of a stable family structure, little or no economic opportunity and drugs (especially alcohol). You don't see so much violent crime in places where most of the residents have a strong family structure, economic opportunity (not a government program) and no need to be a drunk or an addict to deal with the lack of the other things. When violence does occur in those neighborhoods it's usually alcohol or drug related.

Until we are ready to deal with those problems we won't solve the violence problem.

RetiredUSNChief
March 20, 2014, 08:38 PM
OK, I've finally had the time to catch up on things in this string. And, quite honestly, I'm not impressed at all. Not nearly so much as I was hoping to be, given the information that the original post could have elicited for me to research.

Despite claims, what I'm seeing here in nearly every instance of posting by the OP is classic anti-gun rhetoric. Whether the OP truely believes what he says about being "pro-gun" or not, I'll leave to the OP. But for the rest of us, as with all other factors in life, what we have to go by is what a person actually says and does.

I'm going to bow out of this, but before I do, I'd like to address this particular fallicy:


1) Public health and safety considerations curb your 1A right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.


The First Amendment does not come into play with this at all. The First Amendment, and all the other amendments as well as the body of the Constitution, is all about placing limitations on what the GOVERNMENT can do with respect to the citizens, for each particular topic.


With respect to the First Amendment, let's start with what it says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with limiting what any citizen may say, much less yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, as the OP directly infers. It has EVERYTHING to do limiting what the GOVERNMENT may do with respect to suppression of speech and press.

It's a limit on the GOVERNMENT, not the CITIZENS. It's there to protect the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT, not the other way around; nor is it there to protect the citizens from other citizens.


This is a classic example of the meaningless tripe that is most often used by those who promote gun control. It is manipulative, it is deceiving (i.e. "lying"), and it is a fallacious ad hominem.


On that note, I bid the all a good day. Or night.

:cool:

Walkalong
March 20, 2014, 08:59 PM
but the reality is that if *we* don't come up with a workable solution, likes of Sen Feinstein will.That isn't a fact, and is a ruse antis use to try to scare gun owners into settling for more infringements on their rights, or as the antis like to do, chip chip away at the stone.
Gun violence results in over 11,000+ dead Americans each year. Violence results in many more deaths than that. All of the violence is committed by people, mostly criminals. Do you care not for those deaths where people were pushed off of roofs, but only those where the criminal chose to use a gun?

There simply is no such thing as gun violence. That phrase is a favored weapon the hard core antis use to try to get anti gun support. They hate guns and they hate free men with guns even worse.

You can either understand these things and learn to fight back for your gun rights, or continue to assist, even if only unwittingly, the antis.

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 09:16 PM
Not sure why I expected a rational discussion on this subject. Lots of folks seem to be in denial of what's going on outside the NRA echo chamber, and when a dissenting voice is introduced it's quickly shouted down with sloganeering, pithy quotes, strawmen, condescension, name calling, etc. Won't make that mistake again, I promise you that much.

Oh, and for those who laughably claim I'm anti-gun: http://imgur.com/D700Kj0.jpg

zxcvbob
March 20, 2014, 09:25 PM
I have no idea what the point of your last pic is supposed to be.

ugaarguy
March 20, 2014, 09:27 PM
Not sure why I expected a rational discussion on this subject. Lots of folks seem to be in denial of what's going on outside the NRA echo chamber, and when a dissenting voice is introduced it's quickly shouted down with sloganeering, pithy quotes, strawmen, condescension, name calling, etc. Won't make that mistake again, I promise you that much.
No one has called you names, and we don't tolerate that here. How have we been irrational? I've personally provided you with links to the data you requested.

Fred Fuller
March 20, 2014, 09:35 PM
At a gathering memorializing victims of "gun violence" in New Hampshire last summer, sponsored by the organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a list of names of people "killed by guns" was read aloud to the assembled crowd.

One of those names was Tamerlan Tsarnaev.*

If you don't recognize the name, he was one of the two brothers suspected of the Boston Marathon bombing, and was killed (at least in part) by police gunfire.

Among those thousands and thousands of Americans who died from "gun violence," how many others were killed in the line of duty by law enforcement officers? How many were killed in legal self defense by law abiding gun owners? How many were suicides?

*http://news.msn.com/us/gun-control-group-sorry-for-listing-boston-bomber-as-victim

Spats McGee
March 20, 2014, 09:36 PM
climbskirun, the fact that someone disagrees with your post doesn't necessarily mean that they're irrational, either.

climbskirun
March 20, 2014, 09:44 PM
No one has called you names, and we don't tolerate that here. How have we been irrational? I've personally provided you with links to the data you requested.

Calling me "anti" in this context is probably the worst slur, given what that represents to folks here. Save for a few exceptions (Sam comes to mind, perhaps you), all I got is vitriol.

Arkansas Paul
March 20, 2014, 09:47 PM
The fact that you own two firearms doesn't prove crap as to whether you're anti gun.
Feinstein has a concealed carry permit.
Michael Moore's bodyguard was arrested with an illegal gun in an airport.

You having guns actually makes it worse. You think you have the right to them, but others must prove their acceptable mental state before they should be allowed to do so.

I think I'm going to bow out now and stop feeding the troll.

Spats McGee
March 20, 2014, 10:03 PM
climbskirun, over the past year and a half or so, we've had quite a few anti-gun trolls come through here. Every one of them has tried to "educate" us on the "errors" of our ways. Every one has tried to explain to us how a little more "commonsense regulation" would benefit us all. Every one made posts that sounded an awful lot like yours. They've used the same language ("gun violence"), made the same proposals ("let's screen everyone before they can buy a gun"), and gotten bent of shape when we didn't jump on the bandwagon. It really shouldn't be that surprising that folks around here believe that you support gun control.

Carl N. Brown
March 20, 2014, 10:05 PM
Frankly, NRA has been counterproductive in this respect as they've lobbied heavily against funding more studies into true causes of gun violence. I'm not sure what exactly they're trying to achieve here.

In the 1990s there was a lot of talk about treating Gun Violence as a disease, treating the gun as the germ to be eliminated (remove the cause, cure the disease--Christoffel), even to the point of CDC advocates discussing the need to do research to prove that pre-assumed conclusion in order to lobby Congress for more gun control. That is not how research is supposed to be done.

There is also a federal law prohibiting the use of federal research funds (from the executive branch) to lobby Congress on specific legislation. The NRA called attention to that in the 1990s, and that is what has ended using research funds for junk science to prove an apriori assumption.

Honestly, tens of millions of citizens own guns and do not perpetrate gun violence. Gun violence therefore is more like an immune system failure, not at all like a virulent pathogen causing disease in a healthy individual.

But the claim that the NRA has blocked research into gun violence is BS. The NRA has blocked using federal research funds to lobby Congress. That has not prevented a large body of pure research into violence.

CDC, Funding Opportunity Announcements, Additional Requirements
http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/grants/additional_req.shtm#ar13
AR-13: Prohibition on Use of CDC Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities

The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act specifies 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."

Anti-Lobbying Act requirements prohibit lobbying Congress with appropriated Federal monies. Specifically, this Act prohibits the use of Federal funds for direct or indirect communications intended or designed to influence a member of Congress with regard to specific Federal legislation. This prohibition includes the funding and assistance of public grassroots campaigns intended or designed to influence members of Congress with regard to specific legislation or appropriation by Congress.

In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the language in the CDC's Appropriations Act to mean that CDC's funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.

AR-12: Lobbying Restrictions (June 2012)

Applicants should be aware that award recipients are prohibited from using CDC/HHS funds to engage in any lobbying activity. Specifically, no part of the federal award shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant recipient, subrecipient, or agent acting for such recipient or subrecipient, related to any activity designed to influence the enactment of legislation, appropriations, regulation, administrative action, or Executive order proposed or pending before the Congress or any state government, state legislature or local legislature or legislative body.

Restrictions on lobbying activities described above also specifically apply to lobbying related to any proposed, pending, or future Federal, state, or local tax increase, or any proposed, pending, or future requirement or restriction on any legal consumer product, including its sale or marketing, including but not limited to the advocacy or promotion of gun control.

This prohibition includes grass roots lobbying efforts by award recipients that are directed at inducing members of the public to contact their elected representatives to urge support of, or opposition to, proposed or pending legislation, appropriations, regulations, administrative actions, or Executive Orders (hereinafter referred to collectively as “legislation and other orders”). Further prohibited grass roots lobbying communications by award recipients using federal funds could also encompass any effort to influence legislation through an attempt to affect the opinions of the general public or any segment of the population if the communications refer to specific legislation and/or other orders, directly express a view on such legislation or other orders, and encourage the audience to take action with respect to the matter.

In accordance with applicable law, direct lobbying communications by award recipients are also prohibited. Direct lobbying includes any attempt to influence legislative or other similar deliberations at all levels of government through communications that directly express a view on proposed or pending legislation and other orders and which are directed to members, staff, or other employees of a legislative body or to government officials or employees who participate in the formulation of legislation or other orders.

Lobbying prohibitions also extend to include CDC/HHS grants and cooperative agreements that, in whole or in part, involve conferences. Federal funds cannot be used directly or indirectly to encourage participants in such conferences to impermissibly lobby.

However, these prohibitions are not intended to prohibit all interaction with the legislative or executive branches of governments, or to prohibit educational efforts pertaining to public health that are within the scope of the CDC award. For state, local, and other governmental grantees, certain activities falling within the normal and recognized executive-legislative relationships or participation by an agency or officer of a state, local, or tribal government in policymaking and administrative processes within the executive branch of that government are permissible. There are circumstances for such grantees, in the course of such a normal and recognized executive-legislative relationship, when it is permissible to provide information to the legislative branch in order to foster implementation of prevention strategies to promote public health. However, such communications cannot directly urge the decision makers to act with respect to specific legislation or expressly solicit members of the public to contact the decision makers to urge such action.

Many non-profit grantees, in order to retain their tax-exempt status, have long operated under settled definitions of “lobbying” and “influencing legislation.” These definitions are a useful benchmark for all non-government grantees, regardless of tax status. Under these definitions, grantees are permitted to (1) prepare and disseminate certain nonpartisan analysis, study, or research reports; (2) engage in examinations and discussions of broad social, economic, and similar problems in reports and at conferences; and (3) provide technical advice or assistance upon a written request by a legislative body or committee.

Award recipients should also note that using CDC/HHS funds to develop and/or disseminate materials that exhibit all three of the following characteristics are prohibited: (1) refer to specific legislation or other order; (2) reflect a point of view on that legislation or other order; and (3) contain an overt call to action.

It remains permissible for CDC/HHS grantees to use CDC funds to engage in activities to enhance prevention; collect and analyze data; publish and disseminate results of research and surveillance data; implement prevention strategies; conduct community outreach services; foster coalition building and consensus on public health initiatives; provide leadership and training, and foster safe and healthful environments.

Note also that under the provisions of 31 U.S.C. Section 1352, recipients (and their sub-tier contractors and/or funded parties) are prohibited from using appropriated Federal funds to lobby in connection with the award, extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of the funding mechanism under which monetary assistance was received. In accordance with applicable regulations and law, certain covered entities must give assurances that they will not engage in prohibited activities.

CDC cautions recipients of CDC funds to be careful not to give the appearance that CDC funds are being used to carry out activities in a manner that is prohibited under Federal law. Recipients of CDC funds should give close attention to isolating and separating the appropriate use of CDC funds from non-CDC funds.

Use of federal funds inconsistent with these lobbying restrictions could result in disallowance of the cost of the activity or action found not to be in compliance as well as potentially other enforcement actions as outlined in applicable grants regulations.

Ed N.
March 20, 2014, 10:11 PM
...it's quickly shouted down with sloganeering, pithy quotes, strawmen, condescension, name calling, etc.


If you're an honest man, you'll admit that I did none of those things.

What I did do was to politely disagree with you, point out a flaw or two in your position, and ask you a few questions, all of which you've ignored.

Other posters have been similarly polite and have provided strong evidence against your arguments. Rather than discuss the matter, now you're crying "You guys are too mean! You're not being nice to me! MOMMY!"

Bah!

You're either unaware of, or unwilling to acknowledge, the mountain of research that's already been done regarding firearms over many years. The only possible reason anyone could insist we must do even more research is because he doesn't like the results and conclusions of the prior research.

This matter has been settled, academically by many studies from Lott to Kleck and others (even the FBI), and judicially by the US Supreme Court. I see absolutely zero need to waste taxpayer dollars on studying "gun violence."

Carl N. Brown
March 20, 2014, 10:14 PM
1) Public health and safety considerations curb your 1A right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

In that famous statement often misquoted, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. compared criticizing the draft in WWI to falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic, to justify government censorship of free speech during wartime. The analogy has nothing to do with "Public health and safety considerations" but everything to do with authoritarian government finding excuses to gut the Bill of Rights when it is convenient to the powers that be.

I think it ranks with his infamous statement in support of the Virginia Sterilization Act (three generations of imbeciles is enough) to justify sterilizing a woman, her mother and her daughter, in the case of Carrie Buck falsely committed to a mental institution as a promiscuous idiot in the coverup of a rape by the relative of her foster parents.

Carl N. Brown
March 20, 2014, 10:40 PM
No one needs a weapon used by soldiers...

The National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice to train citizens eligible for military service provided surplus military weapons as used by soldiers. NBPRP was set up about the time (1903) that the state militias were federalized as the National Guard creating a difference between National Guard, state militias, state guards, and the "unorganized militia" the rest of us capable of serving in some way in time of national emergency.

That still is carried on in the Civilian Marksmanship Program CMP. The local gun club affiliated with the CMP also holds Modern and Vintage Military Matches to encourage interest in miltary arms and history among participants and competitors of all ages. The CMP programs offer more range time and more varied gun handling than I got in Basic Training in 1966. And a weapon used by soldiers is required.

Carl N. Brown
March 20, 2014, 11:43 PM
There is some older research out there by a criminologist who hated guns,
Prof. Marvin E. Wolfgang:
I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among
the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of
Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian
population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly,
nasty instruments designed to kill people.

BUT he pointed out that violence is more a matter of motive and opportunity than specific means.

Marvin E. Wolfgang, Patterns in Criminal Homicide, U. of Pa. Press, 1958.
A study of 588 murders that occurred from 1948 to 1952 including
background and relationship of murderer and victim, and circumstances
of the murder:

Several students of homicide have tried to show that the high
number of, or easy access to, firearms in this country is
causally related to our relatively high homicide rate. Such a
conclusion cannot be drawn from the Philadelphia data. Material
subsequently reported in the present study regarding the place
were the homicide occurred, relationship between victim and
offender, motives and other factors suggest that many situations,
events and personalities that converge in particular ways and
that result in homicide do not depend primarily on the presence
or absence of firearms....

More than the availability of a shooting weapon is involved in
homicide. Pistols and revolvers are not difficult to purchase,
legally or illegally, in Philadelphia. Police interrogation of
defendants reveals that most frequently, these weapons are bought
from friends or acquaintances for such nominal sums as ten or
twenty dollars. A penknife or a butcher knife, of course, is much
cheaper and more easily obtained. Ready access to knives and
little reluctance to engage in physical combat without weapons,
or to fight it out, are as important as the availability of some
sort of gun. The type of weapon used appears to be, in part, the
culmination of assault intentions or events and is only
superficially related to causality.

To measure quanitatively the effect of the presence of firearms
on the homicide rate would require knowing the number and type
of homicides that would not have occurred had not the offender --
or in some cases, the victim -- possessed a gun. Research would
be required to determine the number of shootings which would have
been stabbings, beatings or some other method of inflicting death
had no gun been available. It is the contention of this observer
that few homicides due to shooting could be avoided merely if a
firearm were not immediately present, and that the offender would
select some other weapon to achieve the same destructive goal.
Probably only in those cases where a felon kills a police officer,
or vice versa, would the homicide be avoided in the absence of
a firearm.

Pizzapinochle
March 21, 2014, 12:33 AM
At a gathering memorializing victims of "gun violence" in New Hampshire last summer, sponsored by the organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a list of names of people "killed by guns" was read aloud to the assembled crowd.

One of those names was Tamerlan Tsarnaev.*

If you don't recognize the name, he was one of the two brothers suspected of the Boston Marathon bombing, and was killed (at least in part) by police gunfire.

Among those thousands and thousands of Americans who died from "gun violence," how many others were killed in the line of duty by law enforcement officers? How many were killed in legal self defense by law abiding gun owners? How many were suicides?

*http://news.msn.com/us/gun-control-group-sorry-for-listing-boston-bomber-as-victim

somewhere between 300-400 firearm deaths a year are ruled justifiable homicides. Out of 30,000+ deaths.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-14

What was your point?

Pizzapinochle
March 21, 2014, 12:39 AM
Climbskirun, you wanted data. All the data you want is available from the FBI in the form of their Uniform Crime Reports (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr).

However, I'll give you an article which was published by the very left leaning Slate magazine (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html) last year after the post Sandy Hook, Obama mandated, CDC report on so-called "gun violence" was released. Slate's talking points are:


However, this ignores that some other developed countries have higher overall homicide rates. It also ignores that the overall violent crime rates are higher in many other countries, including the UK.



First, which developed countries have higher homicide rates than the US?

Second, you do know that the CDC did not produce ANY of the data in that article you quoted?

They were just reporting previous studies to define the current state of research to set research priorities for future research.

Pizzapinochle
March 21, 2014, 12:52 AM
For better or worse, we lump and study things together as groups. In studies of death, mechanism of injury is one major way things get lumped together.

