|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 04 2013 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 04:58 FallDownMarigold wrote:Based on current perspectives in public health, scientists argue it is probable that much might be accomplished toward the reduction in firearm nonfatal injury, accidental death, suicide, and homicide by addressing the environment in which these problems persist without imposing outright bans or infringing on the second amendment right to bear arms: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1302631An easy and practical approach to reduction in firearm violence begins with small steps toward improvement of social norms with regard to gun ownership and regulatory tightening of irresponsible and illegal firearms transaction: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1680142While the current bipartisan attention focuses heavily on specific proposed measures toward gun control such as regulation on high capacity, rapidly firing weapons, waiting periods after firearm purchase, and universal background checks, which all may prove worthwhile to explore further, these specific measures cause disagreement due to second amendment interpretations and regional preferences. It is crucial to tackle the issue with an approach informed by other examples of successes in public health, which entails addressing broader problems in addition to examining specific proposed measures: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167It must be made more clear to the public that the lack of active research on firearm prevalence is alarming. Since the 1990s there has been a complete falling off on research into the area. Whether laws and regulations have good or bad consequences cannot be known without an increase in active research on firearm possession and use in the US. Today, with almost no funding for firearm violence research, there are almost no researchers. Counting all academic disciplines together, no more than a dozen active, experienced investigators in the United States have focused their careers primarily on firearm violence. Why did this happen? In the early 1990s, scientists were producing evidence that might have been used to reform the nation's firearm policies.
...
This is not how the United States usually responds to a public health emergency. In the 1960s, the nation recognized a fast-growing crisis related to motor vehicle traffic fatalities. We created an agency, led by internist-epidemiologist William Haddon, MD, to launch an aggressive research effort and recommend and implement evidence-based interventions. http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661391 Again, in other words, mount a political propaganda campaign to change the culture, dressing it up with the facade of being medical expertise. Not that I am criticizing propaganda, but please let's say what it is.
Just because you think public health isn't a thing doesn't mean that it isn't.
|
If your quick opinion without having actually read any of those papers is that it's all a political agenda in the disguise of a genuine public health matter that has caused great alarm in the healthcare & physicians community, then I will go ahead and let you know that not only are you offensive to say that, but you are outright dismissive and obdurately ignorant too.
Un-fucking-believable. It makes me so sad and mad at the same time that there are people like this who would rather plug ears and claim "it's an agenda" than actually weigh the sides in order to come up with an approach to what physicians and scientists identify, devoid of partisanship, as a real public health problem. They do not do so by attacking claims, they do so by outright dismissal. Sickening
|
On May 04 2013 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 04:58 FallDownMarigold wrote:Based on current perspectives in public health, scientists argue it is probable that much might be accomplished toward the reduction in firearm nonfatal injury, accidental death, suicide, and homicide by addressing the environment in which these problems persist without imposing outright bans or infringing on the second amendment right to bear arms: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1302631An easy and practical approach to reduction in firearm violence begins with small steps toward improvement of social norms with regard to gun ownership and regulatory tightening of irresponsible and illegal firearms transaction: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1680142While the current bipartisan attention focuses heavily on specific proposed measures toward gun control such as regulation on high capacity, rapidly firing weapons, waiting periods after firearm purchase, and universal background checks, which all may prove worthwhile to explore further, these specific measures cause disagreement due to second amendment interpretations and regional preferences. It is crucial to tackle the issue with an approach informed by other examples of successes in public health, which entails addressing broader problems in addition to examining specific proposed measures: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167It must be made more clear to the public that the lack of active research on firearm prevalence is alarming. Since the 1990s there has been a complete falling off on research into the area. Whether laws and regulations have good or bad consequences cannot be known without an increase in active research on firearm possession and use in the US. Today, with almost no funding for firearm violence research, there are almost no researchers. Counting all academic disciplines together, no more than a dozen active, experienced investigators in the United States have focused their careers primarily on firearm violence. Why did this happen? In the early 1990s, scientists were producing evidence that might have been used to reform the nation's firearm policies.
...
This is not how the United States usually responds to a public health emergency. In the 1960s, the nation recognized a fast-growing crisis related to motor vehicle traffic fatalities. We created an agency, led by internist-epidemiologist William Haddon, MD, to launch an aggressive research effort and recommend and implement evidence-based interventions. http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661391 Again, in other words, mount a political propaganda campaign to change the culture, dressing it up with the facade of being medical expertise. Not that I am criticizing propaganda, but please let's say what it is.
