2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Glasser on August 28, 2021, 07:19:42 AM
-
They have to protect your health, its for your own good.
CNN EXCLUSIVE 'Something has to be done': After decades of near-silence from the CDC, the agency's director is speaking up about gun violence
"Something has to be done about this," CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said in an exclusive interview with CNN. "Now is the time -- it's pedal to the metal time."
"The scope of the problem is just bigger than we're even hearing about, and when your heart wrenches every day you turn on the news, you're only hearing the tip of the iceberg," Walensky said.
"We haven't spent the time, energy and frankly the resources to understand this problem because it's been so divided."
"I swore to the President and to this country that I would protect your health. This is clearly one of those moments, one of those issues that is harming America's health," Walensky said.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/27/health/cdc-gun-research-walensky/
-
In 2018, then President Donald Trump signed a government spending bill that allowed the CDC to conduct gun violence research
-
Let them do their "research" they still have to prove it. I doubt they can. I don't support this effort from the CDC. There are more important things to focus on.
-
2 Weeks to Flatten the Curve™
-
The CDC director is on a personal crusade.
Her firend's-cousin's-son got shot so she made it her mission in life to take away guns from everybody.
Same as Sarah Brady (Handgun control inc., Bradyunited)
Same as Candy Lightner (MADD)
This is what women do when they feel victimized....they start crusades.
-
Seeing as how the CDC violated a Supreme Court ruling and declared a law unto themselves regarding private property rights (eviction moratorium) this is definitely concerning. How many leftist states are going to adopt unconstitutional confiscation policies because "CDC made me do it"?
Suddenly I feel the urge to take a boat trip.
-
"Those aren't your guns, pleb. Those are the government's guns and now we want them back."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxdHIQOfg0E
-
The CDC director is on a personal crusade.
Her firend's-cousin's-son got shot so she made it her mission in life to take away guns from everybody.
Same as Sarah Brady (Handgun control inc., Bradyunited)
Same as Candy Lightner (MADD)
This is what women do when they feel victimized....they start crusades.
and when they run over their own children or leave them in their hot car
-
From their website under mission
"CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise."
Health threats is pretty broad. Looks like they decided to include guns.
There is only one way to deal with Liberals. Pol Pot had the right idea.
Empty the cities.
:thumbsup:
-
From their website under mission
"CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise."
Health threats is pretty broad. Looks like they decided to include guns.
There is only one way to deal with Liberals. Pol Pot had the right idea.
Empty the cities.
:thumbsup:
:wtf: :crazy: :wtf:
-
OMG a closet liberal! Nobody ever saw that coming. ::)
(https://s2.qwant.com/thumbr/0x0/e/7/0151a08370eeefe19a06ebab6e0275e7d6958b837ad28d672bb91669b7b067/scooby-doo-unmasking-gif.gif?u=https%3A%2F%2Fgifimage.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F11%2Fscooby-doo-unmasking-gif.gif&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=1)
-
OMG a closet liberal! Nobody ever saw that coming. ::)
(https://s2.qwant.com/thumbr/0x0/e/7/0151a08370eeefe19a06ebab6e0275e7d6958b837ad28d672bb91669b7b067/scooby-doo-unmasking-gif.gif?u=https%3A%2F%2Fgifimage.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F11%2Fscooby-doo-unmasking-gif.gif&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=1)
Use a more accurate picture.
(https://preview.redd.it/ixenjd4ngr101.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=cbe6f308cff4ce5a1330009c1aa8f51d4b8fa04c)
-
The #1 problem with funding the CDC to study gun violence is that the agenda has already been identified: guns.
I would not complain if the CDC wanted to study violence regardless of the type of injury or implement used. Other tools are responsible for more deaths and violent attacks than guns, yet the study is only focused on gun-related cases.
It would be like studying Christians that cheat on their taxes. The problem is already identified: too many Christians cheat on taxes than any other group.
The same bias is apparent when focusing on guns vs. all other causes of injury.
The article said part of the study money is to identify whether the gunshot injury seen in an ER was intentionally self-inflicted, accidental/negligent, or intentionally inflict by someone else. That alone tells you the CDC is not even considering the stats already being collected by law enforcement (FBI). We already know that 60% of gun deaths are suicides.