Car deaths
Falling Deaths
Gun deaths
Etc.

So call it studies into "gun deaths" instead of "gun violence," they will be studying the same thing. The truth is that the #1 mechanism of non-accidental deaths in the US is guns by a HUGE margin. Just as much as we should study other major causes of deaths (heart disease, auto accidents, etc.) we should study gun deaths and determine if there are steps that can be taken to reduce those deaths.

Pizzapinochle
March 21, 2014, 12:58 AM
How do you explain that cities like Chicago have the highest murder rates in the US?

Uh... Chicago does not have the highest murder rate in the country, not even close. Might want to check your facts.

fallout mike
March 21, 2014, 01:36 AM
Pizzapinochle, really? 2013 Chicago had 412 murders. Thats 80 MORE than the city with the second most murders. Or , 19% more murders than any other US city last year!

fallout mike
March 21, 2014, 01:42 AM
And meanwhile since this thread started 214 people have died due to our countries "alcohol violence", or drunk drivers if you will. Maybe people need a govt evaluation in order to buy alcohol so they can determine if you MIGHT drive drunk.

Bartholomew Roberts
March 21, 2014, 06:09 AM
Calling me "anti" in this context is probably the worst slur, given what that represents to folks here. Save for a few exceptions (Sam comes to mind, perhaps you), all I got is vitriol.

What would you suggest we call someone who advocates for gun control that you would find less offensive?

Owning a firearm does not make you pro-gun - though if it weren't for the NRA you would never have had the chance to own those firearms. That is something you might want to consider next time you are questioning whether it is reasonable for them to oppose having the "Centers for Disease Control" study gun crime. The fact is, jokes about "black rifle disease aside, guns are not a disease. The reason there is a ban on CDC funding isn't because the NRA hates science - it is because the NRA rightly objects to tax money being used to produce anti-gun propaganda. Which is exactly how those CDC grants were used - just look at the Kellerman study or similar CDC funded research for examples.

Bartholomew Roberts
March 21, 2014, 06:17 AM
Just as much as we should study other major causes of deaths (heart disease, auto accidents, etc.) we should study gun deaths and determine if there are steps that can be taken to reduce those deaths.

You have incorrectly stated the issue of discussion. We do study gun deaths and we do look at violence through criminology and studies funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. What is being argued here is whether the Surgeon General/Centers for Disease Control should study guns as a disease.

Look at that bolded conclusion. There is so much bias in just the basic premise behind this research and yet some of you appear to think that you will get good, reliable data out of it instead of just seeing your tax dollars used to fund "Guns are bad" propagandists. Which is a trusting conclusion you could almost be forgiven for making if there wasn't a documented 20+ year history of CDC doing just that before Congress removed their funding for studying guns as a "disease vector".

MEHavey
March 21, 2014, 06:26 AM
The "medical" aspect of this trend (other than mental health and outward/inward-directed
violence in general) is admittedly a strategic thrust on the part of the anti-2A crowd.

It is purely and simply a means to (1) appeal to emotion through the once trusted/apolitical
doctor-patient relationship; and (2) open the door to regulations & restrictions issued by
additional agencies on an entirely new basis.

If anyone here has any experience w/ the EPA -- I point out the difficulty in fighting such
highly interpretive "regulations" before they become past the point of no return to do incredible
damage.

DT Guy
March 21, 2014, 06:59 AM
Pizzapinochle said:
Just as much as we should study other major causes of deaths (heart disease, auto accidents, etc.) we should study gun deaths and determine if there are steps that can be taken to reduce those deaths.

And this, more than anything, reveals the logical fallacy you suffer from.

'Guns' were not the CAUSE of any of those deaths; they were the INSTRUMENT of them. Separating the instrument from the human actor is something you anti's are notoriously bad at, and nothing displays it better than this post.

You speak of 'irrationality' as if gun owners suffer from it; I think this post, more than anything, shows where the real irrationality lies.

Larry

Pizzapinochle
March 21, 2014, 07:04 AM
Pizzapinochle, really? 2013 Chicago had 412 murders. Thats 80 MORE than the city with the second most murders. Or , 19% more murders than any other US city last year!
Do you really not know the difference between RATE and TOTAL?

Pizzapinochle
March 21, 2014, 07:13 AM
You have incorrectly stated the issue of discussion. We do study gun deaths and we do look at violence through criminology and studies funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. What is being argued here is whether the Surgeon General/Centers for Disease Control should study guns as a disease.

Look at that bolded conclusion. There is so much bias in just the basic premise behind this research and yet some of you appear to think that you will get good, reliable data out of it instead of just seeing your tax dollars used to fund "Guns are bad" propagandists. Which is a trusting conclusion you could almost be forgiven for making if there wasn't a documented 20+ year history of CDC doing just that before Congress removed their funding for studying guns as a "disease vector".

Not sure where you formed the premise that the CDC only studies "disease," but it is not even slightly factual.

The CDC studies and publishes reports on pretty much every type of injury/death, not just disease.

Here is a study on WATER SAFETY:

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html

Another report on injuries from nail guns:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5614a2.htm

Is drowning a disease? Or perhaps nail gunnitis, a disease which causes ppl to shoot themselves with nail guns?

No, it is a way people die/injure themselves or others, so the CDC studies it. Just like they study every major cause of death and injury. The CDC studies pretty much all of them... except guns, because the NRA worked to block funding for studies of gun deaths and injuries.

Pizzapinochle
March 21, 2014, 07:33 AM
Pizzapinochle said:


And this, more than anything, reveals the logical fallacy you suffer from.

'Guns' were not the CAUSE of any of those deaths; they were the INSTRUMENT of them. Separating the instrument from the human actor is something you anti's are notoriously bad at, and nothing displays it better than this post.

You speak of 'irrationality' as if gun owners suffer from it; I think this post, more than anything, shows where the real irrationality lies.

Larry

1. I just posted and have never said a word about irrationality. Not sure why you brought it up.

2. Fine, instrument of death.

Just as we should study other major instruments of death (death from cars, death from water, death from unhealthy eating, death from hitting the ground, etc. etc. etc.) we should study guns as one of the leading instruments of death in the US.

You can word it however you want. A lot of people die in the US when a gun goes off and they are in front of its barrel. The CDC studies basically every way that people die, why give special treatment to guns?

fallout mike
March 21, 2014, 07:57 AM
You can slice it any way you want but at the end of the day Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and the number of murders blew away any other city.

Bartholomew Roberts
March 21, 2014, 07:58 AM
Not sure where you formed the premise that the CDC only studies "disease," but it is not even slightly factual.

You are probably unsure where that premise formed because I never said anything along the lines of the "CDC only studies disease." Instead I said that the CDC proposes to treat gun violence as a disease - which is based on the statements of their parent agency, Public Health Service ("our goal... to reduce the number of firearms in private ownership" - see next link for source), and the statements of past CDC Directors like Mark Rosenberg (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-centers-for-disease-control-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/).

The CDC studies and publishes reports on pretty much every type of injury/death, not just disease.

Yes, in fact they have better reporting on gun injury and death than the FBI UCRs and have reported that information for the past 17 years.

No, it is a way people die/injure themselves or others, so the CDC studies it. Just like they study every major cause of death and injury. The CDC studies pretty much all of them... except guns, because the NRA worked to block funding for studies of gun deaths and injuries.

The ban passed on Congress says that the CDC cannot "advocate for gun control" using its funds. It doesn't say that CDC cannot do any research on gun deaths - which I would think you would realize considering that in this very thread you quoted a 2011 CDC study on gun injury. There was also a comprehensive 2003 report (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm) on the subject - what CDC can no longer do is give money to "researchers" like Arthur Kellerman to produce anti-gun propaganda (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html) or like this past CDC grantee, Dr. Katherine Christoffel who said "guns are a virus that must be eradicated."

Both you and climbskirun are grossly mischaracterizing the debate by describing the NRA as preventing all research into gun violence - yet the ban is specific only to the CDC, it does not cover other agencies who are more suited to studying criminology. Additionally, the ban doesn't even prevent the CDC from studying gun deaths* - it simply says they can't use taxpayer money to pay people to advocate for gun control (http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/9485/how-your-tax-dollars-demonize-your-guns/). I really don't see why either of you would have a problem with that.

*The exact language of the 1996 Dickey Amendment restricting CDC funding is: "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" (Which is completely in keeping with other non-gun lobbying-related restrictions on CDC grant funding see 31 USC 1352 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/1352) for an example of similar legislation)

fallout mike
March 21, 2014, 08:04 AM
Bc that wasn't the talking points on CNN.

Sam1911
March 21, 2014, 08:14 AM
Pizza, it still doesn't wash.

Nail gun injuries are universally (statistically, ignoring the exceptionally rare deliberate act) simple accidents.

Drownings are almost universally (again, ignoring the extremely limited instances of murder by drowning) accidental.

Not that many drunk driving deaths are deliberate homicides. And so forth.

It makes some sense to study these relatively cohesive, simple and related avenues of injury as "blank" deaths because they are similar to each other in all the ways that are important.

Not so, at all, with guns. Killings involving guns include accidents, sure, but the majority are deliberate acts which have wildly different causes and circumstances.

As I said before:

A guy who shoots his wife, or a guy who poisons his wife, or a guys who beats his wife to death -- all aspects of the same phenomenon.
A guy who knifes someone for their wallet, or shoots them for their car, or beats them for their shoes -- all the same basic criminal pattern.
A guy who gasses a crowd in a theater, or shoots 20 people in a theater? Same basic expression of his sickness and criminality.
A guy who blasts away at a group of a rival gang with his TEC-9, vs. cornering one member and beating him to death? All gang violence.

But by floating the leaky canoe of "gun violence" you're saying that the guy who shot his wife over an affair is part of the same phenomenon as the guy who shot a driver in a carjacking, or pulled off a mass-murder/suicide at a public place. No honest analysis of violence could conflate those phenomena.

To claim that the instances where a gun is involved are somehow unique to each other (e.g.: the fit-of-passion wife killer and the carjacker let's say) requires you to transfer some power or element of compulsion to the object itself in its ability to cause or influence action in a sentient being. That is not a scientifically valid way to approach research. It's a form of superstition and should be beneath all of us.

Pizzapinochle
March 21, 2014, 08:30 AM
You can slice it any way you want but at the end of the day Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and the number of murders blew away any other city.
Oh wow... Seriously?

Yes, chicago had more murders. Chicago has more EVERYTHING because it is bigger than every other city except LA and NY.

Rate matters. If you have 1 million people and 500 murders, you are doing much better than a place with 10000 people and 100 murders.

YOU can "slice it" however you want, Chicago's murder rate is not even top 10 in the country and NY, who pro-gun folks love to complain about, is WAY down the list, behind a whole pile of cities with very loose gun laws.

I am curious, does everyone on here really think that "rate per capita" is a "liberal ploy" to twist the facts? Or do you recognize that it is a standard tool in social science/human geography/demographics used to compare groups with different sized populations?

fallout mike
March 21, 2014, 08:52 AM
You also asked in post #101 which developed countries had higher homicide rates than US. Ours is right at 5 per 100,000. Russia is right at 10 per 100,000.

Sam1911
March 21, 2014, 08:53 AM
I think Bartholomew Roberts explained the basic misunderstanding about the NRA's (and OUR) opposition to specific efforts at using public money through a government agency to produce anti-gun propaganda very well in post 114, so we -- hopefully -- can set this vacuous worry aside.

Having said that, if the CDC was simply neutral and daft, perhaps it wouldn't be anything more than another colossal governmental waste of funds for them to conflate all "gun violence" into a minestrone stew of random and unrelated factors and then peer into the disjointed mess as though some enlightenment would come from it.

Unfortunately, it is nothing so feebly benign.

When an organization sets out the premise of their research under the misconception that "gun violence" is a cohesive phenomenon, homogeneous in some way, then they have set themselves up (most here would logically assume, deliberately) to be able to reach only conclusions that relate to the only factor these killings ever had in common: guns.

In analogy: If you've got a guy who ran his car into a tree and died, and a guy who felled a tree on himself clearing land and was killed, and a guy who choked on a piece of bark and strangled, and a guy who sat in a tree until he died of exposure, and a guy who swallowed something he picked off a manchineel, and a guy who got a locust thorn stuck into his arm and died of blood poisoning -- and you set out to say you're going to study TREE DEATHS and understand what we can do about this phenomenon...

The only answers you can produce, which don't make you look like a total fool, are those that somehow focus on the tree danger and what to do about trees.

Do the same daft thing with "gun violence" and the only answers you can present which at all validate your absurd research are those which seek to remove GUNS, because "guns" is the only (tenuous) thread tying all these disparate things together.

This is bad "science" on the face of it, and politically motivated social engineering if we're being honest with each other.

So, yeah, we're going to oppose that. Go figure.

fallout mike
March 21, 2014, 08:54 AM
And there are roughly 300 million more firearms in the US!

Pizzapinochle
March 21, 2014, 09:01 AM
You also asked in post #101 which developed countries had higher homicide rates than US. Ours is right at 5 per 100,000. Russia is right at 10 per 100,000.
And by most measures, Russia is a 2nd world country, ranked a tier below the US and other developed countries. One of the big reasons is because their public safety is terrible, between lack of enforcement and corruption.

fallout mike
March 21, 2014, 09:23 AM
Russia IS a developed country. Of course they are a tier below the US, along with everybody else. Im done with this foolishness now. This is like arguing with my 8 year old.

Bartholomew Roberts
March 21, 2014, 09:48 AM
somewhere between 300-400 firearm deaths a year are ruled justifiable homicides. Out of 30,000+ deaths.

This is incorrect as well, PP. The UCRs rely on individual reporting of the various law enforcement agencies. Not all agencies report and not all agencies report on time (which is one reason why the CDC data on homicides is more complete and accurate than the UCR number). So technically, only 300-400 homicides a year are classified as justifiable homicides in a timely enough fashion that they can be reported to the UCR and are reported. In theory, there could be any number of agencies that choose not to report info for justifiable outcome or cases that don't reach an outcome prior to that year's UCR.

Pizzapinochle
March 21, 2014, 10:07 AM
Russia IS a developed country. Of course they are a tier below the US, along with everybody else. Im done with this foolishness now. This is like arguing with my 8 year old.
Boy.... High road for sure.

Here is a list based on the Human Development index.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

Of the top 40 countries, the US (at #3 overall) probably has the highest murder rate. Haven't checked against all the smaller countries, but all the major ones i know for sure.

If your big moral victory is "at least we aren't as bad as Russia!" And THAT is your standard for the US, then so be it.

Personally, I would like for the US to be in the same neighborhood as UK, Germany, France, Switzerland, Japan, Spain, Norway, Australia, New Zealand and pretty much every other wealthy, stable nation in the world. But, if looking up from the bottom of the heap with Russia is good enough for you, then that is your call.

Pizzapinochle
March 21, 2014, 10:08 AM
This is incorrect as well, PP. The UCRs rely on individual reporting of the various law enforcement agencies. Not all agencies report and not all agencies report on time (which is one reason why the CDC data on homicides is more complete and accurate than the UCR number). So technically, only 300-400 homicides a year are classified as justifiable homicides in a timely enough fashion that they can be reported to the UCR and are reported. In theory, there could be any number of agencies that choose not to report info for justifiable outcome or cases that don't reach an outcome prior to that year's UCR.
Ok, do you have another source that takes those into account? If so, great, if not, the UCR is the best data availale.

Pizzapinochle
March 21, 2014, 10:10 AM
Sam1911, you gave a well thought out reply with lots to think about and respond to. Unfortunately, i am heading out and don't have time for an equal reply. Hopefully tonight.

fallout mike
March 21, 2014, 10:20 AM
One last thing. According to your "30,000" deaths, 60% are suicides and 3% accidents. That leaves about 11,000 homicides. According to your favorite research center, the CDC, they found that roughly 8,900 deaths each year of their study was gang related. They found that there were just over 2,000 non gang related homicides per year in their study. So are you saying that without guns that 18,000 of those people would not have killed themselves?

Pizzapinochle
March 21, 2014, 11:35 AM
I've never said anything of the sort, that is a totally different topic.

I did point out that several statements made by others re: murder rates were wrong and i stand by those assertions. These facts are not baitng or trolling, just trying to keep the info accurate.

Carl N. Brown
March 21, 2014, 12:00 PM
Pizzapinochle:

somewhere between 300-400 firearm deaths a year are ruled justifiable homicides. Out of 30,000+ deaths.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-14

Justifiable homicides compared to 30,000 deaths (I presume firearms deaths: suicide, homicide and accident).

I think it would be appropriate to compare justifiable homicide numbers to homicide numbers.

The problem is first off we do not have usable justifiable homicide stats. The FBI Justifiable Homicide stat depends on police reports entering a 09C or 090C UCR classification on the incident report. In any given year 15 to 20 states do not use that UCR code. As the FBI UCR Report states, the justifiable homicide table is based on police reports by end of year. It does not represent eventual adjudication of homicide as justifiable, negligent or criminal by coroner, medical examiner, prosecutor, grandjury, trial judge, trial jury or appellate court judges. In my home county police shootings are not adjudicated until the state bureau of investigation presents a shooting review report to the grand jury. In other words, that FBI table is a gross under count. Unlike the British Home Office, the FBI UCR Reports do not track homicides through the judicial system year after year and remove justifiable homicides from the murder statistics.

And there are nowhere near 30,000+ homicides by shooting in the US.