You´re ignorant as fuck
User was warned for this post
|
On May 04 2013 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 04:58 FallDownMarigold wrote:Based on current perspectives in public health, scientists argue it is probable that much might be accomplished toward the reduction in firearm nonfatal injury, accidental death, suicide, and homicide by addressing the environment in which these problems persist without imposing outright bans or infringing on the second amendment right to bear arms: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1302631An easy and practical approach to reduction in firearm violence begins with small steps toward improvement of social norms with regard to gun ownership and regulatory tightening of irresponsible and illegal firearms transaction: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1680142While the current bipartisan attention focuses heavily on specific proposed measures toward gun control such as regulation on high capacity, rapidly firing weapons, waiting periods after firearm purchase, and universal background checks, which all may prove worthwhile to explore further, these specific measures cause disagreement due to second amendment interpretations and regional preferences. It is crucial to tackle the issue with an approach informed by other examples of successes in public health, which entails addressing broader problems in addition to examining specific proposed measures: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167It must be made more clear to the public that the lack of active research on firearm prevalence is alarming. Since the 1990s there has been a complete falling off on research into the area. Whether laws and regulations have good or bad consequences cannot be known without an increase in active research on firearm possession and use in the US. Today, with almost no funding for firearm violence research, there are almost no researchers. Counting all academic disciplines together, no more than a dozen active, experienced investigators in the United States have focused their careers primarily on firearm violence. Why did this happen? In the early 1990s, scientists were producing evidence that might have been used to reform the nation's firearm policies.
...
This is not how the United States usually responds to a public health emergency. In the 1960s, the nation recognized a fast-growing crisis related to motor vehicle traffic fatalities. We created an agency, led by internist-epidemiologist William Haddon, MD, to launch an aggressive research effort and recommend and implement evidence-based interventions. http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661391 Again, in other words, mount a political propaganda campaign to change the culture, dressing it up with the facade of being medical expertise. Not that I am criticizing propaganda, but please let's say what it is.
wat
how exactly are scientific articles published in reputable medical journals propaganda?
|
Yes they should. There just needs to be mental health tests and checkups in place if you want to own a gun.
|
On May 04 2013 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 04:58 FallDownMarigold wrote:Based on current perspectives in public health, scientists argue it is probable that much might be accomplished toward the reduction in firearm nonfatal injury, accidental death, suicide, and homicide by addressing the environment in which these problems persist without imposing outright bans or infringing on the second amendment right to bear arms: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1302631An easy and practical approach to reduction in firearm violence begins with small steps toward improvement of social norms with regard to gun ownership and regulatory tightening of irresponsible and illegal firearms transaction: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1680142While the current bipartisan attention focuses heavily on specific proposed measures toward gun control such as regulation on high capacity, rapidly firing weapons, waiting periods after firearm purchase, and universal background checks, which all may prove worthwhile to explore further, these specific measures cause disagreement due to second amendment interpretations and regional preferences. It is crucial to tackle the issue with an approach informed by other examples of successes in public health, which entails addressing broader problems in addition to examining specific proposed measures: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167It must be made more clear to the public that the lack of active research on firearm prevalence is alarming. Since the 1990s there has been a complete falling off on research into the area. Whether laws and regulations have good or bad consequences cannot be known without an increase in active research on firearm possession and use in the US. Today, with almost no funding for firearm violence research, there are almost no researchers. Counting all academic disciplines together, no more than a dozen active, experienced investigators in the United States have focused their careers primarily on firearm violence. Why did this happen? In the early 1990s, scientists were producing evidence that might have been used to reform the nation's firearm policies.
...
This is not how the United States usually responds to a public health emergency. In the 1960s, the nation recognized a fast-growing crisis related to motor vehicle traffic fatalities. We created an agency, led by internist-epidemiologist William Haddon, MD, to launch an aggressive research effort and recommend and implement evidence-based interventions. http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661391 Again, in other words, mount a political propaganda campaign to change the culture, dressing it up with the facade of being medical expertise. Not that I am criticizing propaganda, but please let's say what it is.
Ugh, dude. That's a very cynical and irresponsible way of putting it, even for you.
|
On May 04 2013 05:23 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 04 2013 04:58 FallDownMarigold wrote:Based on current perspectives in public health, scientists argue it is probable that much might be accomplished toward the reduction in firearm nonfatal injury, accidental death, suicide, and homicide by addressing the environment in which these problems persist without imposing outright bans or infringing on the second amendment right to bear arms: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1302631An easy and practical approach to reduction in firearm violence begins with small steps toward improvement of social norms with regard to gun ownership and regulatory tightening of irresponsible and illegal firearms transaction: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1680142While the current bipartisan attention focuses heavily on specific proposed measures toward gun control such as regulation on high capacity, rapidly firing weapons, waiting periods after firearm purchase, and universal background checks, which all may prove worthwhile to explore further, these specific measures cause disagreement due to second amendment interpretations and regional preferences. It is crucial to tackle the issue with an approach informed by other examples of successes in public health, which entails addressing broader problems in addition to examining specific proposed measures: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167It must be made more clear to the public that the lack of active research on firearm prevalence is alarming. Since the 1990s there has been a complete falling off on research into the area. Whether laws and regulations have good or bad consequences cannot be known without an increase in active research on firearm possession and use in the US. Today, with almost no funding for firearm violence research, there are almost no researchers. Counting all academic disciplines together, no more than a dozen active, experienced investigators in the United States have focused their careers primarily on firearm violence. Why did this happen? In the early 1990s, scientists were producing evidence that might have been used to reform the nation's firearm policies.
...
This is not how the United States usually responds to a public health emergency. In the 1960s, the nation recognized a fast-growing crisis related to motor vehicle traffic fatalities. We created an agency, led by internist-epidemiologist William Haddon, MD, to launch an aggressive research effort and recommend and implement evidence-based interventions. http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661391 Again, in other words, mount a political propaganda campaign to change the culture, dressing it up with the facade of being medical expertise. Not that I am criticizing propaganda, but please let's say what it is. wat how exactly are scientific articles published in reputable medical journals propaganda?
It's propaganda because violent crime is not a public health issue. Violent crime is a criminological issue.
Medical journals are not qualified to peer-review an article on violent crime, anymore than criminology journals are qualified to peer-review an article on medicine.
The reason they refer to a public health article, instead of a criminological one, is that criminologists figured out decades ago that firearms are not the problem, our sky-high violent crime of all types is. But I suppose it's easier to scapegoat firearms, rather than address the real underlying issues like deep wealth inequality, racial stratification, the War on Drugs, poor mental health support, and the rise of single parent families.
|
Are you qualified to tell medical professionals what they are qualified to identify as matters of public health?
Did the likes of you tell medical professionals that cars are not of concern to doctors? Re: 1960s vehicle death rate problem
Disgusting response
|
On May 04 2013 05:02 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 04 2013 04:58 FallDownMarigold wrote:Based on current perspectives in public health, scientists argue it is probable that much might be accomplished toward the reduction in firearm nonfatal injury, accidental death, suicide, and homicide by addressing the environment in which these problems persist without imposing outright bans or infringing on the second amendment right to bear arms: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1302631An easy and practical approach to reduction in firearm violence begins with small steps toward improvement of social norms with regard to gun ownership and regulatory tightening of irresponsible and illegal firearms transaction: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1680142While the current bipartisan attention focuses heavily on specific proposed measures toward gun control such as regulation on high capacity, rapidly firing weapons, waiting periods after firearm purchase, and universal background checks, which all may prove worthwhile to explore further, these specific measures cause disagreement due to second amendment interpretations and regional preferences. It is crucial to tackle the issue with an approach informed by other examples of successes in public health, which entails addressing broader problems in addition to examining specific proposed measures: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167It must be made more clear to the public that the lack of active research on firearm prevalence is alarming. Since the 1990s there has been a complete falling off on research into the area. Whether laws and regulations have good or bad consequences cannot be known without an increase in active research on firearm possession and use in the US. Today, with almost no funding for firearm violence research, there are almost no researchers. Counting all academic disciplines together, no more than a dozen active, experienced investigators in the United States have focused their careers primarily on firearm violence. Why did this happen? In the early 1990s, scientists were producing evidence that might have been used to reform the nation's firearm policies.
...
This is not how the United States usually responds to a public health emergency. In the 1960s, the nation recognized a fast-growing crisis related to motor vehicle traffic fatalities. We created an agency, led by internist-epidemiologist William Haddon, MD, to launch an aggressive research effort and recommend and implement evidence-based interventions. http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661391 Again, in other words, mount a political propaganda campaign to change the culture, dressing it up with the facade of being medical expertise. Not that I am criticizing propaganda, but please let's say what it is. Just because you think public health isn't a thing doesn't mean that it isn't.
Oh farv let's not get stuck in a manufactured quagmire now.
If your quick opinion without having actually read any of those papers is that it's all a political agenda in the disguise of a genuine public health matter that has caused great alarm in the healthcare & physicians community, then I will go ahead and let you know that not only are you offensive to say that, but you are outright dismissive and obdurately ignorant too.
You know I didn't read the papers how?
If you think "I'm offended" is an argument, that's great actually.
Un-fucking-believable. It makes me so sad and mad at the same time that there are people like this who would rather plug ears and claim "it's an agenda" than actually weigh the sides in order to come up with an approach to what physicians and scientists identify, devoid of partisanship, as a real public health problem. They do not do so by attacking claims, they do so by outright dismissal. Sickening
Exactly what I'm talking about. Look at you positioning yourself as on the side of science, or whatever you wish to call it (medical expertise, whatever). Look at how you are using it. Certainly not in a matter "devoid of partisanship."
Of course it's an agenda, note that I said the fact that it is an agenda does not make it inherently wrong. So I don't understand why you're so angry.
wat
how exactly are scientific articles published in reputable medical journals propaganda?
How they are being used here is which was my point.
I don't see how suggestions for reducing gun violence by making guns harder to obtain and use is a scientific article either, many of the suggestions have not been implemented anywhere so evidence is naturally lacking. The papers say outright gun confiscation is not their goal, so evidence of outright bans working in other countries wouldn't be valid, would it?
Ugh, dude. That's a very cynical and irresponsible way of putting it, even for you.
Cynical yes. Irresponsible no.
It's not as if the "public health" argument is new. It is very much one side of the center of the argument. Do public health concerns outweigh individual rights concerns?
All you guys here are trying to do with this NEMJ stuff is do an end-run around the entire debate and declare the gun-control side winner by default, because these scientific peer-reviewed articles say this! You wouldn't want to argue against doctors and science, would you?! Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective), medical experts are not the only valid source of information or opinion here.
Quite a tempest in a teapot here for a really just stating the obvious post. In an argument everyone tries to use experts to prop up their opinions as being superior because they're based on science. It's part and parcel of effective propaganda. Maybe propaganda is just too much of a scary word for some.
|
The answer to how it's clear you already made up your mind before reading:
You uttered your incredibly ignorant and embarrassing reply mere minutes after the materials were presented to you.
To answer why I'm so angry: knowing people this ignorant and unwilling to give other incredibly rational perspectives a chance, even if it might force alternative views on the matter, exist.
In the end I suppose it's impossible to eliminate this type of ignorance, so maybe I shouldn't feel too bad. I have to keep in mind that the vocal opponents present here are an anomaly in the real world
|
On May 04 2013 06:37 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The answer to how it's clear you already made up your mind before reading:
You uttered your incredibly ignorant and embarrassing reply mere minutes after the materials were presented to you.
Not the materials, the material. When I posted that, only one link had been posted. I read it. I have read the other links. I am not impressed with the practical solutions suggested and am very aware of the way you and others are using the links. As cudgels, not as building blocks.
It appears your anger is based on a mistake.
To answer why I'm so angry: knowing people this ignorant and unwilling to give other incredibly rational perspectives a chance, even if it might force alternative views on the matter, exist.
You continue to prove my point ("incredibly rational perspectives," what a propaganda coup there! Plus the accusation of closed-mindedness, and unreasonableness! Incredible how you manage to pack so much ad hominem into a single sentence.). Again, your charge of ignorance is mistaken.
In the end I suppose it's impossible to eliminate this type of ignorance, so maybe I shouldn't feel too bad. I have to keep in mind that the vocal opponents present here are an anomaly in the real world
Might I offer you the world's tiniest violin on your "I'm taking my ball home" ragedump?
Lots of fascinating psychological stuff going on in you buddy.
It also might disturb - or enlighten, or both - you to know that the vocal opponents of gun control at TL are certainly no anomaly in the real world.
I will say it again: medical opinion on any health issue - and guns can certainly be looked at that way - is important, but not necessarily authoritative, as so many here obviously wish it would be. The NEMJ articles are being used as a way to end-run to a declaration of victory. I object to that.
|
On May 04 2013 06:25 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Are you qualified to tell medical professionals what they are qualified to identify as matters of public health?
wherebugsgo was making an appeal to authority. His argument is that since the article was published in a reputable medical journal, then it must be a legitimate source of information. I'm debunking that fallacy by pointing out the problem with that logic.