Seems like much of the studying will be redundant. If you don't like the current numbers & conclusions collected for decades, pay for a second opinion.
-
The CDC already did a study.
Obama or Bush authorized it.
The results were published & confirmed what everyone knew.
-
I see there's alot of polpot supporters here. Hes right up there with hitler. Makes sense.
-
The CDC already did a study.
Obama or Bush authorized it.
The results were published & confirmed what everyone knew.
Obama created a Gun Violence Task Force, and put Biden in charge of it. Approving the CDC to do stats gathering nationally was in the list of executive orders Biden's Task Force recommended, but I don't see where that was ever implemented.
The other study was on the effectiveness of banning Assault Weapons. In that report, many facts were included in the discussion, including the fact that defensive use of firearms massively outnumbers the number of people killed with guns, as well as those injured with guns.
The real issue is that the 2nd Amendment was created in part to allow the populace to protect ourselves from a government that infringes on protected rights. Now that same government will be using our tax dollars to study and implement gun control -- something that directly benefits a government that's infringing on individual liberties.
These studies will never be used to make gun ownership easier or safer. It'll only be used to inhibit ownership, because the underlying premise of the CDC will always be "Guns Bad."
-
I see there's alot of polpot supporters here. Hes right up there with hitler. Makes sense.
"polpot?"
Is that some kind of cannabis derivative?
-
"polpot?"
Is that some kind of cannabis derivative?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot
Some people apparently support him. Are you included?
-
(https://i0.wp.com/www.clairewolfe.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Meme_LarryA_RobspierresLaw_URL.jpg?w=558&ssl=1)
-
The case can certainly be made that guns are a public health issue and if the CDC managed to get rid of all guns reduce the total number of deaths in this country.
BUT
The CDC would probably save even more lives if they got rid of alcohol
AND
I don't think it is acceptable to lose the check and balance against government abuse even if we save more lives in total.
-
The case can certainly be made that guns are a public health issue and if the CDC managed to get rid of all guns reduce the total number of deaths in this country.
Oh I didn't realize we are talking about silly stuff now.
(https://s1.qwant.com/thumbr/0x0/3/9/da469e5d595f293bf9963445bee4d59057a4530ff060c950e748340880a903/657f75ef9bfe1d51836a478fcb202bbe.gif?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gifer.com%2Forigin%2F65%2F657f75ef9bfe1d51836a478fcb202bbe.gif&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=1)
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot
Some people apparently support him. Are you included?
Oh, you were talking about a person using his formal name!
Maybe Caps and spacing would have been a better choice than "too lazy to give a shyt."
BTW, he's dead. No way to support him even if I did.
-
The case can certainly be made that guns are a public health issue and if the CDC managed to get rid of all guns reduce the total number of deaths in this country.
The case could be made that people are the biggest threat to public health and safety. And you can go look up the FBI crime statistics and see there is a group that is only 14% of the population but commits 50% of the violent crimes? Should we get rid of them?
-
The case could be made that people are the biggest threat to public health and safety. And you can go look up the FBI crime statistics and see there is a group that is only 14% of the population but commits 50% of the violent crimes? Should we get rid of them?
Yes please.
-
The case can certainly be made that guns are a public health issue and if the CDC managed to get rid of all guns reduce the total number of deaths in this country.
BUT
The CDC would probably save even more lives if they got rid of alcohol
AND
I don't think it is acceptable to lose the check and balance against government abuse even if we save more lives in total.
Even if the CDC or administration decided to label guns a public health issue, that solves nothing. Cigarettes are a public health issue. What has that accomplished? The gov't still subsidizes the tobacco industry then turns around and heavily taxes consumers.
Given that the number of people able to defend themselves is more than all those killed with a gun (including the 60% of that number deemed suicides), the net result of getting rid of guns would be more people becoming victims of crime. Given that some estimates say that as many as 3 million defensive use of guns occur in the US annually, and 30K die from gunshot, the likelihood is that the "cure" will be worse than the "disease".
We could use the same criteria to designate other things as public health "issues":
Automobiles
Aircraft
Boats
Bicycles
Motorcycles
Swimming Pools
Knives
Ball Bats
The Homeless
Obesity
Video Games
Sitting at a desk all day
Too much salt
Walking across the street
etc.
