Quantcast

Surgeon General Nominee Decidedly Anit-Gun

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    No, that would be a violation of the law.

    I was speaking of rights, exercised without breaking the law. You may yell fire in the theater, especially if there IS a fire in the theater and you need people to get out.

    However, passing laws that prohibit people from being allowed to even have a weapon or a certain kind of weapon does indeed violate their rights, separate from any function of having broken the law or harmed someone.
     
  2. Ed N.

    Ed N. Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    291
    Location:
    Haines City, Florida

    This old canard is becoming rather tiresome, but I'll address it anyway.

    It's only a problem to yell "FIRE!" in a theatre if there's no fire. If there is, yelling may help sound the alarm and get people out and summon help.

    Similarly, shooting someone without a need for self-defense is already illegal, but using a gun to stop a violent crime may save lives.

    Restricting the right to possess a firearm would be akin to gagging all theatre goers to deprive them of the ability to yell "FIRE!" based on the presumtion that they might do so improperly.

    IOW, the old "shouting FIRE" argument is silly.

    BTW, I hope you're aware that violence, including so-called "gun violence" has been decreasing in the US even as gun ownership has been increasing. One could therefore make the argument that the "cure" to the "health problem of gun violence" is to ensure that more people have guns.

    Alcoholism is another serious health problem. Do we study it by concerning ourselves with the easy availability of liquor? Do we suggest psych evaluations and background checks before we allow someone to purchase a bottle of Jack Daniels? Do we seek legislation to limit the number of beers in a case?
     
  3. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Prohibition tends to work out ever so well...
     
  4. DT Guy

    DT Guy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,439
    Unless I flat out wasted six years of college studying psychology, I can completely, absolutely state that it is not possible to do so.

    And you trust our legislature to achieve this miracle of pure science....how? They have an agenda, just like you do.

    As I suspected, just an anti looking to troll; if I wanted to have these sorts of conversations, I'd go to Democratic Underground, or talk to my beagle.

    Larry
     
  5. ugaarguy

    ugaarguy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,046
    Climbskirun, you wanted data. All the data you want is available from the FBI in the form of their Uniform Crime Reports.

    However, I'll give you an article which was published by the very left leaning Slate magazine last year after the post Sandy Hook, Obama mandated, CDC report on so-called "gun violence" was released. Slate's talking points are:

    However, this ignores that some other developed countries have higher overall homicide rates. It also ignores that the overall violent crime rates are higher in many other countries, including the UK.

    The FBI UCR trends show that all violent crime, including murders, and including all violent crimes, have been steadily and significantly decreasing for at least the past decade. How do you explain this drastic decrease in violent crime, and drastic decrease in violent crimes committed with guns despite the fact that gun laws have become far more lenient in most states over the past decade? How do you explain that cities like Chicago have the highest murder rates in the US, and the highest rates of crimes committed with firearms despite having the most restrictive state and local gun laws in the US?

    #3. Pretty much irrelevant.

    #4. We'll skip this one for a moment because it ties in with #7.

    That's pretty straight forward. Mass murders make the news because they're exceedingly uncommon. They're much like plane crashes making the news because plane crashes are exceedingly uncommon, and they likewise make up a very tiny percentage of transportation related deaths in the US each year.

    That's a fun little figure to throw out, but it's meaningless without comparison to the overall suicide rates in other countries. For example, Japan has the lowest rate of homicides committed by firearm of any developed country, and they have one of the lowest rates of suicides committed by firearm of any developed country. However, Japan has one of the highest rates of suicides by all means of any developed country. They have a far higher overall suicide rate than does the US.

    Back to #4:
    Actually, handguns are the solution:
    So, even Slate concedes that firearms are the most effective way of defending one self from a violent crime. Handguns are the firearms most likely to be used in self defense, because they're easy to carry. So, we should actually be making it easier for law abiding citizens to legally carry handguns.

    "Arms race" is some nice inflammatory language. The guns in drug dealing areas aren't the problem. It's the drug dealing criminals, who also happen to be illegally carrying firearms, that are the problem. See the distinction?

    That's a nice conclusion to draw if you have an anti-gun agenda. However, what this statistic really shows is that barring those under retraining orders from having guns does little to help. What it really shows us that if you take away one tool a truly violent and determined person with simply use the next most effective tool to commit the violent assault or murder.

    This is actually surprisingly neutral. Of course the dealers that sell the most guns will have the most by volume that eventually end up in the hands of criminals, but that the percentage is equal to the already low national average of such instances.
     
  6. David E

    David E Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,455
    Except that you do.

    You said:

    So clearly you think that WE must find a middle ground that Fineswine and her ilk can live with, else they will find one that we cannot.

    That's naive, wishful thinking on your part and needs to be pointed out. They do not care one big about our gunrights. What makes you think they do?

    That you take such umbrage at me and others pointing out real historical gun control facts and counter them with more unworkable gun control rubbish verifies you're an antigun troll.

    I dismiss thee.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2014
  7. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    8,838
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    I haven't had time to go through everything here, but I'll chime in a little on this one. Ignore me if this has already been addressed.

    The issue with funding studies into this, where it concerns policies that can be used to influence or create new gun laws, is that the government is funding these studies. The government has no business funding studies into things which can be used to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.

    As to "gun violence"...gun violence is nothing more than violence plus guns. If there are any studies which need to be done, they should be done on causes of VIOLENCE, period. This is how we "move away from stupid, irrational measures" with respect to gun dontrol laws...we focus the government on the actual PROBLEMS and not the TOOLS that any given problem child in society may use.
     
  8. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,865
    Location:
    WNY
    The recent meta-analyses of violence prediction show that no current general measure exists that can predict violence. The only predictor is a history of past violence. Any mass screening measure would produce a tremendous wave of false positive. Clinical interviews have been shown to be useless except in an extremely small set of highly disturbed individuals.

    Any funding of research would go through a paradigmatic bias that would only fund negatively oriented research. A positive finding would have a very hard time being published in the current peer reviewed journals.

    If some measure of gun control was not found to work - the conclusion would be that the measure would not be strict enough.

    I personally heard Koper and Roth report how the AWB did NOTHING on any known crime indices. Our conclusion - it was stupid. Their conclusion and that of the DOJ discussant was the ban wasn't strict enough.

    We do know the ban was a joke. It did not confiscate existing weapons and allowed weapons of equal efficacy still to be made (so I don't have a bayonet lug). Thus, it was suggested (and proposed) that total bans of semi rifles and confiscation of existing types should be done.

    That's what you would get from federally funded research (probably under any GOP or Democratic administration). The scientific community is clearly antifirerams at the high end decision makers.
     
  9. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    26,185
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    We can't solve the problem of violence until we stop trying to use the problem to further someone's political agenda.

    There is no such thing as gun violence, knife violence, blunt object violence or any other kind of violence you can think of. There is only violence. Guns. knives, axes, clubs....they are all inanimate objects and cannot hurt anyone.

    There are many causes of violence, but the tools used are never the cause. The cause is always a person who decides to harm another person.

    People who are prone to violence and societies that condone the use of violence (and yes there are many sub-societies here in the US that accept violence as a way to solve problems) will be violent if they don't have access to a gun, knife, club axe or anything else but their bare hands.

    Our tradition of private ownership of firearms has no relationship to the level of violence in this country and removal of them from society (which is not physically possible) would not bring our violence level down to that of the European or Japanese society.

    No one wants to talk about the measures that would be necessary to lower the level of violence among certain subsets of the American population because it would mean making some admissions about our society that would not be politically correct and would go against the doctrine of certain political beliefs that aren't on topic here at THR.

    I spent 25 years of my life dealing with criminals from being a patrol officer to running the jail. There are cultural and economic factors that cause our rate of violent crime to be high. Those cultural things are not racial. There are just as many violent crimes in neighborhoods populated mostly by whites as there are in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. The common denominator is lack of a stable family structure, little or no economic opportunity and drugs (especially alcohol). You don't see so much violent crime in places where most of the residents have a strong family structure, economic opportunity (not a government program) and no need to be a drunk or an addict to deal with the lack of the other things. When violence does occur in those neighborhoods it's usually alcohol or drug related.

    Until we are ready to deal with those problems we won't solve the violence problem.
     
  10. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    8,838
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    OK, I've finally had the time to catch up on things in this string. And, quite honestly, I'm not impressed at all. Not nearly so much as I was hoping to be, given the information that the original post could have elicited for me to research.