On May 04 2013 06:25 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Did the likes of you tell medical professionals that cars are not of concern to doctors? Re: 1960s vehicle death rate problem
Vehicle death rates actually are a public health issue. Unlike violent crime, which is deliberately caused, most vehicle deaths are unintentional.
On May 04 2013 06:25 FallDownMarigold wrote:Disgusting response
Appeal to emotion.
|
On May 04 2013 05:57 Reval wrote:
Yes they should. There just needs to be mental health tests and checkups in place if you want to own a gun.
Just go ahead and jump in, insert your opinion hundreds of pages later.
That said, I agree and I think the majority of Americans and the majority of gun owners agree. Almost nobody wants to have gun violence or bad people owning guns. The question is the details of how to determine who gets one and who doesn't.
|
@ Elem and Sunprince
The authors have an agenda. But why is that a bad thing? Their agenda is seeing less people die not necessarily and only due to firearms alone but due to environments and factors that include firearms. They don't attack because they want to see firearms disappear. They don't want to kill the second amendment. They don't hate the US constitution. The don't hate America. They just want to see the overall numbers involving gun deaths go down, in any way possible. They are concerned with the overall population, not with any one incident or individual. It turns out that you can't always blame the victim/perpetrator in a public health concern, based on many previous examples. You can improve conditions that make making mistakes more difficult (even crimes), and more forgiving. Whether it's a crime or accident does not affect anything. Each year in the US, more civilians die to guns than in the entire Iraq + Aghanistan war, etc. They don't need any of the small steps to outright eliminate gun problems, but the idea is that over a longer period of time, numbers will go down. Not disappear, but down.
It's clear that no amount of perspectives apart from your own understanding of what you think is right will convince you otherwise. So.. you are both are willingly ignorant imo. There is no need to continue the discussion with either of you if you're jut gonna stick to "it's propaganda, and it's not a criminologist"
+ Show Spoiler +Also, DeepElemBlues, I laughed a bit at your outright lie about having read only 1 link due to there having been only 1 link initially. How is it possible that when I first posted the summary containing links to 4 papers, that only 1 was present? There are no edits to that post. It always had 4 papers linked. You simply did not read before you hastily crapped out one of the most ignorant posts in this thread -- and now you're insisting that isn't the case, further proving how ridiculous you are. It's hard to take anything you say seriously knowing that about you. The attack about some alleged psychological problem as an ad hominem doesn't help either.
|
Im all for rights, how about we make it a right not to be surrounded by handguns 24/7 365, id vote for that.
The last kid in the news who got shot could have used that right alot more then the right to have a .22 at age 5
edit: daamn elm, i can feel your scathing rebuke from down here. 
|
On May 04 2013 07:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:@ Elem and Sunprince The authors have an agenda. But why is that a bad thing? Their agenda is seeing less people die not necessarily and only due to firearms alone but due to environments and factors that include firearms. They don't attack because they want to see firearms disappear. They don't want to kill the second amendment. They don't hate the US constitution. The don't hate America. They just want to see the overall numbers involving gun deaths go down, in any way possible. They are concerned with the overall population, not with any one incident or individual. It turns out that you can't always blame the victim/perpetrator in a public health concern, based on many previous examples. Whether it's a crime or accident does not affect anything. Each year in the US, more civilians die to guns than in the Iraq + Aghanistan war, etc. They don't need any of the small steps to outright eliminate gun problems, but the idea is that over a longer period of time, numbers will go down. Not disappear, but down. It's clear that no amount of perspectives apart from your own understanding of what you think is right will convince you otherwise. So.. you are both are willingly ignorant imo. There is no need to continue the discussion with either of you if you're jut gonna stick to "it's propaganda, and it's not a criminologist" + Show Spoiler +Also, DeepElemBlues, I laughed a bit at your outright lie about having read only 1 link due to there having been only 1 link initially. How is it possible that when I first posted the summary containing links to 4 papers, that only 1 was present? There are no edits to that post. It always had 4 papers linked. You simply did not read before you hastily crapped out one of the most ignorant posts in this thread -- and now you're insisting that isn't the case, further proving how ridiculous you are. It's hard to take anything you say seriously knowing that about you. The attack about some alleged psychological problem as an ad hominem doesn't help either.