The same way a DA can indict a "ham sandwich", the CDC can label almost anything a "public health issue."
It's not the CDC's role to control public behavior or ownership of property that they deem "harmful". Centers for DISEASE CONTROL, not Centers for Public Health.
Weaponizing the CDC against the second amendment is what this is about, not safety or saving lives. Gun control has not stopped a single mass shooting. CA has the strictest laws. They also have had the most mass shootings. Maybe the CDC needs to start there to see if the problem is with gangs, drug culture, and fewer people able to defend themselves with guns.
-
Yes please.
I'm good with that.
I've been told many times I'm not "people".
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot
Some people apparently support him. Are you included?
My comment was about "emptying the cities" as a tactic.
I don't believe I subscribed to his other tactics.
That would make me a Democrat party member.
You know Da kine, kill off the white man, anti-christian( Pol Pot was a Buddhist)
anti- technology, wanted an agrarian society( low carbon foot print) and above all,
Government is GOOD!( as long as he was the government).
:stopjack:
CDC is Evil and has no good intentions as does any government agency.
All they want is to make a perfect world for them and screw everybody else.
-
The case could be made that people are the biggest threat to public health and safety. And you can go look up the FBI crime statistics and see there is a group that is only 14% of the population but commits 50% of the violent crimes? Should we get rid of them?
.....
Just imagine vaccinating that 14% with the 3-part vaccine.
It would cut the crime rate in half. It would also eliminate spawning new criminals.
Sounds like a winner to me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection#:~:text=Drugs-,Conventional%20lethal%20injection%20protocol,heart%2C%20and%20midazolam%20for%20sedation.
-
Oh lord, my 14 /50 question was meant to make a point about stopping the walking towards cliffs the left keeps doing, I wasnt taking a poll. Sure looks like 8 yrs of Obama and 4 years of BLM burning cities set back race relations in the US 5 decades.
-
Oh lord, my 14 /50 question was meant to make a point about stopping the walking towards cliffs the left keeps doing, I wasnt taking a poll. Sure looks like 8 yrs of Obama and 4 years of BLM burning cities set back race relations in the US 5 decades.
Personally I think race relations are just fine. We have significant cultural and political differences today,
that preclude peaceful co-existence. We have one culture, your 14% that are predominately Democrat.
that have a free rein from the Party. Problem lies in the Party. That Party thinks it can do as it pleases regardless
of other cultural values and that isn't going too work well for long.
-
Personally I think race relations are just fine. We have significant cultural and political differences today,
that preclude peaceful co-existence. We have one culture, your 14% that are predominately Democrat.
that have a free rein from the Party. Problem lies in the Party. That Party thinks it can do as it pleases regardless
of other cultural values and that isn't going too work well for long.
I still think Obama and BLM did massive damage to the perception of Black folks in America. Race Hustlers have not ever once made anything better for their communities, they only ever lined their own pockets and fed their personal narcissism.
-
Even if the CDC or administration decided to label guns a public health issue, that solves nothing. Cigarettes are a public health issue. What has that accomplished? The gov't still subsidizes the tobacco industry then turns around and heavily taxes consumers.
Given that the number of people able to defend themselves is more than all those killed with a gun (including the 60% of that number deemed suicides), the net result of getting rid of guns would be more people becoming victims of crime. Given that some estimates say that as many as 3 million defensive use of guns occur in the US annually, and 30K die from gunshot, the likelihood is that the "cure" will be worse than the "disease".
We could use the same criteria to designate other things as public health "issues":
Automobiles
Aircraft
Boats
Bicycles
Motorcycles
Swimming Pools
Knives
Ball Bats
The Homeless
Obesity
Video Games
Sitting at a desk all day
Too much salt
Walking across the street
etc.
The same way a DA can indict a "ham sandwich", the CDC can label almost anything a "public health issue."
It's not the CDC's role to control public behavior or ownership of property that they deem "harmful". Centers for DISEASE CONTROL, not Centers for Public Health.
Weaponizing the CDC against the second amendment is what this is about, not safety or saving lives. Gun control has not stopped a single mass shooting. CA has the strictest laws. They also have had the most mass shootings. Maybe the CDC needs to start there to see if the problem is with gangs, drug culture, and fewer people able to defend themselves with guns.
