Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
KIBU
ParticipantI read the post twice and I will restate my questions:
1. Is “yes, we have a problem” an “isolated” problem or not?
2. What exactly is “yes, we have a problem” ?
Until one is honest with the answer, don’t preach.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] My point, which bears repeating as it is actually supported by real evidence, is that for every isolated Santa Monica-type shooting (and, yes, statistically speaking, they are isolated), there are thousands of instances where firearms (not just HANDGUNS) are used to protect life and property.[/quote]
So is the problem an “isolated” problem? Does a minority of data just automatically mean it’s “isolated” ?
Describe what you mean by “yes we have a problem” ?
Until the pro-guns accepts that this country
have a serious problem with guns, their asking of solution are just games. How can you have a solution to a non-problem??? Logic 101 right?Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Yes, we have a problem. What’s the solution? With details, please.[/quote]
Is this an “isolated” problem?
Participant[quote=livinincali] I think the better line of questioning would be we have a serious problem with violence in this country. Guns are just a tool to carry out that violence. Can you confidently say that without the guns the violence would go away. I’d be somewhat hard pressed to believe that.
The two primary areas where violence comes from is the war on drugs and mental unstable people taking various drugs that can have adverse effects. Most serious disputes over drugs are settled by murder because you can’t use the courts to settle those disputes. Many mentally unstable people see improvement from various psychotropic drugs yet a small minority don’t. The warning labels on those drugs do describe adverse effects such as violent behavior.
If we got rid of the war on drugs and spent that money on treating mentally unstable people we’d probably have a far greater effect on violence than any proposed gun regulations.[/quote]
livinincali,
Thank you for your response. Yes, I agree with you that we have the root causes that include drug/mental health etc and the guns are tools. I believe that it make a huge difference when one has a gun versus not having a gun readily to carry the violence out.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=KIBU]More shootings and death in Santa Monica, close to the college:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/two-injured-santa-monica-shooting-566213
It seems like everyday, there are plenty of the so called “isolated” deaths by guns all over the cuountry.[/quote]
KIBU: Again, a red herring. There are thousands of gun deaths around the country. I never disputed that. My point was specific to mass killings, and a specific rebuttal to your assertion that mass killings were commonplace. Which, they are not.
Let’s try this another way, since you clearly skipped your Logic 101 course in undergrad.
What do you favor as the answer to this intractable problem?
A complete ban on all firearms?
A partial ban on some firearms?
Some specific limits?
Instead of being sarcastic, and without a plan, how’s about you take a stand and tell us your SPECIFIC PLAN WITH DETAILS.
You up for that? Or, are you simply content to spew bullshit talking points without actually addressing a problem you clearly feel so strongly about?[/quote]
One has to be sincere and understand that a real problem exists in this country before talking about the solution.
When one is still dishonest about the issue then the asking for solutions is just another dishonest attempt for more rhetorics in the hope to distract with the aim to go no where on this issue. I won’t entertain those grade school begging for a fight, but at other threads and other time, I have put in some suggestions for discussion on gun safety which others have raised them here as well.
How about starting with accepting that we do have a serious problem with guns in this country. From there, nothing ever could stop Americans in finding a solution for anything. If we don’t accept that there is a problem, don’t kid around with solution.
ParticipantMore shootings and death in Santa Monica, close to the college:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/two-injured-santa-monica-shooting-566213
It seems like everyday, there are plenty of the so called “isolated” deaths by guns all over the country.
ParticipantNotice that the proguns always scream for “evidence”, in the face of reality. That’s their tactics to hold on to their guns. Then they go and mislead people, instill fears in Americans of losing their liberty, etc. It’s just the old self delusional tactics that insult their own intelligence. It’s very common and tiring “argument” in the face of death by guns in America.
Again, it’s interesting that the guy had 1,300 bullets to “protect” his life, property and “liberty”.
—————————–
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm
Protection Or Peril? Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds
Sep. 30, 2009 — In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.
Share This:The study was released online this month in the American Journal of Public Health, in advance of print publication in November 2009.
