IGX

nafod wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 12:40 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 7:07 pm Are you actually trying to make the point that there is no "huge effort underway" to reduce gun crime and the deaths which result? Because, friend, that would be foolish.

Fatcat, not only is there no huge effort underway to understand and reduce gun violence, the US government is literally blocked by law from looking at the epidemiology associated with gun violence. Legislated ignorance. You can't fix what you can't understand. Google on the Dickey Amendment.

I read the Dickey amendment. It is apparent that you have not. It in no way blocks data collection. It blocks advocating gun control. That is literally the only thing it says, that the CDC may not advocate for gun control. It's very short.

Schlegel wrote: ↑Thu May 10, 2018 3:11 am

nafod wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 12:40 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 7:07 pm Are you actually trying to make the point that there is no "huge effort underway" to reduce gun crime and the deaths which result? Because, friend, that would be foolish.

Fatcat, not only is there no huge effort underway to understand and reduce gun violence, the US government is literally blocked by law from looking at the epidemiology associated with gun violence. Legislated ignorance. You can't fix what you can't understand. Google on the Dickey Amendment.

I read the Dickey amendment. It is apparent that you have not. It in no way blocks data collection. It blocks advocating gun control. That is literally the only thing it says, that the CDC may not advocate for gun control. It's very short.

You're misinformed or are being disingenuous. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... e-israel/f

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 8:44 pm With regard to deaths by firearms in the US, fully 2/3 are self inflicted. You are invalidated by your own argument. However, I understand the sentiment behind it, and there are no easy answers to senseless gun violence. Most gun violence in the US is committed with handguns, which are heavily regulated, and by criminals, who do not reference laws with regard to their behavior.

The reality is that alcohol (88,000 dead annually in US), medical errors (250,000 dead annually in US), and environmental pollution (9 million globally) are all far more deadly and deserving of attention if your only goal is saving lives. If the real intention is to limit the rights of individuals and leave government (you know, the one led by Trump) as the sole arbiter of armed justice, then by all means continue to assail the Bill of Rights.

You can hardly say handguns are heavily regulated. Apparently 35 out of 50 states do not require a license to buy a firearm. Correct me if I am wrong, this is the info from quick Google search. Sure, carrying concealed or open is prohibited in some states, but this is much more difficult to enforce than sales. Also, apparently background checks can be bypassed if you buy your handgun at a gun show. I would hardly call it heavily regulated.

I agree, many other things cause more deaths than guns, as your list suggests. There is a caveat though. More than half of deaths from coronary heart disease and cancer - top causes on the list - occur in 75 and over years old. That's why if you look at all ages mortality heart disease and cancers are leading causes, but over half of them are old people dying of old age - something kills us eventually, and there is no "old age" as the cause of death on the death certificate. If you look at other groups the picture changes. Homicide is No.3 cause of death among 15-24 year old, No. 4 among 25-34 year old and No.5 among 35-44 year old. Suicide is one line above, and lots of suicides are inflicted by guns. If you exclude 75+ year olds and add the numbers for 15 - 35 year olds the difference between violent and medical causes of deaths becomes less impressive.

Have a look here: http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa- ... and-gender

By the way, medical error is often cited as the third most significant cause of death in USA. In short, this is bullshit. Due to the specifics of my work I have seen more than a few people die in medical setting and I can tell you medical errors are nowhere near the top on the list of causes.

Comments on the existing stats:

Are medical errors really the third most common cause of death in the U.S.?

Deadly medical errors are less common than headlines suggest

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Thu May 10, 2018 3:30 am

Schlegel wrote: ↑Thu May 10, 2018 3:11 am

nafod wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 12:40 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 7:07 pm Are you actually trying to make the point that there is no "huge effort underway" to reduce gun crime and the deaths which result? Because, friend, that would be foolish.

Fatcat, not only is there no huge effort underway to understand and reduce gun violence, the US government is literally blocked by law from looking at the epidemiology associated with gun violence. Legislated ignorance. You can't fix what you can't understand. Google on the Dickey Amendment.

I read the Dickey amendment. It is apparent that you have not. It in no way blocks data collection. It blocks advocating gun control. That is literally the only thing it says, that the CDC may not advocate for gun control. It's very short.

You're misinformed or are being disingenuous. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... e-israel/f

If so, quote for us the text of the act that actually forbids data collection. Go ahead, do it.

Schlegel wrote: ↑Thu May 10, 2018 11:07 am

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Thu May 10, 2018 3:30 am

Schlegel wrote: ↑Thu May 10, 2018 3:11 am

nafod wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 12:40 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 7:07 pm Are you actually trying to make the point that there is no "huge effort underway" to reduce gun crime and the deaths which result? Because, friend, that would be foolish.