Of course the CDC could call anything a health crisis and it is rather dumb, just a advertising campaign basically but my comment was about if they somehow were able to do what they wanted and get rid of guns.
What would probably have more effect on crime though would be the "public health crisis" of children raised without fathers.
-
Of course the CDC could call anything a health crisis and it is rather dumb, just a advertising campaign basically but my comment was about if they somehow were able to do what they wanted and get rid of guns.
What would probably have more effect on crime though would be the "public health crisis" of children raised without fathers.
I responded to that point. DUG > All Gun Deaths.
Getting rid of all guns would tip the scale in favor of violent criminals, as victims become less able to defend themselves.
-
I responded to that point. DUG > All Gun Deaths.
Getting rid of all guns would tip the scale in favor of violent criminals, as victims become less able to defend themselves.
DUG?
There is no reason to believe that if all legal guns dissapeared overnight that we would be suddenly awash in murders. Crime syndicates in other countries can get guns but they don't have near our gun murder rate. Japan isn't awash in gun murders, the UK isn't awash in gun murders, etc etc. Might robberies increase? Sure, that is a possibility. If you get rid of legal guns that also means that illegal guns will decrease because most illegal guns come from somewhere that started legal (gun factories). I don't think we should try to squirm through this argument, I can concede that if firearms were completely outlawed that we may see a decrease in murder and suicide rates yet still rebut the argument by pointing out that it would mean sacrificing the ability to protect all our other great freedoms from a tyrannical government.
-
The Center for Disease Control. Hmm what diseases have they controlled? Can their methodologies for controlling such diseases be cross overed into LE for "gun control" ? Millions of LE as well as politicians of course would be really, really interested.
History of the CDC
On July 1, 1946 the Communicable Disease Center (CDC) opened its doors and occupied one floor of a small building in Atlanta. Its primary mission was simple yet highly challenging: prevent malaria from spreading across the nation. Armed with a budget of only $10 million and fewer than 400 employees, the agency’s early challenges included obtaining enough trucks, sprayers, and shovels necessary to wage war on mosquitoes.
As the organization took root deep in the South, once known as the heart of the malaria zone, CDC Founder Dr. Joseph Mountin continued to advocate for public health issues and to push for CDC to extend its responsibilities to other communicable diseases. He was a visionary public health leader with high hopes for this small and, at that time, relatively insignificant branch of the Public Health Service. In 1947, CDC made a token payment of $10 to Emory University for 15 acres of land on Clifton Road in Atlanta that now serves as CDC headquarters. The new institution expanded its focus to include all communicable diseases and to provide practical help to state health departments when requested.
Although medical epidemiologists were scarce in those early years, disease surveillance became the cornerstone of CDC’s mission of service to the states and over time changed the practice of public health. There have been many significant accomplishments since CDC’s humble beginnings. The following highlights some of CDC’s important achievements for improving public health worldwide.
Today, CDC is one of the major operating components of the Department of Health and Human Services and is recognized as the nation’s premiere health promotion, prevention, and preparedness agency.
CDC Leader
Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, is the 19th Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the ninth Administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. She is an influential scholar whose pioneering research has helped advance the national and global response to HIV/AIDS. Dr. Walensky is also a well-respected expert on the value of testing and treatment of deadly viruses.
Dr. Walensky served as Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital from 2017-2020 and Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School from 2012-2020. She served on the frontline of the COVID-19 pandemic and conducted research on vaccine delivery and strategies to reach underserved communities.
Dr. Walensky is recognized internationally for her work to improve HIV screening and care in South Africa and nationally recognized for motivating health policy and informing clinical trial design and evaluation in a variety of settings.
She is a past Chair of the Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council at the National Institutes of Health, Chair-elect of the HIV Medical Association, and previously served as an advisor to both the World Health Organization and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS.
Originally from Maryland, Dr. Walensky received her Bachelor of Arts from Washington University in St. Louis, her Doctor of Medicine from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and her Masters in Public Health from the Harvard School of Public Health.
In short, the CDC is the wrong organization to tell us about guns. Why not have the restaurant association tell us about healthy eating? Or how about the FDA talk to us about free speech?
It's not Biden that is dumb his administration and puppet masters are dumb.
-
DUG?
