| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/19/2015 03:20:53 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
You SAY people are concerned, but they're not. Where are the sensational headlines tallying the death toll of those other causes? Where's the heart disease thread on DPC? The fact is that you're all interested because of the gruesome spectacle, not because of the number of deaths. |
You're arguing from obvious and extreme ignorance. While "other causes" don't tend to cause a sudden mass casualty event, there are numerous threads on DPC regarding weight loss, quitting smoking, diabetes monitoriing and other health issues. Efforts to encourage exercise and healthy eating or restrict trans fats, sodas, and energy drinks routinely make headlines, and are just as routinely panned as liberal plots or infringements of liberty by the very same blowhards that wring their blood-stained hands over gun rights. We have statistics and extensive government studies on all of these "other causes," yet the gun lobby has succesfully banned even researching the issue of gun violence. When one side refuses to allow or acknowledge facts, any pretense of honest discourse or good faith is forfeit.
It is unambiguously clear that our levels of gun violence are off the charts compared to ANY other non-warring advanced nation with responsible gun control measures (countries with plenty of hunters, collectors and sport shooters). It is also irrefutable, by multiple Supreme Court declarations, that 2nd amendment rights are not infringed by gun control measures... rights, by the way, that did NOT apply to individuals until a very recent narrow ruling after Scalia (of "torture is OK because it's OK on TV" lunacy) was placed on the bench. If the politicians promoting gun proliferation really believed the NRA policies they champion, then why are there metal detectors and guns bans placed on their own buildings as a direct barrier to the fantasy of overthrowing government tyranny? A reckoning on guns is just as inevitable as gay marriage and single payer healthcare. The only barrier is how much death, denial and hypocrisy we are willing to accept before facing our demons.
Message edited by author 2015-06-19 15:32:09. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 03:35:40 PM · #127 |
Really? How many of those threads are routinely on the front page? None. How many headlines about the real causes of preventable death are top story on news sites? None.
That fact is that anytime something like this happens, people get all in a fuss about guns, not blaming the person pulling the trigger. They just don't give a shit about the 5200 people that die from preventable causes every single day in the US. People just go for the gruesome, sensationalist stories. They're fishing for pennies in a lake full of dollars.
"how much death, denial and hypocrisy we are willing to accept before facing our demons?" Which demons? The ones that wipe out as many Americans as the Civil War every year? Or the ones that pale in comparison of lives lost, but make for great spectacle.
If people were really interested in saving the greatest number of lives, the headlines every day would be all about the things which needlessly kill the most people...they aren't. It's about creating a sensation in order to sell ads.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spork99:
You SAY people are concerned, but they're not. Where are the sensational headlines tallying the death toll of those other causes? Where's the heart disease thread on DPC? The fact is that you're all interested because of the gruesome spectacle, not because of the number of deaths. |
You're arguing from obvious and extreme ignorance. While "other causes" don't tend to cause a sudden mass casualty event, there are numerous threads on DPC regarding weight loss, quitting smoking, diabetes monitoriing and other health issues. Efforts to encourage exercise and healthy eating or restrict trans fats, sodas, and energy drinks routinely make headlines, and are just as routinely panned as liberal plots or infringements of liberty by the very same blowhards that wring their blood-stained hands over about gun rights. We have statistics and extensive government studies on all of these "other causes," yet the gun lobby has succesfully banned even researching the issue of gun violence. When one side refuses to allow or acknowledge facts, any pretense of honest discourse or good faith is forfeit.