Murder in the United States - 2011
100% 12,664 Total
68% 8,583 Firearm related

Of firearms related homicides -2011
72% 6,220 Handguns
4% 323 Rifles
4% 356 Shotguns
20% 1,700 Unspecified


I suspect strict gun control would inhibit lawful self-defense more than it would restrict criminal access to deadly weapons. Knoxville police have told the newspaper that 80% of crime weapons are acquired from illegal sources and see no benefit from additional gun controls.

Carl N. Brown
March 21, 2014, 12:41 PM
As far as trusting my political rights to Doctors and "Science", I suggest a little review of the history of the 1924 Racial Integrity and Sterilization Acts of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Eugenics was advocated by doctors and regarded as progressive and scientific, and opposition as a bunch of flat-earther rubes. People were sterilized and jailed based on junk science. Parts of the Acts were declared unConstitutional in 1969 but they were not repealed until 1975.

In notices by the Virginia Board of Vital Statistics dated Jan and Dec 1943 my maternal great grandparent's family (and all descendants which would include me) were characterised as "Tennessee "Melungeons"" and "negroid" and "mulatto" and "mongels" with orders to change birth and marriage records from "white" and "indian" to "colored" with huge impact on civil rights of those reclassified. You want my opinion of letting your rights depend on the "scientific" opinion of medical "experts" given more power than can be exercised by judges or courts?

Carl N. Brown
March 21, 2014, 01:33 PM
If you have 1 million people and 500 murders, you are doing much better than a place with 10000 people and 100 murders.


Homicide rate of USA is running about 4.5 per 100,000 per year national average.

If you have 1 million people and 500 murders, thats 50 per 100,000 per year.

What US jurisdiction has 10000 people and 100 murders (rate 1000 per 100,000 per year)? That figure stinks. Where did you pull it from?

I'll dig this out of my archives: El Paso, Texas, has the reputation of the safest US city over 1/2 million population; in 2010 there were 5 murders in a population of over 600,000 people or 0.8 per 100,000 people per year (lower than the 2010 murder rate in England 1.4 per 100,000 per year). El Paso is 80% Hispanic or Latino, 75% Mexican-American. Across Rio Bravo del Norte, the Rio Grande, in Cuidad Juarez, the murder rate in 2010 was 229 per 100,000 per year, where all legal gun sales must be approved by the Mexican Army. Whatever is going on, it is not American gun laws or ethnicity to blame.

Updt: El Paso (pop 675,536) had 14 murders in 2012 and 6 murders in 2013 still below the US national average and below Chicago! A city rating service has projected that El Paso may have 7 by the end of 2014.

Compared to the US national average murder rate, what are the murder rates of NYC, Chicago and LA?

Sam1911
March 21, 2014, 02:04 PM
NOTICE: Murthy's Nomination is Dead -- http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=747447

So you may take a moment to dance a little jig before returning to your regularly scheduled debates.

Bartholomew Roberts
March 21, 2014, 03:02 PM
Personally, I would like for the US to be in the same neighborhood as UK, Germany, France, Switzerland, Japan, Spain, Norway, Australia, New Zealand and pretty much every other wealthy, stable nation in the world.

So you want the U.S. to be less ethnically diverse with a homogenous, dominant ethnic supermajority? I thought that kind of thinking was frowned upon these days? ;)

Although when you look at it that way, you get right to the root of the problem since dropping just a single ethnicity from the U.S. crime statistics gets you a violent crime rate that would be the envy of the developed world. Anyway, you can read more about problems with international comparisons here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

Jeff White
March 21, 2014, 03:17 PM
So you want the U.S. to be less ethnically diverse with a homogenous, dominant ethnic supermajority?

The fact (and yes it is a fact) that there are differences between ethnic groups in how they view things and how they act is not something that the gun controllers are ready to admit. It doesn't fit their world view. In their eyes it is the availability of inanimate objects that causes the violence. In their world view, all people are exactly the same and that socioeconomic and ethnic differences in values have nothing to do with violent crime. And to suggest that it does makes one a racist rather then a realist.

The gun control advocates are like bad parents who are convinced they are right in their world view and the problem of violence will be solved if they just don't let the children (those of us mature adults, who understand the real world) play with guns. Take away the bad "thing" and the bad conduct will stop. That's what they espouse. It doesn't work raising children and it won't stop violence.

Sam1911
March 21, 2014, 03:19 PM
That's really ironic. One guy, earlier in the thread posted something that sounds oddly familiar:

I'm sure if I tried to tell you that there is a big problem with "black violence" and we should study how to limit the violence that blacks bring to our society you would be appalled that I'd swallow such a cheap and obviously prejudiced, biased, and unenlightened distortion of reality.

But we don't accept that sort of blinkered and unenlightened thinking when it comes to solving social problems. Not with ethnicity, not with tools.

Jeff White
March 21, 2014, 03:43 PM
In American society the propensity to solve a problem with violence is pretty much confined to people living in certain socioeconomic conditions.

!. A society where the basic family structure has been broken down.

2. No economic future except for a government program.

3. A society where despair and depression is dealt with by the use of alcohol and drugs.

You can find these conditions in our inner cities, in black, white and Hispanic ghettos. You will also find them in the rural areas where the jobs are gone and the same government programs that destroyed the families in the inner cities are the main source of income.

There are also ethnic differences, especially among immigrants from countries where violence is a regular part of life in the third world.

Policies that allowed the creation of stable nuclear families and encouraged them to thrive by giving them economic opportunity would do more to stop the violence then the confiscation of every firearm in private hands in this country.

Unfortunately we are on our 4th generation of people living under these conditions in some places in this country. There is an entire mindset that has been the only way of life those people have known for a few generations that will have to be changed.

I'm going to step a little off topic and say that it was The Great Society legislation that brought us here. Not the availability of guns. Before we started tinkering with how people lived their lives in order to "help" them, we didn't have violence like we do now. In those days you could buy a semi-auto through the mail from an ad in the back of a magazine.

Why, with guns so readily available, without background checks or waiting periods didn't we have the violence that we have now?

If guns and access to them was the problem al of the restrictions we have on them now should have solved it, not made it worse.

The gun controllers need to be intellectually honest enough to step away from their failure and be man enough to look at how other policies they support are the real cause of violence in American society.

But I'm sure that even my grandchildren won't live to see that happen.

Bartholomew Roberts
March 21, 2014, 03:50 PM
I was just trying to link to a 2010 University of Maryland study (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100308132050.htm) looking at the race gap in homicide rates (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html) from 1960-2010 and not suprisingly, it reached the exact same conclusions that Jeff White laid out.

The researchers found that racial integration and race in general played almost no part in reducing the homicide rate and that the major issues driving it were: divorce, unemployment and drug abuse.

Sol
March 21, 2014, 04:05 PM
To get back on topic: yes, having another anti in the card castle is not a good thing.

To enter the melee: So, you want an answer or a solution to "gun" violence? Well in my unlimited genius I have discovered the answer. Ban and confiscate all guns from everyone.

The problem with the study of "gun" violence is that these studies try to use a macroscopic view to analyze microscopic problems. We don't know why Bill killed his wife and kids then himself, we don't know why Tom robbed the bank and killed the tellers. There is no blanket reasoning why people do these things (BUT THERE IS.)

Psuedo intellects and quasi academics have come up with some plausible reasons: mental health, "nature vs. Nurture", poverty, abusive childhoods, culture, tv, violence desensitzation etc. etc. Are they correct? Sure in some cases.

But what EVERYONE seems to leave out of "gun" violence is the HUMAN.

Since the dawn if time humans have been butchering each other and that is an undisputable fact. Even pre-human remains have been found with tool marks in their bones and inturments of death still in the body. Humans are and always will be killers. We are hardwired to kill. The NEED to kill has almost been eradicated from HUMAN society. Territorial borders are in place, food supplies and natural resources have been secured by their respective nations (there are exceptions to those societies that still live tribal.)

In society there is still an element that kills. Be it for drugs, money, insanity, jealousy, poverty, love or necessity. There is nothing that can be done about this, "Minority Report" doesn't exist, though there are psychological patterns behind certain behaviors i.e. a child that tortures animals, there is a good chance the child will be some sort of societal deviant or a female victim is found with excessive post-mortem wounds, one can deduce it was her husband or lover (crime of passion.)

Common sense dictates: if you want to end "gun" violence you have to end gun ownership.

If you want to end violence, you end humanity. Violence and killing is an integral part of our reptile brain, and that my friends you just cannot take away...

RetiredUSNChief
March 21, 2014, 05:43 PM
No one needs a weapon used by soldiers...

Sorry...couldn't pass up this one.

If no one needs a weapon used by soldiers, then that Glock you posted in post #87 should be turned in.