Lol just because you can't convince someone to agree with you doesn't make them ignorant, nor does it mean the discussion is pointless. I could just as easily say the exact same stupid shit to you. You seem to have a lack of comprehension or understanding of any of the most compelling arguments in support of gun rights, so how about we drop the "you are willingly ignorant" nonsense?
On May 04 2013 07:32 AdamBanks wrote:Im all for rights, how about we make it a right not to be surrounded by handguns 24/7 365, id vote for that. The last kid in the news who got shot could have used that right alot more then the right to have a .22 at age 5 edit: daamn elm, i can feel your scathing rebuke from down here.
First of all, who is "surrounded by handguns 24/7 365" ???
Second of all, you can't say it's my right to take away your right. That's the same logic as saying "tolerate my intolerance".
|
Not my arguments, they are shitting on the authors. No one is saying anything about removing your gun rights altogether, just doing things more responsibly
|
On May 04 2013 08:14 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Not my arguments, they are shitting on the authors. No one is saying anything about removing your gun rights altogether, just doing things more responsibly
You admitted that the authors have an agenda, you can try to sugar coat it all you want, but it is still an agenda. You say there agenda is to reduce deaths, but if they were already of the opinion that imposing restrictions on guns will solve that problem, then their research is extremely likely to confirm their own beliefs. Thus, giving us something to consider when analyzing it. It doesn't mean their data is useless, but we have to consider it to be slightly slanted. Then we have to look at other data and compare it. You can't just say they are an unbiased source of knowledge for guns and their effects in society because they are scientists. Some scientists say climate change is a myth, so we have to take everything we hear with a grain of salt.
|
Ok. So they should just not do any research, because it'll be biased, or inaccurate, and not try anything they might suggest
|
On May 04 2013 06:23 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 05:23 wherebugsgo wrote:On May 04 2013 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 04 2013 04:58 FallDownMarigold wrote:Based on current perspectives in public health, scientists argue it is probable that much might be accomplished toward the reduction in firearm nonfatal injury, accidental death, suicide, and homicide by addressing the environment in which these problems persist without imposing outright bans or infringing on the second amendment right to bear arms: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1302631An easy and practical approach to reduction in firearm violence begins with small steps toward improvement of social norms with regard to gun ownership and regulatory tightening of irresponsible and illegal firearms transaction: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1680142While the current bipartisan attention focuses heavily on specific proposed measures toward gun control such as regulation on high capacity, rapidly firing weapons, waiting periods after firearm purchase, and universal background checks, which all may prove worthwhile to explore further, these specific measures cause disagreement due to second amendment interpretations and regional preferences. It is crucial to tackle the issue with an approach informed by other examples of successes in public health, which entails addressing broader problems in addition to examining specific proposed measures: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167It must be made more clear to the public that the lack of active research on firearm prevalence is alarming. Since the 1990s there has been a complete falling off on research into the area. Whether laws and regulations have good or bad consequences cannot be known without an increase in active research on firearm possession and use in the US. Today, with almost no funding for firearm violence research, there are almost no researchers. Counting all academic disciplines together, no more than a dozen active, experienced investigators in the United States have focused their careers primarily on firearm violence. Why did this happen? In the early 1990s, scientists were producing evidence that might have been used to reform the nation's firearm policies.
...
This is not how the United States usually responds to a public health emergency. In the 1960s, the nation recognized a fast-growing crisis related to motor vehicle traffic fatalities. We created an agency, led by internist-epidemiologist William Haddon, MD, to launch an aggressive research effort and recommend and implement evidence-based interventions. http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661391 Again, in other words, mount a political propaganda campaign to change the culture, dressing it up with the facade of being medical expertise. Not that I am criticizing propaganda, but please let's say what it is. wat how exactly are scientific articles published in reputable medical journals propaganda? It's propaganda because violent crime is not a public health issue. Violent crime is a criminological issue. Medical journals are not qualified to peer-review an article on violent crime, anymore than criminology journals are qualified to peer-review an article on medicine. The reason they refer to a public health article, instead of a criminological one, is that criminologists figured out decades ago that firearms are not the problem, our sky-high violent crime of all types is. But I suppose it's easier to scapegoat firearms, rather than address the real underlying issues like deep wealth inequality, racial stratification, the War on Drugs, poor mental health support, and the rise of single parent families.
This man understands the real problem. Crime is what needs to be solved, not the tools of criminals. And yes, poor mental health, break down of family unit, war on drugs, are all major factors contributing to the problem.
Crime is behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