It is unambiguously clear that our levels of gun violence are off the charts compared to ANY other non-warring advanced nation with responsible gun control measures (countries with plenty of hunters, collectors and sport shooters). It is also irrefutable, by multiple Supreme Court declarations, that 2nd amendment rights are not infringed by gun control measures... rights, by the way, that did NOT apply to individuals until a very recent narrow ruling after Scalia (of "torture is OK because it's OK on TV" lunacy) was placed on the bench. If the politicians promoting gun proliferation really believed the NRA policies they champion, then why are there metal detectors and guns bans placed on their own buildings as a direct barrier to the fantasy of overthrowing government tyranny? A reckoning on guns is just as inevitable as gay marriage and single payer healthcare. The only barrier is how much death, denial and hypocrisy we are willing to accept before facing our demons. |
Message edited by author 2015-06-19 15:44:21. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 03:45:19 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It is unambiguously clear that our levels of gun violence are off the charts compared to ANY other non-warring advanced nation with responsible gun control measures (countries with plenty of hunters, collectors and sport shooters). |
Again, I would ask for objective data to support this. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 03:50:46 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Really? How many of those threads are routinely on the front page? None. How many headlines about the real causes of preventable death are top story on news sites? None. |
Some ...  |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 03:52:24 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It is unambiguously clear that our levels of gun violence are off the charts compared to ANY other non-warring advanced nation with responsible gun control measures (countries with plenty of hunters, collectors and sport shooters). |
Again, I would ask for objective data to support this. |
Then ask your congressional representative to buck the NRA threats and fund some objective research. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 03:58:12 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Elaine:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It is unambiguously clear that our levels of gun violence are off the charts compared to ANY other non-warring advanced nation with responsible gun control measures (countries with plenty of hunters, collectors and sport shooters). |
Again, I would ask for objective data to support this. |
Then ask your congressional representative to buck the NRA threats and fund some objective research. |
Why does the research have to be done by the US?
Edit to add: I am not sure I would trust research funded by congress anyway. There would be a definite agenda.
Message edited by author 2015-06-19 15:59:30. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 04:01:46 PM · #132 |
*ahem*
Has nobody considered that ready access to guns is the whole problem here? And that having such ready access is what lets someone who is disgruntled with whatever to pick up a few guns and go on a rampage?
Just sayin...now I have to dodge bullets all the way home. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 04:02:43 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Blah, blah, blah... If people were really interested in saving the greatest number of lives, the headlines every day would be all about the things which needlessly kill the most people...they aren't. |
Three things:
1. How many times do the health choices of a single person lead to sudden mass casualties that would generate the kind of headlines you're ingenuously referring to? The closest I can think of would be idiots refusing vaccines, which DID get massive attention both here and in the media.
2. We DO address other preventable causes of death all the time. Obesity, cancer, diabetes heart disease and lack of exercise are common headlines, and billions of dollars are poured into research and fighting those causes annually.
3. This isn't a game of "pick one." Just because more people die of cancer than airbag failures doesn't mean we must ignore faulty airbags until all the cancer patients are cured. If the people in Charleston had died of ebola, there would be a national outcry for immediate action... and roughly zero people crying foul because lots of people die from pneumonia. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 04:12:28 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Really? When was the fact that 600,000+ people each year die from preventable heart disease spread across the headlines and sensationalized like any shooting? Where's the DPC thread ranting about how the causes should be outlawed.
Ban the Donuts! |
I found the following which seems to suggest that your numbers are a tad high.
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 611,105
Surely not all of them were preventable.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 04:17:06 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It is unambiguously clear that our levels of gun violence are off the charts compared to ANY other non-warring advanced nation with responsible gun control measures (countries with plenty of hunters, collectors and sport shooters). |
Again, I would ask for objective data to support this. |
Here ya go. And also the effectivenesss of gun control. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 04:17:34 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
*ahem*
Has nobody considered that ready access to guns is the whole problem here? And that having such ready access is what lets someone who is disgruntled with whatever to pick up a few guns and go on a rampage?
Just sayin...now I have to dodge bullets all the way home. |
Complex problems rarely have such a simple answer. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 04:18:51 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Why does the research have to be done by the US?