Glocks are used in the military of many different countries:

Azerbaijani Special Military Services
Bangladesh Army
Columbia's "Gaula EJC" Army anti-extortion and anti-kidnapping group
Denmark's Slædepatruljen Sirius special forces
Czech Republic
Finland
France
Georgia
Greenland
Iceland
India
Iraq
Israel
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxemburg
Mayalasia
Mexico
Monaco
Montenegro
Netherlands
Norway
Pakastan
Philippines
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Venezuela
Yemen

If you want to add police forces to this, then the list gets longer.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock#Users

Pizzapinochle
March 21, 2014, 06:34 PM
Homicide rate of USA is running about 4.5 per 100,000 per year national average.

If you have 1 million people and 500 murders, thats 50 per 100,000 per year.

What US jurisdiction has 10000 people and 100 murders (rate 1000 per 100,000 per year)? That figure stinks. Where did you pull it from?



Nowhere has that number that i know of, i was trying to demonstrate to "fallout mike" why rate , not just total number, was important when talking about murders.

Pizzapinochle
March 21, 2014, 06:40 PM
So you want the U.S. to be less ethnically diverse with a homogenous, dominant ethnic supermajority? I thought that kind of thinking was frowned upon these days? ;)

Although when you look at it that way, you get right to the root of the problem since dropping just a single ethnicity from the U.S. crime statistics gets you a violent crime rate that would be the envy of the developed world. Anyway, you can read more about problems with international comparisons here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

Did you drop all the poor immigrant populations from everyone elses rates to? Because guess what... Every country has poor minorities. They all account for more than their expected percentage of crime.

You know what else you can do? Drop ALL the firearm homicides from all the countries rates. Then the US does just as well as all the other countries. Our non-firearm homicide rate is on par with everyone elses, our massive firearm homicides push us into a totally different class all on our own.

Bartholomew Roberts
March 21, 2014, 06:53 PM
Did you drop all the poor immigrant populations from everyone elses rates to? Because guess what... Every country has poor minorities. They all account for more than their expected percentage of crime.

None of those countries are anything like the United States demographically or close in terms of cultural diversity. Japan is 98.5% ethnic Japanese. Non-asian ethnicities are less than 1%. You can be second-generation born in Japan and still not qualify for citizenship. The United Kingdom is 87% ethnic majority. France is 85% ethnic majority. German citizens with no immigrant background at all are 80% of that population. Norway - 86.2%.

Now, let's look at the U.S.A...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States

It isn't called "The Melting Pot" without reason. Putting aside the previous waves of immigrants who brought a mix of different cultures, and ethnicities the Census reports 308 million people in the U.S. in 2010. Of those, 40 million are first generation immigrants - that is 12.5% of the population.

The United States is not like any other country. I think that's a good thing frankly. I like the diversity and strength that brings; but it does mean that there is always a certain churn of cultures meshing.

Personally, I tend to agree with Jeff White that "the Great Society" is to blame for much of the problem. It has steadily destroyed stable family units that are the building block for everything else.

Pizzapinochle
March 22, 2014, 10:06 AM
Alright, got a minute.

Not going to keep chasing the tangents, back to the question of CDC funding for research into guns.

1. Even if all the CDC did was study "violence" and study ways to prevent/reduce non-accidental deaths, they would STILL be studying guns, because the only instrument used in a large percentage of violent deaths is guns. There is no way around it, if you study violence, and specifically violent deaths, in the US you have to look at guns.

Sam1911, I don't think the CDC is an infallible, amazing organization. But, most of the funding for anything related to death and dying in the US comes from the CDC or private, even more blatantly biased organizations (on BOTH sides... there are ridiculously biased pro-gun studies and anti-gun studies).

If we have any interest in reducing violent deaths, we are going to have to study and understand the causes, influences, effective preventative measures, etc. And the funding is probably going to come from the gov't, which means the CDC.

And guns are going to be included. They are a huge part of the equation when you look at violence in the US, there is no way around that.

So there are basically two choices:

1. CDC funding for understanding violence, which will necessarily include looking at guns.
2. Fight any attempt to study the issue and keep relying on the terribly incomplete information we currently have.

Honestly, I think a lot of pro-gun people want #2 because they fear that more complete information would not support their side of the argument. The NRA certainly does. They saw a study that they didn't like and their response was "Block all attempts to understand anything about guns!"

Are most research scientists anti-gun? At this point, yeah, probably. That is what happens when the leading gun organization says that science about guns is bad. NRA set itself up against science, it is going to take some work to get that balance back. But the solution is not to continue to preach to pro-gun people that research is bad and should be avoided at all costs.


Someone else's thoughts on the topic:

"Scientists don’t view traffic injuries as “senseless” or “accidental” but as events susceptible to understanding and prevention. Urban planners, elected officials and highway engineers approach such injuries by asking four questions: What is the problem? What are the causes? Have effective interventions been discovered? Can we install these interventions in our community?

The federal government has invested billions to understand the causes of motor vehicle fatalities and, with that knowledge, has markedly reduced traffic deaths in the United States. Since the mid-1970s, research has inspired such interventions as child restraints, seat belts, frontal air bags, a minimum drinking age and motorcycle helmets. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 366,000 lives were saved through such efforts from 1975 to 2009.

Through the same scientific, evidence-based approach, our country has made progress understanding and preventing violence. Once upon a time, law-abiding citizens believed that violence generated by evil always had existed and always would exist. By the mid-20th century, that sense of fatalism was yielding to discoveries by social scientists, physicians and epidemiologists. Now a body of knowledge exists that makes it clear that an event such as the mass shooting in Aurora, Colo., was not a “senseless” occurrence as random as a hurricane or earthquake but, rather, has underlying causes that can be understood and used to prevent similar mass shootings.

We also recognize different types of violence, including child abuse and neglect, sexual assault, elder abuse, suicide and economically and politically motivated violence. Like motor vehicle injuries, violence exists in a cause-and-effect world; things happen for predictable reasons. By studying the causes of a tragic — but not senseless — event, we can help prevent another.

Recently, some have observed that no policies can reduce firearm fatalities, but that’s not quite true. Research-based observations are available. Childproof locks, safe-storage devices and waiting periods save lives.

But it’s vital to understand why we know more and spend so much more on preventing traffic fatalities than on preventing gun violence, even though firearm deaths (31,347 in 2009, the most recent year for which statistics are available) approximate the number of motor vehicle deaths (32,885 in 2010)."

Fred Fuller
March 22, 2014, 10:09 AM
Medical errors kill more than a quarter million people every year in the United States and injure millions. Add them all up and "you have probably the third leading cause of death" in the country, says Dr. Peter Pronovost, an anesthesiologist and critical care physician at Johns Hopkins Hospital.
-- http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/09/health/medical-mistakes/index.html

Physician, heal yourself...

danez71
March 22, 2014, 10:14 AM
Boy.... High road for sure.

Here is a list based on the Human Development index.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

Of the top 40 countries, the US (at #3 overall) probably has the highest murder rate. Haven't checked against all the smaller countries, but all the major ones i know for sure.

If your big moral victory is "at least we aren't as bad as Russia!" And THAT is your standard for the US, then so be it.

Personally, I would like for the US to be in the same neighborhood as UK, Germany, France, Switzerland, Japan, Spain, Norway, Australia, New Zealand and pretty much every other wealthy, stable nation in the world. But, if looking up from the bottom of the heap with Russia is good enough for you, then that is your call.


Whoa...... now wait a minute.

You have (had) some fairly good points but this is a post that, IMO, really undermines your own argument and shows that you're debating only to come to your own conclusion rather than the true conclusion.


You sound as if youre now expecting this debate to be framed around what you have self determined to be acceptable despite your own supporting documents.


The link you provided shows Russia as being in the "High Human Development" category.

It also shows that of the countries you listed, about 1/2 of them have fallen down the list, and a few are stagnant, and only a couple have risen up the list by 1-2 positions.

Conversely, Russia, climb up the list 11 positions.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Russia.


However, trying to frame the debate to fit your predetermined conclusion is the same 'problem' everyone has with the CDC framing the data to fit their predetermined conclusion/agenda.


That 'problem' is that when only the evidence that supports ANY predetermined conclusion is looked at, the evaluation process is flawed and the outcome biased.

Sam1911
March 22, 2014, 10:46 AM
1. Even if all the CDC did was study "violence" and study ways to prevent/reduce non-accidental deaths, they would STILL be studying guns, because the only instrument used in a large percentage of violent deaths is guns. There is no way around it, if you study violence, and specifically violent deaths, in the US you have to look at guns.And there's nothing wrong with discussing guns as an avenue by which violence is carried out. No one, including the NRA (see post 114) is saying that the role of weapons, including guns, cannot be considered in studies of violence.

What has been said is that the CDC can't advocate for gun control.

I strongly contend that setting out to study "Gun Violence" forces, leads, predetermines, conclusions that can only be GUN solutions, because that would be lumping together many disparate types of violence into one pool and then studying them in light of the one aspect that -- very tenuously -- strings them together.