“This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns are protective or perilous,” notes study author Charles C. Branas, PhD, Associate Professor of Epidemiology. “Will possessing a firearm always safeguard against harm or will it promote a false sense of security?”
What Penn researchers found was alarming – almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died. The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low. People should rethink their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures, write the authors. Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a defense against a dangerous environment should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered.
A 2005 National Academy of Science report concluded that we continue to know very little about the impact of gun possession on homicide or the utility of guns for self-defense. Past studies had explored the relationship between homicides and having a gun in the home, purchasing a gun, or owning a gun. These studies, unlike the Penn study, did not address the risk or protection that having a gun might create for a person at the time of a shooting.
Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.
These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study’s controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes.
“The US has at least one gun for every adult,” notes Branas. “Learning how to live healthy lives alongside guns will require more studies such as this one. This study should be the beginning of a better investment in gun injury research through various government and private agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control, which in the past have not been legally permitted to fund research ‘designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.’”
This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors are also indebted to numerous dedicated individuals at the Philadelphia Police, Public Health, Fire, and Revenue Departments as well as DataStat Inc, who collaborated on the study.
Therese S. Richmond, PhD, CRNP, School of Nursing; Dennis P. Culhane, PhD, School of Social Policy; Thomas R. Ten Have, PhD, MPH, and Douglas J. Wiebe, PhD, both from the School of Medicine, are co-authors.
Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:ParticipantYep, the guy got 1300 bullets to protect his life and property alright.
ParticipantThat guy had 1300 bullets with him.
Man, that’s a lot of money the stupid guy paid.
He only killed 5 or so.
Man, he wasted about 1000 bullets left unused.
ParticipantThis is interesting from a study done by researchers at Harvard medical school:
Study: Immigrants provide $115B subsidy to Medicare
They use fewer services than Americans doWASHINGTON — Immigrants contributed about $115 billion more from their paychecks to the Medicare Trust Fund than they took out over a seven-year period in the past decade, according to researchers at Harvard Medical School.
As the Senate debates a new immigration bill and House Republicans work toward a bill that restricts access to government services for unauthorized immigrants who become legal citizens, the researchers concluded in a study released Wednesday that restricting immigration could deplete the fund.
Researchers looked at data from 2002 to 2009.
“The assumption that immigrants are just a drain has been a part of the argument that people should be denied services,” said Leah Zallman, lead researcher and an instructor at Harvard Medical School. “Immigration policy has been closely linked to Medicare’s finances.”
Immigrant subsidy
Studies had shown that immigrants use less health care than U.S.-born people, including in government programs, but no one had looked at their contributions to those programs.In 2009, the researchers found, immigrants contributed $13.9 billion more to the Medicare Trust Fund than they used, while U.S.-born people spent $31 billion more than they contributed. Immigrants, Zallman said, essentially subsidize U.S. health care.
Participant[quote=CA renter] The second culture/group might instead value free time, and not care at all about how their homes/neighborhoods look, nor care as much about crime because they feel that their freedoms might be curtailed if they focus too much on keeping crime rates down. They would probably NOT be willing to spend more money or work harder toward the same goals as those in the first group.[/quote]
Does this “second culture” description reminds you of something? It reminds me of the gun culture of America.
ParticipantAn eye for an eye?
ParticipantCA renter,
When you say some revolution that will/may come, is it an arm revolution that you are talking about?
If yes, then there may be a real reason why some people need to pile up the firearms.
There are revolutions in the field of technology, biological sciences, chemistry, thoughts…..but in any society there will be always a small sector who dream about armed revolution. It’s a means for them to gain power with the power of the gun instead of using some grey matter.
Even when we want changes, we have better ways to push for change in our institutions rather than “revolution”.
Anyway, I don’t trust the guy down the street with revolutionary guns. I must say that I trust our government 100 times more.
ParticipantPieces of history applied in a hallucinating way not related to reality is as disingenuous as one can be. It serves the purpose of misleading the people in the name of “history”.
If one knows about history, one ought to know that little overuse trick.
-
AuthorPosts