Edit to add: I am not sure I would trust research funded by congress anyway. There would be a definite agenda. |
1. Because otherwise you'll say it doesn't apply.
2. Whose research doesn't "have an agenda"? If Americans for Responsible Solutions (Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly) funds it you'll claim "liberal bias". Clearly the NRA won't fund it. The Congress is supposed to represent all of the people, so until you can suggest some other qualified organization (whose results you'll accept), I think something with bipartisan congressional support and oversight is the closest we can get to an objective evaluation. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 04:19:59 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Blah, blah, blah... If people were really interested in saving the greatest number of lives, the headlines every day would be all about the things which needlessly kill the most people...they aren't. |
Three things:
1. How many times do the health choices of a single person lead to sudden mass casualties that would generate the kind of headlines you're ingenuously referring to? The closest I can think of would be idiots refusing vaccines, which DID get massive attention both here and in the media.
2. We DO address other preventable causes of death all the time. Obesity, cancer, diabetes heart disease and lack of exercise are common headlines, and billions of dollars are poured into research and fighting those causes annually.
3. This isn't a game of "pick one." Just because more people die of cancer than airbag failures doesn't mean we must ignore faulty airbags until all the cancer patients are cured. If the people in Charleston had died of ebola, there would be a national outcry for immediate action... and roughly zero people crying foul because lots of people die from pneumonia. |
1. It's not about sudden, mass casualties though. That's what makes it a sensation. It's about the number of deaths.
2. Then use the tools we have. In Flint, MI, 70% of murderers have at least one felony conviction, most have many more. Prison isn't used to rehab people, it's used as punishment and since it's crowded, people are freed early, and usually commit more and more violent crimes until they're either killed or do something so heinous they're locked away for good. This situation is not unique to Flint. It's not the guns killing people, it's people.
3. It's a game of resources and getting attention directed to problems in proportion to their negative effect. Unfortunately, sensational frenetic nature of the coverage of these events garners gun control a disproportionate amount of attention. You wouldn't call for banning airbags because some were defective due to the actions or inactions of a few people, would you? The comparison to Ebola is amusing because it's another example of the media hyping up a low risk item and creating an excessive reaction.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2015 04:21:59 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Really? When was the fact that 600,000+ people each year die from preventable heart disease spread across the headlines and sensationalized like any shooting? Where's the DPC thread ranting about how the causes should be outlawed.
Ban the Donuts! |
I found the following which seems to suggest that your numbers are a tad high.
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 611,105
Surely not all of them were preventable.
Ray |
Perhaps, just like not all gun deaths are preventable either. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 04:24:21 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Elaine:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It is unambiguously clear that our levels of gun violence are off the charts compared to ANY other non-warring advanced nation with responsible gun control measures (countries with plenty of hunters, collectors and sport shooters). |
Again, I would ask for objective data to support this. |
Here ya go. And also the effectivenesss of gun control. |
Homicide rates in Cali were lowered without restricting access to guns. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 04:25:44 PM · #141 |
| Guns are (mostly) equally available across the US. Why do some areas have a high homicide rate and others do not? It's not all access to guns... |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 04:49:37 PM · #142 |
Scalvert referenced this report, but I wonder if anyone would care to comment on it
after reading more about it.
It is referenced here Australia's 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, , firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 05:02:24 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Guns are (mostly) equally available across the US. Why do some areas have a high homicide rate and others do not? It's not all access to guns... |
of course you are right. In a nation where goods are freely transported across city and state lines, local restrictions are only enforced after a crime is committed. If you look at a map of gun homicide rates there can appear to be an inverse correlation of registered ownership to gun murders by state. However if you look at it by population the correlation is pretty clear.
" States with weak gun violence prevention laws and higher rates of gun ownership have the highest overall gun death rates in the nation, according to a Violence Policy Center (VPC) analysis of new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
Meanwhile, states with the lowest overall gun death rates have lower rates of gun ownership and some of the strongest gun violence prevention laws in the nation. However, even in these states the human toll of gun violence remains unacceptably high and far exceeds the gun death rate in most Western industrialized nations." from a CDC study, before congress banned the CDC from looking at guns as an effect on public health.