Setting out to do that shows irrefutable bias toward a pre-determined conclusion: "This is a GUN problem. Ergo: there is a GUN solution."

Like the analogy I made before: "This is a BLACK problem. Ergo: the solution has to do with their race."

Start out with a conclusion formed, and it isn't hard to find the data that will support it, especially in these soft sciences.

1. CDC funding for understanding violence, which will necessarily include looking at guns.
2. Fight any attempt to study the issue and keep relying on the terribly incomplete information we currently have.But you're dodging here, and I think you know it. Studying the causes of violence, knowing that guns will be involved in the means and methods aspect of the study, is not a problem. Setting out by pre-deciding that the problem is a "GUN Violence" matter is not acceptable. That is pre-loading the study to provide a certain desired conclusion. To wit, advocating for gun control.

Honestly, I think a lot of pro-gun people want #2 because they fear that more complete information would not support their side of the argument.Certainly, many would feel that way. That doesn't change the fact that a study which says, "The problem here is 'X.' Now, let's study the problem so we can say that the problem is 'X' and work to get 'X' off our streets..." is not really a study, but a propaganda tool.

"Scientists don’t view traffic injuries as “senseless” or “accidental” but as events susceptible to understanding and prevention. Urban planners, elected officials and highway engineers approach such injuries by asking four questions: What is the problem? What are the causes? Have effective interventions been discovered? Can we install these interventions in our community?And this leads us to another bone of contention.

Many of us understand the concept of rights, specifically as protected by the 2nd Amendment, to be sacrosanct above the concerns and efforts of urban planners, elected officials, or even highway engineers! The old idea that we hold dear is that freedom isn't safe, and promises of safety in exchange for freedom are either woefully mislead or are outright lies, and that the right to bear arms should not be curtailed merely because some members of society choose to use arms to harm others. Therefore, we object to even starting these efforts toward study/propaganda that will be used to erode our rights. Doubly so as they are so clearly misguided in their very foundation.

Through the same scientific, evidence-based approach, our country has made progress understanding and preventing violence. Once upon a time, law-abiding citizens believed that violence generated by evil always had existed and always would exist. By the mid-20th century, that sense of fatalism was yielding to discoveries by social scientists, physicians and epidemiologists. Now a body of knowledge exists that makes it clear that an event such as the mass shooting in Aurora, Colo., was not a “senseless” occurrence as random as a hurricane or earthquake but, rather, has underlying causes that can be understood and used to prevent similar mass shootings.I don't know who wrote that, but it is one of the most misleading, obtuse, and pie-in-the-sky statements I've ever read about violence. The author has an utterly unrealistic, nerfed, view of what human society IS or will EVER be. Nothing following such an opening statement can be trusted or even contemplated as worthy of exploration. This author is someone who will not, probably CAN not, see the world for what it is and would lay his fellow man vulnerable to every abuse from those unhappy souls who disprove his naive beliefs.

We also recognize different types of violence, including child abuse and neglect, sexual assault, elder abuse, suicide and economically and politically motivated violence. Like motor vehicle injuries, violence exists in a cause-and-effect world; things happen for predictable reasons. By studying the causes of a tragic — but not senseless — event, we can help prevent another.No problem with any of that. And that's my point. CAUSES. Guns are not a CAUSE. And if the studies start out by saying they are, thats superstition and everything flowing forthwith is poisoned.

Recently, some have observed that no policies can reduce firearm fatalities, but that’s not quite true. Research-based observations are available. Childproof locks, safe-storage devices and waiting periods save lives.Ooooh, boy. A real deep thinker, this one.

But it’s vital to understand why we know more and spend so much more on preventing traffic fatalities than on preventing gun violence, even though firearm deaths (31,347 in 2009, the most recent year for which statistics are available) approximate the number of motor vehicle deaths (32,885 in 2010).If the author feels it is "vital to understand why" -- as in he cannot see on the very face of it WHY traffic fatalities are so incredibly, vastly, irreconcilably different from deaths via. firearms -- then he is fundamentally incapable of performing critical analysis of whatever data he does manage to collect. If he can't even grasp the very basics, can't think through even the most obvious questions one must answer to begin to set up a meaningful study, then he's too stunted and blinkered to accomplish anything of value once he does get his research off the ground.

danez71
March 22, 2014, 11:01 AM
Alright, got a minute.

Not going to keep chasing the tangents, back to the question of CDC funding for research into guns.

1. Even if all the CDC did was study "violence" and study ways to prevent/reduce non-accidental deaths, they would STILL be studying guns, because the only instrument used in a large percentage of violent deaths is guns. There is no way around it, if you study violence, and specifically violent deaths, in the US you have to look at guns.
....
....
Through the same scientific, evidence-based approach, our country has made progress understanding and preventing violence. Once upon a time, law-abiding citizens believed that violence generated by evil always had existed and always would exist. By the mid-20th century, that sense of fatalism was yielding to discoveries by social scientists, physicians and epidemiologists. Now a body of knowledge exists that makes it clear that an event such as the mass shooting in Aurora, Colo., was not a “senseless” occurrence as random as a hurricane or earthquake but, rather, has underlying causes that can be understood and used to prevent similar mass shootings.



We also recognize different types of violence, including child abuse and neglect, sexual assault, elder abuse, suicide and economically and politically motivated violence. Like motor vehicle injuries, violence exists in a cause-and-effect world; things happen for predictable reasons. By studying the causes of a tragic — but not senseless — event, we can help prevent another.
...
...
...



Those paragraphs don't jive and really point out the contradicting flaw in your argument.



1st para - That's just simply not true and the next 2 paragraphs clearly expose it.

Violence is its own study. Non-accidental violence upon another is an emotion based action.

The study of what causes a person to lose control and resort to violence is the only thing that will reduce violence regardless of the type of violence it is.



In the 2nd paragraph, the last sentence, you agree with what I just said and contradict the 1st paragraph.

You say: "....has underlying causes that can be understood and used to prevent similar mass shootings."

If we understood the underlying cause, it could also have been used to prevent all of the other mass killings in the past whether it be by gas, chemical, or kool-aid (Jim Jones) all over the world.


In the 3rd paragraph, you again expose the flaw in your argument.

For ex., we don't study wieners in order to reduce sexual violence.


Do you know what the #1 cause of non-accidental deaths of children under 1yr is?

Its head trauma. (essentially shaking babies)

Are we studying the hands because they were used to shake the baby?

No. We're studying why the caretaker shook the baby and purposely not studying the "mechanism" that was used to shake the baby.


You're proving yourself wrong and you don't even realize it.

Sam1911
March 22, 2014, 11:12 AM
Through the same scientific, evidence-based approach, our country has made progress understanding and preventing violence. Once upon a time, law-abiding citizens believed that violence generated by evil always had existed and always would exist. By the mid-20th century, that sense of fatalism was yielding to discoveries by social scientists, physicians and epidemiologists. Now a body of knowledge exists that makes it clear that an event such as the mass shooting in Aurora, Colo., was not a “senseless” occurrence as random as a hurricane or earthquake but, rather, has underlying causes that can be understood and used to prevent similar mass shootings.
I'm coming back to this because I'm still reeling from reading something so ... gross and self-congratulatory and childishly naive.

I won't debate the true nature of evil. Some believe in spirits and demons and a great tempter who leads men astray. Some simply say that the way the minds of sentient beings are developed, in their endless quest for security, food, safety, procreation, and fulfillment, creates the possibility/probability for frustration, fear, anger, hate, lust, envy, greed, and also compelling malfunctions of the mind which are actuated in violence.

If neurologists and psychologists and endocrinologists and their fellows in the study of brain and mind and bio-chemistry want to say they now understand and can control fear, hate, lust, envy, greed, frustration, anger, AND brain chemistry (if that's what it really is) malfunction, well ... that's an announcement I must have missed. :eek:

(And would we give someone the reigns if they promised to "fix" our minds that way? :eek: :eek: :eek:)

But I have a suspicion that that's not what this author is hinting at with his easy and confident statement about "preventing" violence.

DT Guy
March 22, 2014, 11:26 AM
This essentially comes down to a difference in philosophy; Pizza and his ilk believe the government can fix stuff. Many of us (myself included) distrust government, and realized long ago that the primary goal of government is not the altruistic benefit to all, but a furthering of the personal goals of those currently in power.

I don't trust the government to study anything related to guns objectively, and therefore oppose it studying them at all.

As for the naivete of the 'Star Trek' model that all violence in humanity can be discovered and rooted out at its source, I can only offer a very slightly used bridge for sale, at WELL below market prices, to those who give that ANY credence.