There is no reason to believe that if all legal guns dissapeared overnight that we would be suddenly awash in murders. Crime syndicates in other countries can get guns but they don't have near our gun murder rate. Japan isn't awash in gun murders, the UK isn't awash in gun murders, etc etc. Might robberies increase? Sure, that is a possibility. If you get rid of legal guns that also means that illegal guns will decrease because most illegal guns come from somewhere that started legal (gun factories). I don't think we should try to squirm through this argument, I can concede that if firearms were completely outlawed that we may see a decrease in murder and suicide rates yet still rebut the argument by pointing out that it would mean sacrificing the ability to protect all our other great freedoms from a tyrannical government.
Anyone who puts the two words "gun" and "murder" together has already decided that the problem that causes murders is guns.
So, here you are falling for the anti-gun tactic. You're so focused on guns, you aren't looking at the root causes of violence.
Sounds like you believe disarming the country of legal guns will solve the problem because "no more gun crimes."
Maine has about the same population as Hawaii. They also have Constitutional Carry for firearms. No permit is required for concealed carry. That law became effective Oct 2015. Prior to that, Maine was a "Shall Issue" state for CCW Permits. I have one for non-resident -- expired because I no longer have a need for it.
Maine also has a lower per capital murder rate: Maine = 1.79, Hawaii = 2.53. (2018 stats)
As long as there are real world examples where "less strict gun laws" equals fewer murders -- including "gun murders" -- you will never be able to prove your theory applies to every city, state or nation.
it's not the guns. Every exception to your rule is another case for the Second Amendment to remain.
-
The root cause of all this crime is MURDER Put anything in front of that and it's just a condiment. Human behavior is something we can never address. All the laws in the world. All the heartfelt wishes. WE are the real reason behind crime.
-
The root cause of all this crime is MURDER Put anything in front of that and it's just a condiment. Human behavior is something we can never address. All the laws in the world. All the heartfelt wishes. WE are the real reason behind crime.
Exactly. And once you accept that fact -- that no laws will ever prevent violence in any society by any and all means -- you have to then ask the obvious follow-on question:
How do we protect ourselves once the government laws and bans have failed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
My answer is and always has been: be prepared to apply equal or greater force when confronted with violence.
-
The people who want to take your guns are the same ones who looked the other way when the Miske/Kealoha criminal syndicate was poisoning dance floors with Vikane and dumping bodies of their victims in the ocean.
Your health and safety mean nothing to them.
-
Funny things is folks point to Japan and its lack of Guns to its low crime rate, they ignore the fact they have a ton of stabbings instead and more than a few times a year someone goes off their rocker and does some kind of mass poisoning event instead of using a carbine. The Aum Shinrikyo gas attack wasnt much of a cultural anomaly.
-
For the two of you that point to giving up guns as a good thing why don't you lead and turn all your firearms in? You two collect and don't shoot much anyways.
-
For the two of you that point to giving up guns as a good thing why don't you lead and turn all your firearms in? You two collect and don't shoot much anyways.
Please show me where I said that :shaka: :shaka: I guess actively shooting doesn't help much with comprehension.
I don't support giving up guns. Trump funded the CDC to do their studies. Science will prevail like it did before showing how often guns are used for defense purposes. Can't argue with facts.
-
Please show me where I said that :shaka: :shaka: I guess actively shooting doesn't help much with comprehension.
I don't support giving up guns. Trump funded the CDC to do their studies. Science will prevail like it did before showing how often guns are used for defense purposes. Can't argue with facts.
Where did I mention your SN?
-
Where did I mention your SN?
Didn't you get the memo?
Every post, every topic and every emoji is about HIM.
The universe revolves around him, so anything you say or do will be taken in the context of "How does this include me?"
:geekdanc:
-
For the two of you that point to giving up guns as a good thing why don't you lead and turn all your firearms in? You two collect and don't shoot much anyways.
Only 1 person cited doing what the government says "in the name of the continuation of our nation/greater good". So if the CDC says the same phrase about giving up guns, I expect him to comply. Even though there is no legal force behind it (a suggestion by the CDC, not law). Or if the CDC labels gun deaths/injuries a "pandemic", I expect compliance. If not, the that means his statements are just full of it like normal.