Limiting gun ownership is not a one step solution, but allowing some control over who can and can not gain access to weapons is an essential element in any such effort. It is not the solution, but it is a part of every successful effort carried out in other nations.
As far as California law, we keep trying to make guns harder to get with agressive buy back programs and some clever anti gang stuff, but legislation keeps being sturck down on a federal level time after time after time. So the laws are not on the books, but we are really trying so it has some effect
Message edited by author 2015-06-19 17:12:36. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 05:03:37 PM · #144 |
It would make sense that there would be less suicide by gunshot, but I do not think gun control would lower the suicide rate in general.
Interesting that non-firearm homicide deaths also decreased. Seems like something else might have contributed to the homicide rate in addition to gun control. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 05:06:17 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Elaine:
Guns are (mostly) equally available across the US. Why do some areas have a high homicide rate and others do not? It's not all access to guns... |
of course you are right. In a nation where goods are freely transported across city and state lines, local restrictions are only enforced after a crime is committed. If you look at a map of gun homicide rates there can appear to be an inverse correlation of registered ownership to gun murders by state. However if you look at it by population the correlation is pretty clear.
" States with weak gun violence prevention laws and higher rates of gun ownership have the highest overall gun death rates in the nation, according to a Violence Policy Center (VPC) analysis of new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
Meanwhile, states with the lowest overall gun death rates have lower rates of gun ownership and some of the strongest gun violence prevention laws in the nation. However, even in these states the human toll of gun violence remains unacceptably high and far exceeds the gun death rate in most Western industrialized nations." from a CDC study, before congress banned the CDC from looking at guns as an effect on public health.
Limiting gun ownership is not a one step solution, but allowing some control over who can and can not gain access to weapons is an essential element in any such effort. It is not the solution, but it is a part of every successful effort carried out in other nations. |
Totally agree control should be part of the solution. I do not think a total ban is necessary. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 05:08:43 PM · #146 |
Speaking of death....
Have you all voted Graveyards? Left nice lengthy and comprehensive comments??
:) |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 05:10:51 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Speaking of death....
Have you all voted Graveyards? Left nice lengthy and comprehensive comments??
:) |
Already voted on all the current challenges... :-) Only a few comments though. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 05:16:28 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Speaking of death....
Have you all voted Graveyards? Left nice lengthy and comprehensive comments??
:) |
I killed it. Really blew some up, but others hit the target dead center. Fewer bullseyes than stray shots. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 05:53:24 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
It would make sense that there would be less suicide by gunshot, but I do not think gun control would lower the suicide rate in general.
Interesting that non-firearm homicide deaths also decreased. Seems like something else might have contributed to the homicide rate in addition to gun control. |
Mmmm, yes, and that "decade without mass shootings" caught my attention, too. |
|
|
|
06/19/2015 05:57:23 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Totally agree control should be part of the solution. I do not think a total ban is necessary. |
As a strong gun control advocate, as a donor to Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Everytown for Gun Safety (formerly Mayors Against Illegal Guns) I get most of the petitions for limiting guns since they have my e-mail address. I have never seen any petition or suggested legislation that advocated a total gun ban. I like guns, in fact I'm going shooting on father's day ( my daughter's present to me, we are even getting her mom to come out shooting). I would oppose, strongly oppose, any legislation that banned guns across the board.
The only folks I have ever heard bring up the idea of a total gun ban, is the NRA, when they oppose any legislation limiting weapons and the fear of the dread slippery slope to a total gun ban.
On a side note today the Warrior had a great parade to celebrate their victory in the NBA Finals and only 3 people were shot so far today! Yippee, but I expect there will be a few more tonight.
Message edited by author 2015-06-19 20:04:58. |
|