Larry

MEHavey
March 22, 2014, 11:33 AM
Now a body of knowledge exists that makes it clear that an event such as the
mass shooting in Aurora, Colo., was not a “senseless” occurrence as random as
a hurricane or earthquake but, rather, has underlying causes that can be
understood and used to prevent similar mass shootings.If you know your history, you'll know this scene.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/canute.jpg
...and if know the scene, you'll know the story... and the point.







but if not:

The first written account of the Canute episode was in Historia Anglorum
(The History of the English People) by chronicler Henry of Huntingdon, who
lived within 60 years of the death of Canute (1035 AD).

According to the story, the king had his chair carried down to the shore and
ordered the waves not to break upon his land.

When his orders were ignored, he pronounced: "Let all the world know that
the power of kings is empty and worthless and there is no King worthy of the
name save Him by whose will heaven and earth and sea obey eternal laws,"

The account shows Canute setting out to demonstrate that the tide would
come in regardless...

... as does true Evil

Jeff White
March 22, 2014, 11:43 AM
Recently, some have observed that no policies can reduce firearm fatalities, but that’s not quite true. Research-based observations are available. Childproof locks, safe-storage devices and waiting periods save lives.

Show me ONE verifiable, documented instance that proves this is true. Not a "researched based opinion" but a real world, actually happened incident.

I won't hold my breath waiting.

Pizzapinochle
March 22, 2014, 11:48 AM
I don't know who wrote that, but it is one of the most misleading, obtuse, and pie-in-the-sky statements I've ever read about violence. The author has an utterly unrealistic, nerfed, view of what human society IS or will EVER be. Nothing following such an opening statement can be trusted or even contemplated as worthy of exploration. This author is someone who will not, probably CAN not, see the world for what it is and would lay his fellow man vulnerable to every abuse from those unhappy souls who disprove his naive beliefs.

.

I'll start with the source of the material. It is a letter co-authored by Jay Dickey, the congressman who was the "NRA point man" in shutting down research on guns. Suffice to say, his views have changed.

And there's nothing wrong with discussing guns as an avenue by which violence is carried out. No one, including the NRA (see post 114) is saying that the role of weapons, including guns, cannot be considered in studies of violence.

You say that, but he result of NRA actions has been that guns do NOT get studied as a part of the CDC efforts in any way and that is how the NRA wants it.

Pizzapinochle
March 22, 2014, 11:52 AM
Show me ONE verifiable, documented instance that proves this is true. Not a "researched based opinion" but a real world, actually happened incident.

I won't hold my breath waiting.
http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/pdf/LockboxJAMA.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9315767

Sam1911
March 22, 2014, 11:54 AM
I don't know how much guns do or don't get studied (seems like there are indeed lots of "gun studies" kicked around the internet, after all, if you have a gun in your home you're 5,311% more likely to be shot...etc.) but I certainly would rather see the CDC not spending money on gun studies than spending money on what I see as fundamentally wrong-headed predestined propaganda.

We can wring our hands that maybe some small aspects of worth aren't being explored because the CDC itself cannot launch GUN-violence studies, but I'd call it far and away a net win.

Sam1911
March 22, 2014, 11:57 AM
Interesting, the two studies contradict each other... but let's not get sidetracked.

Jeff White
March 22, 2014, 12:01 PM
I am still waiting. You provided research. I want to see an actual case where one of these measures actually stopped an incident from occurring. A police report, a news report, something that says "On (insert date here) at (insert time here) (insert name here) decided to murder his wife, upon being told he had to wait to buy a handgun he went home and entered counseling"...or some other positive outcome.

Because I can provide you with documentation of a murder I worked where the waiting period here in Illinois didn't stop it from happening.

You provided research based on a telephone survey. That is not documentation, that is research. A guess. People guess wrong all of the time.

I'm still waiting.

Pizzapinochle
March 22, 2014, 12:04 PM
Yeah, I just re read your post.

Good joke.

What you want is for me to post an instance when something did not happen. So... you want someone to have magically determined that a kid DEFINITELY would have shot himself, but the gun was locked in the cabinet b/c of safe storage laws, so nothing at all happened.

If you have an "alternate reality generator," i'd be happy to explore the possibilities for you. Otherwise, we are left with the real world where we can only rely on what HAS happened.

Studies show that states with safe storage laws have reduced childhood accidental shootings. That is the best real world you are going to get.

Eb1
March 22, 2014, 12:19 PM
:rolleyes: Just look at how prohibition saved so many lives. :rolleyes::uhoh:

That is the best real world you are going to get.

Here is a safe storage fact for you. I teach my children that guns kill. I also store them on my waist in a holster.

You seem to be leaving out a lot of facts about kid shootings. Like the mom and dad were on dope, and the kid got the gun. Sometimes kids do get guns, and shoot other kids by accident. Maybe they were not taught to treat all guns like they are loaded. Instead they thought you could shoot somebody, and then hit a reset button. Or the parents relied on a safe to keep their kids safe instead of actually being parents.

If you want to teach your kids about guns. Take them hunting! Let them see that death is real. Let them see the blood and the lifeless creature. Show them that meat doesn't come without consequence. Show them that once you pull the trigger things are never the same. Not even their life will be the same. Not only is their death, but there is feelings of taking life.
This will put the fear in them. If they can learn to respect the gun, then all should be fine. The problem I see is you tell a kid "guns can kill", but you don't ever show them. How many times have you had to tell a kid "don't run on the kitchen floor because you'll bust your head."? Well they don't listen until they bust their head. Then the running in the kitchen stops. This is true for all generations. Kids fight for independence, but there are some things you can force them into understanding without an irreversible accident happening.

Sorry if this is a little off topic, but I can't stand gun haters always trying to blame the metal object or regulate by law what is common sense logic. Guns do kill. They can be used for more such as sporting events and fun, but unless there is a respect for guns accidents happen. It seems simple to me. I guess it is that I am from the South, and we do hunt and fish, and have a better understanding of how a gun is used. I don't know the answer other than what I do seems to be working. What was taught to me worked, and if more people would do the same then there wouldn't be all of this BS that keeps being brought up.

The govt isn't on your side. They are a for profit organization at this point. Fear and misleading people is on their side. Having a surgeon general claim that wanting a gun is an illness would be an atrocity to the Nation's safety.

Jeff White
March 22, 2014, 12:32 PM
Studies also show that saturated fat is bad for you. Except now it isn't:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/eat-fried-chicken-want-174400647.html

Studies are worthless when they are designed to prove a theory. That's why I have asked you to provide proof, in the way of something that actually happened. We live in the real world, not some fantasy world.

I can provide you with thousands of examples where the measures that your "studies" say are so effective failed. Yet you are unable to provide me ONE instance where they actually stopped something from occurring.

The problem with your line of reasoning is that you don't understand how things work in the real world. Most batteries and murders are spur of the moment, in the heat of passion type actions. No one gets angry to the point of violence at their spouse or someone else and then doesn't do them harm because they had to wait to buy a gun. If they didn't have one already, they picked up a knife, a club, or used their bare hands to carry out the act of violence.

I can point to a murder that happened here 20 years ago that was planned and the murderer actually went out and bought the gun in advance, waited the 24 hours required by Illinois law, picked up the gun, telling the sales clerk at Wal Mart that it was for her husband, went home and shot him dead.

The waiting period had zero deterrent effect.

I can also point to plenty of instances where firearms being locked up in a safe did not stop children from gaining access.

I'm still waiting for you to show me ONE verifiable report that these measures you espouse actually stopped a firearm from being misused.

I live in the real world. Not some fantasy world where things happen the way some telephone survey say they should. I spent 25 years dealing with the real world. Being the first on the scene. Investigating what happened. Arresting the suspects. Testifying in court. My opinions on these matters aren't based on some survey. They are based on what does and doesn't work in the real world.

Bartholomew Roberts
March 22, 2014, 01:30 PM
You say that, but he result of NRA actions has been that guns do NOT get studied as a part of the CDC efforts in any way and that is how the NRA wants it.

Again, here is the entire text of the 1996 Dickey Amendment: "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"

What part of that language do you object to or have a problem with PizzaPinochle?

And once again, this isn't unusual language by any means. There are many, many restrictions on how CDC grant money may be used. (http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/grants/additional_req.shtm#ar12) 31 USC 1352 is just one example of a very similar restriction on CDC grant money. If prohibiting the CDC from using grant money to lobby for gun control is so harmful to research, then why so little objection to these other restrictions?

Here is how the CDC interprets the Dickey Amendment:
"In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the language in the CDC's Appropriations Act to mean that CDC's funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms."

So what problem do you have with this interpretation? This makes the second time I've pointed out the exact language of the Amendment and noted that you are mischaracterizing the debate here. Yet you haven't challenged this fact or attempted to show how thus language affects research the CDC should be doing - you just restate that the NRA is blocking research without any factual support. Why?

hso
March 22, 2014, 03:03 PM
Since the nomination failed this discussion should be taken up elsewhere.

If you enjoyed reading about "Surgeon General Nominee Decidedly Anit-Gun" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!