Fatcat, not only is there no huge effort underway to understand and reduce gun violence, the US government is literally blocked by law from looking at the epidemiology associated with gun violence. Legislated ignorance. You can't fix what you can't understand. Google on the Dickey Amendment.

I read the Dickey amendment. It is apparent that you have not. It in no way blocks data collection. It blocks advocating gun control. That is literally the only thing it says, that the CDC may not advocate for gun control. It's very short.

You're misinformed or are being disingenuous. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... e-israel/f

If so, quote for us the text of the act that actually forbids data collection. Go ahead, do it.

The effect of it is clearly that it has stopped all research into the epidemiology of gun violence, and has done so since 1996, and the republicans are perfectly fine with maintaining that ignorance of the matter.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 8:55 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 8:45 pmMore often than not the ATF has no one in charge, including right now. It is undermanned for its law enforcement responsibilities. It is continuously kneecapped in its mission. On purpose.

After their performance in Waco they should have been disbanded, IMHO.

Ironically, back in 2015 Obama floated getting rid of the ATF and folding the mission into the FBI. As it stands it is undermanned and underfunded for its mission, without a leader, and kneecapped in executing its mission by the legislation.

Guess who didn't want the ATF to go away?

Having the ATF around in its crippled form allows people to claim there are organizations that are fighting gun violence without actually having any effective organizations fighting gun violence.

nafod wrote: ↑Thu May 10, 2018 12:02 pm The effect of it is clearly that it has stopped all research into the epidemiology of gun violence, and has done so since 1996, and the republicans are perfectly fine with maintaining that ignorance of the matter.

No, it states (see page 245): "Provided further, 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..."

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104p ... ubl208.pdf

In other words, there will be no federal funding of efforts to advocate or promote gun control. Nothing stops private individuals or organizations from conducting "epidemiology" of gun violence on their own dime.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Thu May 10, 2018 5:38 pmIn other words, there will be no federal funding of efforts to advocate or promote gun control.

The effect, which has gone uncontested by the republicans while they have held the leadership of the legislative and executive branches, is that there has been no federally funded research on reducing gun violence. Period. They've had 22 years to correct that misconception and encourage research, and they haven't.

They're scared of the facts.

The facts are that 15,549 people were shot to death in the US in 2017 out of a population of 325.7 million people. Some very small percentage of those homicides may have been justified. I prefer that we focus on the perpetrators of those crimes and the social conditions that contribute to it (e.g., poverty), not on infringing the right of Americans to keep and bear arms.

Sangoma wrote: ↑Thu May 10, 2018 4:17 am

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 8:44 pm With regard to deaths by firearms in the US, fully 2/3 are self inflicted. You are invalidated by your own argument. However, I understand the sentiment behind it, and there are no easy answers to senseless gun violence. Most gun violence in the US is committed with handguns, which are heavily regulated, and by criminals, who do not reference laws with regard to their behavior.

The reality is that alcohol (88,000 dead annually in US), medical errors (250,000 dead annually in US), and environmental pollution (9 million globally) are all far more deadly and deserving of attention if your only goal is saving lives. If the real intention is to limit the rights of individuals and leave government (you know, the one led by Trump) as the sole arbiter of armed justice, then by all means continue to assail the Bill of Rights.

You can hardly say handguns are heavily regulated. Apparently 35 out of 50 states do not require a license to buy a firearm. Correct me if I am wrong, this is the info from quick Google search. Sure, carrying concealed or open is prohibited in some states, but this is much more difficult to enforce than sales. Also, apparently background checks can be bypassed if you buy your handgun at a gun show. I would hardly call it heavily regulated.

I agree, many other things cause more deaths than guns, as your list suggests. There is a caveat though. More than half of deaths from coronary heart disease and cancer - top causes on the list - occur in 75 and over years old. That's why if you look at all ages mortality heart disease and cancers are leading causes, but over half of them are old people dying of old age - something kills us eventually, and there is no "old age" as the cause of death on the death certificate. If you look at other groups the picture changes. Homicide is No.3 cause of death among 15-24 year old, No. 4 among 25-34 year old and No.5 among 35-44 year old. Suicide is one line above, and lots of suicides are inflicted by guns. If you exclude 75+ year olds and add the numbers for 15 - 35 year olds the difference between violent and medical causes of deaths becomes less impressive.

Have a look here: http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa- ... and-gender

Handguns are heavily regulated in the USA. That's not something I'm going to debate, you can look up the laws your self if you like. Beyond that it's a matter of perspective. Perhaps coming from your background, things appear differently to you and that's fine.

I personally am not concerned with suicide as a social ill, although it is a personal tragedy for the people involved. I think it is totally an individual's right to determine their time of death.

