Surgeon General Nominee Decidedly Anit-Gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sam1911 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sam1911 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
climbskirun said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

climbskirun said:
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.
Click to expand...
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."

climbskirun said:
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...
Click to expand...
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:
Sam1911 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
How can you be so positive that there isn't a psychological/mental health connection between those? Hogwash, indeed...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Sam1911 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sam1911 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?)
 
DT Guy said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
1) Public health and safety considerations curb your 1A right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Let's stick with "shall not be infringed," shall we? Freedom isn't "safe."
 
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.
 
Arkansas Paul said:
You're fighting a losing battle Sam.
Antis don't convert. Stop trying.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bainter1212 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Gun violence results in over 11,000+ dead Americans each year. How many deaths are caused by fist violence?
 
I don't feel the need to prove myself to you or anyone else
Click to expand...

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:
 
Sam1911 said:
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."
Click to expand...

...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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

So are you for UBC?
 
climbskirun said:
Gun violence results in over 11,000+ dead Americans each year. How many deaths are caused by fist violence?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
How bad is Vivek Murthy's appointment to Surgeon General?
Replies
20
Views
1K
herrwalther
H
H
  • Locked
Pres Obama's Nominee For Surgeon General...Good News (for now)
Replies
6
Views
909
Vikingsoftpaw
Vikingsoftpaw
B
  • Locked
Senate Democrats Push 'Most Anti-Second Amendment' Obama Nominee - See more at: http:
Replies
0
Views
657
Bobk538447
B
S
  • Locked
Eric Holder vote may be within 24 hours
Replies
1
Views
587
hso
hso
tutti
  • Locked
Big Trouble
Replies
4
Views
2K
hso
hso
Back
Top