    Despite claims, what I'm seeing here in nearly every instance of posting by the OP is classic anti-gun rhetoric. Whether the OP truely believes what he says about being "pro-gun" or not, I'll leave to the OP. But for the rest of us, as with all other factors in life, what we have to go by is what a person actually says and does.

    I'm going to bow out of this, but before I do, I'd like to address this particular fallicy:



    The First Amendment does not come into play with this at all. The First Amendment, and all the other amendments as well as the body of the Constitution, is all about placing limitations on what the GOVERNMENT can do with respect to the citizens, for each particular topic.


    With respect to the First Amendment, let's start with what it says:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    This has absolutely NOTHING to do with limiting what any citizen may say, much less yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, as the OP directly infers. It has EVERYTHING to do limiting what the GOVERNMENT may do with respect to suppression of speech and press.

    It's a limit on the GOVERNMENT, not the CITIZENS. It's there to protect the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT, not the other way around; nor is it there to protect the citizens from other citizens.


    This is a classic example of the meaningless tripe that is most often used by those who promote gun control. It is manipulative, it is deceiving (i.e. "lying"), and it is a fallacious ad hominem.


    On that note, I bid the all a good day. Or night.

    :cool:
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2014
  11. Walkalong

    Walkalong Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    60,850
    Location:
    Alabama
    That isn't a fact, and is a ruse antis use to try to scare gun owners into settling for more infringements on their rights, or as the antis like to do, chip chip away at the stone.
    Violence results in many more deaths than that. All of the violence is committed by people, mostly criminals. Do you care not for those deaths where people were pushed off of roofs, but only those where the criminal chose to use a gun?

    There simply is no such thing as gun violence. That phrase is a favored weapon the hard core antis use to try to get anti gun support. They hate guns and they hate free men with guns even worse.

    You can either understand these things and learn to fight back for your gun rights, or continue to assist, even if only unwittingly, the antis.
     
  12. climbskirun

    climbskirun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    31
    Not sure why I expected a rational discussion on this subject. Lots of folks seem to be in denial of what's going on outside the NRA echo chamber, and when a dissenting voice is introduced it's quickly shouted down with sloganeering, pithy quotes, strawmen, condescension, name calling, etc. Won't make that mistake again, I promise you that much.

    Oh, and for those who laughably claim I'm anti-gun: D700Kj0.jpg
     
  13. zxcvbob

    zxcvbob Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    5,061
    Location:
    S.E. Minnesota
    I have no idea what the point of your last pic is supposed to be.
     
  14. ugaarguy

    ugaarguy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,046
    No one has called you names, and we don't tolerate that here. How have we been irrational? I've personally provided you with links to the data you requested.
     
  15. Fred Fuller

    Fred Fuller Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2004
    Messages:
    21,218
    Location:
    AL, NC
    At a gathering memorializing victims of "gun violence" in New Hampshire last summer, sponsored by the organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a list of names of people "killed by guns" was read aloud to the assembled crowd.

    One of those names was Tamerlan Tsarnaev.*

    If you don't recognize the name, he was one of the two brothers suspected of the Boston Marathon bombing, and was killed (at least in part) by police gunfire.

    Among those thousands and thousands of Americans who died from "gun violence," how many others were killed in the line of duty by law enforcement officers? How many were killed in legal self defense by law abiding gun owners? How many were suicides?

    *http://news.msn.com/us/gun-control-group-sorry-for-listing-boston-bomber-as-victim
     
  16. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    4,082
    Location:
    Arkansas
    climbskirun, the fact that someone disagrees with your post doesn't necessarily mean that they're irrational, either.
     
  17. climbskirun

    climbskirun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    31
    Calling me "anti" in this context is probably the worst slur, given what that represents to folks here. Save for a few exceptions (Sam comes to mind, perhaps you), all I got is vitriol.
     
  18. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    8,246
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    The fact that you own two firearms doesn't prove crap as to whether you're anti gun.
    Feinstein has a concealed carry permit.
    Michael Moore's bodyguard was arrested with an illegal gun in an airport.

    You having guns actually makes it worse. You think you have the right to them, but others must prove their acceptable mental state before they should be allowed to do so.

    I think I'm going to bow out now and stop feeding the troll.
     