As for the young people who are getting shot, I can only agree that this is a real problem. However, I don't agree that the solution is to curtail the rights of others. Instead, I would like to see improvement in the social conditions which are underlying these homicides such as poverty, drugs, high levels of incarceration, weak family units, poor education, etc. That to me would be a win-win.

Background wise it's true, both in the former USSR and currently in Australia handgun laws were/are much stricter than in the USA.

Violence is definitely a multifactorial issue, low socio-economic status probably being the most important one. Believe it or not, I don't believe in restrictive measures either. Wherever you look liberal approaches to problems historically worked way better. Heroin problem in Switzerland, for instance. They set up heroin clinics where an addict could come and get heroin, no question asked (except for the lethal doses). In the next decade the use of heroin and crime related to drug dealing dramatically dropped.

I am not sure if I posted this before.

America’s unique gun violence problem, explained in 17 maps and charts

I don't have a dog in this fight and don't have strong feelings about this. In my opinion Australian gun laws are too strict, while in the USA they are too lenient. Americans also seem to have very strong feelings about their guns.

Sangoma wrote: ↑Thu May 10, 2018 10:18 pmViolence is definitely a multifactorial issue, low socio-economic status probably being the most important one. Believe it or not, I don't believe in restrictive measures either. Wherever you look liberal approaches to problems historically worked way better. Heroin problem in Switzerland, for instance. They set up heroin clinics where an addict could come and get heroin, no question asked (except for the lethal doses). In the next decade the use of heroin and crime related to drug dealing dramatically dropped.

That's an interesting parallel and one I hadn't thought of. Freedom, and the protection of our hard-won freedoms, should be one of the organizing principles of our society, IMHO. That goes for guns and for drugs (something we have failed at miserably in the USA).

Sangoma wrote: ↑Thu May 10, 2018 10:18 pmI don't have a dog in this fight and don't have strong feelings about this. In my opinion Australian gun laws are too strict, while in the USA they are too lenient. Americans also seem to have very strong feelings about their guns.

They do. But it's important to note that the 2nd Amendment is just one of a host of rights granted by the Constitution that have set the gold standard for human freedom since their establishment: freedom of religion, of assembly, of freedom from unlawful search and seizure, of expression, of the press, etc. The 2nd Amendment was intended to be the guarantor of all those other freedoms and shouldn't be tampered with, even though it does come with complexities that will continue require careful examination and management. In my view, Americans should feel strongly about ALL of their freedoms and actively work to promote and share the ideals of the American revolution.

Sangoma wrote: ↑Thu May 10, 2018 10:18 pm Americans also seem to have very strong feelings about their guns.

A very noisy minority do. If you look at the legislation the Parkland students are advocating, its mostly stuff Americans, including gun owners (I have one), overwhelmingly support.

Heroin clinics set up was more along the line of changing the attitude towards addiction. Little known fact is that only one out of 137 heroin users are actually addicts, the rest are casual/recreational. The Swiss realized that heroin are anaesthetizing themselves from some pain in their lives, and that without addressing that will not get results. So the clinics were set up, and the dealers lost their business straight away - drop in related crime. Then the staff at the clinics started developing non-judgemental and compassionate relationship with the addicts and offering them psychological help down the line. Moreover, with the change in attitude (not a fucked-up junkie, but a patient) and lack of anxiety associated with drug seeking addicts became more socially attuned and many got jobs. Gradually large percentage reduced or stopped using heroin altogether.

This is the illustration of a counter-intuitive approach to solving problems. From punitive to remedial. In this case it helped. If this in any way can be applied to guns (or car accidents for that matter) I don't know.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 1:44 amIn my view, Americans should feel strongly about ALL of their freedoms and actively work to promote and share the ideals of the American revolution.

Yes, but... Individual rights have to be concordant with the rights of the society at the whole. Some fringe groups in USA refuse to register their cars and get driving license, quoting the same argument, their rights and freedom. Should I be able to build a house for sale without a degree in building? Should you have the right to consult people on medical issues and prescribe treatment without medical education? The proverbial balance, but how you find it is another matter altogether. I am not for micro-management by government by any means, given my geographical origins, and I personally believe governments interfere too much in the affairs of the citizens everywhere, especially in the developed world. Australia is among the champions in this area, and this has some pretty damning effects on the economy and people's lives.

Sangoma wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 4:14 am

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 1:44 amIn my view, Americans should feel strongly about ALL of their freedoms and actively work to promote and share the ideals of the American revolution.

Yes, but... Individual rights have to be concordant with the rights of the society at the whole. Some fringe groups in USA refuse to register their cars and get driving license, quoting the same argument, their rights and freedom. Should I be able to build a house for sale without a degree in building? Should you have the right to consult people on medical issues and prescribe treatment without medical education? The proverbial balance, but how you find it is another matter altogether. I am not for micro-management by government by any means, given my geographical origins, and I personally believe governments interfere too much in the affairs of the citizens everywhere, especially in the developed world. Australia is among the champions in this area, and this has some pretty damning effects on the economy and people's lives.

Zoning or building laws are by nature is social, but self defense is individual. Any society which denies the individual the right to self defense is perverse and totalitarian.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 1:44 am The 2nd Amendment was intended to be the guarantor of all those other freedoms and shouldn't be tampered with, even though it does come with complexities that will continue require careful examination and management. In my view, Americans should feel strongly about ALL of their freedoms and actively work to promote and share the ideals of the American revolution.

A lot of what you just wrote is pure emotional myth.

I agree the 2nd amendment was part of an approach to guaranteeing freedom. But there has risen this crazy idea that it’s intent was to enable the citizenry to fight off the government. That doesn’t survive scrutiny. Both the history of the 2nd and the constitution, and the current state of affairs.

When you read the actual documents documenting the run up to the bill of rights (and not cherry picking side quotes not part of the process of writing the bill of rights) you see that the idea of a citizen militia was to be instead of a standing army, not to be ready to fight it. A standing army was to be considered a scourge to freedom, to be avoided at all costs (by many...not all). That plan didn’t survive the War of 1812, as we enjoyed watching Brit regulars burn down the White House.

The idea of a citizen militia ready to overthrow the government? Do search on the word “militia” in the constitution. It appears twice. Once in the 2nd amendment, and once in being used to put down rebellions. Not enable them. Put them down.

As for modern times, the fact that many of the most fervent 2nd amendment supporters are also big fans of our military leads to a monster logical disconnect, since by their theory they would want to be able to actually win against the military, which of course is a joke. We have the most powerful military ever on Earth.

It’s an emotional feel good thing. I get it. But it makes zero sense to support a strong standing military and then argue the 2nd is a carefully crafted self destruct clause meant to allow the overthrow of our government.

I’m for what the founders actually meant, the true originalist interpretation. Everyone serves. An actual well trained militia. Stand down as much of the military as possible. This was the actual vision of 1776.

Somethin must be done asap. Even dogs shooting already.
http://www.messengernews.net/news/local ... g-shot-me/

Richard Remme, 51, of Fort Dodge, was taken to the hospital Wednesday with what was, fortunately, not with a serious injury.

So what happened?

“My dog shot me,” Remme said.

If you look at other groups the picture changes. Homicide is No.3 cause of death among 15-24 year old, No. 4 among 25-34 year old and No.5 among 35-44 year old. Suicide is one line above, and lots of suicides are inflicted by guns. If you exclude 75+ year olds and add the numbers for 15 - 35 year olds the difference between violent and medical causes of deaths becomes less impressive.

Homicide is 33rd overall. That makes them 12 places behind traffic accidents.
You have no constitutional right to drive. Ban cars.

This is the simple answer.

tough old man wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 3:22 pm

If you look at other groups the picture changes. Homicide is No.3 cause of death among 15-24 year old, No. 4 among 25-34 year old and No.5 among 35-44 year old. Suicide is one line above, and lots of suicides are inflicted by guns. If you exclude 75+ year olds and add the numbers for 15 - 35 year olds the difference between violent and medical causes of deaths becomes less impressive.

Homicide is 33rd overall. That makes them 12 places behind traffic accidents.
You have no constitutional right to drive. Ban cars.

We sure do spend a shit-ton of effort worrying about foreign born terrorists. By your argument, it is all a waste of time.

You can hardly say handguns are heavily regulated. Apparently 35 out of 50 states do not require a license to buy a firearm. Correct me if I am wrong,

I live in Illinois and have dual citizenship. I fucking jump through hoops to get a firearms owners ID card, buy a firearm or buy ammo. And now some knives are off limits to me.

I belong to a shooting range that gives me 24 hour access to target ranges and practical pistol courses. I have a concealed permit, never carry if I plan to have a drink, go to sporting venues, and other social situations. I always carry if Im in public with my kids. We have shootings at the mall frequently also.

Interesting stat, Not one NRA member has committed a crime in my town.

By your argument, it is all a waste of time.

Generally yes it is if the INS and Border Patrol did their jobs.
I'd worry more about homegrown radicals personally.

tough old man wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 3:36 pm
This is the simple answer.

Really, TOM, I love you man, you are a gentleman and a patriot, but you should not be so trusting and you should do your homework. From the folks at Mt Vernon, they have a whole list of spurious quotations attributed to GW...
http://www.mountvernon.org/library/digi ... uotations/

This quote is partially accurate as the beginning section is taken from Washington's First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union. However, the quote is then manipulated into a differing context and the remaining text is inaccurate. Here is the actual text from Washington's speech:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29431