Quantcast

Surgeon General Nominee Decidedly Anit-Gun

Discussion in 'Activism' started by hotajax, Mar 13, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. David E

    David E Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,455
    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)
     
  2. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    8,443
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    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.
     
  3. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    793
    ^^ ouch. Even worse.
     
  4. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    8,443
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    Of course he's pro gun, BUT.............................. :banghead:

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

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    793
    ^^ 'we just need a little common sense here'... No one needs a weapon used by soldiers... Blah blah lol!
     
  6. climbskirun

    climbskirun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    31
    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.
     
  7. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    8,443
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    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.
     
  8. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    4,200
    Location:
    Arkansas
    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.

    Appeasement has a long history of catastrophic failure.
     
  9. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    793
    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.
     
  10. climbskirun

    climbskirun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    31
    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.
     
  11. Ed N.

    Ed N. Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    291
    Location:
    Haines City, Florida
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2014
  12. climbskirun

    climbskirun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    31
    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.
     
  13. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    8,443
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    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.
     
  14. climbskirun

    climbskirun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    31
    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?
     
  15. Ed N.

    Ed N. Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    291
    Location:
    Haines City, Florida
    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?
     
  16. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    8,443
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    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.
     
  17. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    4,200
    Location:
    Arkansas
    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.
     
  18. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    8,443
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    We're not afraid of learning.
    We're afraid of the government trying to "help" us or "keep us safe".
     
  19. zxcvbob

    zxcvbob Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    5,061
    Location:
    S.E. Minnesota
    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.
     
  20. Walkalong

    Walkalong Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    62,479
    Location:
    Alabama
    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.
     
  21. David E

    David E Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,455
    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.
     
  22. climbskirun

    climbskirun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    31
    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.
     
  23. climbskirun

    climbskirun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    31
    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.
     
  24. climbskirun

    climbskirun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    31
    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...
     
  25. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2014
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice