Quantcast

Surgeon General Nominee Decidedly Anit-Gun

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. climbskirun

    climbskirun Member

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

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    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.
     
  3. climbskirun

    climbskirun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    31
    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...
     
  4. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    4,194
    Location:
    Arkansas
    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.

    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."

    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:
     
  5. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    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.
     
  6. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    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.
     
  7. DT Guy

    DT Guy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,439
    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
     
  8. climbskirun

    climbskirun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    31
    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?
     
  9. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    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:doi/10.1371/journal.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.
     
  10. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    8,412
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    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.
     
  11. climbskirun

    climbskirun Member

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

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    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?)
     
  13. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    8,412
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    You're fighting a losing battle Sam.
    Antis don't convert. Stop trying.
     
  14. climbskirun

    climbskirun Member

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

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    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."
     
  16. bainter1212

    bainter1212 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,175
    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.
     
  17. climbskirun

    climbskirun Member

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

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    8,412
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    Sure bainter. Haven't you hear about the outbreak of baseball bat violence?
    Geez man, where have you been?
     
  19. climbskirun

    climbskirun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    31
    Gun violence results in over 11,000+ dead Americans each year. How many deaths are caused by fist violence?
     
  20. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    8,412
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    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:
     
  21. climbskirun

    climbskirun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    31
    ...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?
     
  22. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    8,412
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    So are you for UBC?
     
  23. bainter1212

    bainter1212 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,175
    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.
     
  24. fallout mike

    fallout mike Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,032
    Location:
    North Mississippi
    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.
     
  25. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    8,412
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    ^ Absolutely.
    They would have known that he may one day cut someone and told him no.
     
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