  19. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    4,082
    Location:
    Arkansas
    climbskirun, over the past year and a half or so, we've had quite a few anti-gun trolls come through here. Every one of them has tried to "educate" us on the "errors" of our ways. Every one has tried to explain to us how a little more "commonsense regulation" would benefit us all. Every one made posts that sounded an awful lot like yours. They've used the same language ("gun violence"), made the same proposals ("let's screen everyone before they can buy a gun"), and gotten bent of shape when we didn't jump on the bandwagon. It really shouldn't be that surprising that folks around here believe that you support gun control.
     
  20. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    8,735
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    In the 1990s there was a lot of talk about treating Gun Violence as a disease, treating the gun as the germ to be eliminated (remove the cause, cure the disease--Christoffel), even to the point of CDC advocates discussing the need to do research to prove that pre-assumed conclusion in order to lobby Congress for more gun control. That is not how research is supposed to be done.

    There is also a federal law prohibiting the use of federal research funds (from the executive branch) to lobby Congress on specific legislation. The NRA called attention to that in the 1990s, and that is what has ended using research funds for junk science to prove an apriori assumption.

    Honestly, tens of millions of citizens own guns and do not perpetrate gun violence. Gun violence therefore is more like an immune system failure, not at all like a virulent pathogen causing disease in a healthy individual.

    But the claim that the NRA has blocked research into gun violence is BS. The NRA has blocked using federal research funds to lobby Congress. That has not prevented a large body of pure research into violence.

    CDC, Funding Opportunity Announcements, Additional Requirements
    http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/grants/additional_req.shtm#ar13
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2014
  21. Ed N.

    Ed N. Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    291
    Location:
    Haines City, Florida

    If you're an honest man, you'll admit that I did none of those things.

    What I did do was to politely disagree with you, point out a flaw or two in your position, and ask you a few questions, all of which you've ignored.

    Other posters have been similarly polite and have provided strong evidence against your arguments. Rather than discuss the matter, now you're crying "You guys are too mean! You're not being nice to me! MOMMY!"

    Bah!

    You're either unaware of, or unwilling to acknowledge, the mountain of research that's already been done regarding firearms over many years. The only possible reason anyone could insist we must do even more research is because he doesn't like the results and conclusions of the prior research.

    This matter has been settled, academically by many studies from Lott to Kleck and others (even the FBI), and judicially by the US Supreme Court. I see absolutely zero need to waste taxpayer dollars on studying "gun violence."
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2014
  22. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    8,735
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    In that famous statement often misquoted, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. compared criticizing the draft in WWI to falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic, to justify government censorship of free speech during wartime. The analogy has nothing to do with "Public health and safety considerations" but everything to do with authoritarian government finding excuses to gut the Bill of Rights when it is convenient to the powers that be.

    I think it ranks with his infamous statement in support of the Virginia Sterilization Act (three generations of imbeciles is enough) to justify sterilizing a woman, her mother and her daughter, in the case of Carrie Buck falsely committed to a mental institution as a promiscuous idiot in the coverup of a rape by the relative of her foster parents.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2014
  23. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    8,735
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    The National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice to train citizens eligible for military service provided surplus military weapons as used by soldiers. NBPRP was set up about the time (1903) that the state militias were federalized as the National Guard creating a difference between National Guard, state militias, state guards, and the "unorganized militia" the rest of us capable of serving in some way in time of national emergency.

    That still is carried on in the Civilian Marksmanship Program CMP. The local gun club affiliated with the CMP also holds Modern and Vintage Military Matches to encourage interest in miltary arms and history among participants and competitors of all ages. The CMP programs offer more range time and more varied gun handling than I got in Basic Training in 1966. And a weapon used by soldiers is required.
     
  24. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    8,735
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    There is some older research out there by a criminologist who hated guns,
    Prof. Marvin E. Wolfgang:
    BUT he pointed out that violence is more a matter of motive and opportunity than specific means.

    Marvin E. Wolfgang, Patterns in Criminal Homicide, U. of Pa. Press, 1958.
    A study of 588 murders that occurred from 1948 to 1952 including
    background and relationship of murderer and victim, and circumstances
    of the murder:
     
  25. Pizzapinochle

    Pizzapinochle member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Messages:
    570
    somewhere between 300-400 firearm deaths a year are ruled justifiable homicides. Out of 30,000+ deaths.

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc....-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-14

    What was your point?
     
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