The example was also used before that there may be a 0.00001% chance his guns are stolen and used by a criminal in a crime to harm someone else. And with his logic toward getting a vaxx because there is a chance it could help, also relates. Any argument otherwise is BS. He has already tried and failed.
Goal post about to be moved.
-
Where did I mention your SN?
So he admitted that that post was about him? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Didn't you get the memo?
Every post, every topic and every emoji is about HIM.
The universe revolves around him, so anything you say or do will be taken in the context of "How does this include me?"
:geekdanc:
Forgetting "if it affects me", then I care.
-
Forgetting "if it affects me", then I care.
he spells it "if it effects me"...
-
And to the point of a medical professional entrusted to advise the POTUS and the senior staff to lie to the American People - He should be fired. A President with integrity and with the fiduciary duty to the People of the United States should fire him.
-
Only 1 person cited doing what the government says "in the name of the continuation of our nation/greater good". So if the CDC says the same phrase about giving up guns, I expect him to comply. Even though there is no legal force behind it (a suggestion by the CDC, not law). Or if the CDC labels gun deaths/injuries a "pandemic", I expect compliance. If not, the that means his statements are just full of it like normal.
The example was also used before that there may be a 0.00001% chance his guns are stolen and used by a criminal in a crime to harm someone else. And with his logic toward getting a vaxx because there is a chance it could help, also relates. Any argument otherwise is BS. He has already tried and failed.
Goal post about to be moved.
Yup if proven by science and enacted by the government.
-
Anyone who puts the two words "gun" and "murder" together has already decided that the problem that causes murders is guns.
So, here you are falling for the anti-gun tactic. You're so focused on guns, you aren't looking at the root causes of violence.
Sounds like you believe disarming the country of legal guns will solve the problem because "no more gun crimes."
Maine has about the same population as Hawaii. They also have Constitutional Carry for firearms. No permit is required for concealed carry. That law became effective Oct 2015. Prior to that, Maine was a "Shall Issue" state for CCW Permits. I have one for non-resident -- expired because I no longer have a need for it.
Maine also has a lower per capital murder rate: Maine = 1.79, Hawaii = 2.53. (2018 stats)
As long as there are real world examples where "less strict gun laws" equals fewer murders -- including "gun murders" -- you will never be able to prove your theory applies to every city, state or nation.
it's not the guns. Every exception to your rule is another case for the Second Amendment to remain.
An absence of a firearm doesn't mean people will be less angry or less likely to do harm but it does make it harder to take a life, both physically and emotionally. A firearm enables a violent person to be more violent.
We do need to focus way more on the reasons why these people are violent. Both the left and the right ignore that most significant aspect way too much. But that doesn't mean there isn't a logical aspect to their argument that getting rid of guns would lower violence rates. Does that mean we should ban guns? No, but my answer is for other reasons.
-
Yup if proven by science "consensus" and enacted by the government.
fify
-
An absence of a firearm doesn't mean people will be less angry or less likely to do harm but it does make it harder to take a life, both physically and emotionally. A firearm enables a violent person to be more violent.
We do need to focus way more on the reasons why these people are violent. Both the left and the right ignore that most significant aspect way too much. But that doesn't mean there isn't a logical aspect to their argument that getting rid of guns would lower violence rates. Does that mean we should ban guns? No, but my answer is for other reasons.
I disagree while access does make it easier it also serves as an deterent. Most people don't pick on people who can fight back. The CDC has proven this before by how many times a firearm stops a crime. You have to look at both sides.
Though I do agree with you the biggest change is more mental health programs/services. A gun is nothing but a tool. It's neutral. It's the criminal that is the issue. Normal people are not criminals. Treat the abnormal. Fix them.
-
But that doesn't mean there isn't a logical aspect to their argument that getting rid of guns would lower violence rates.
Back in fantasy island I see.
(https://bensbargains.net/thecheckout/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/forbidden-herve.gif)
-
An absence of a firearm doesn't mean people will be less angry or less likely to do harm but it does make it harder to take a life, both physically and emotionally. A firearm enables a violent person to be more violent.
We do need to focus way more on the reasons why these people are violent. Both the left and the right ignore that most significant aspect way too much. But that doesn't mean there isn't a logical aspect to their argument that getting rid of guns would lower violence rates. Does that mean we should ban guns? No, but my answer is for other reasons.
If someone wants to commit mass murder, they don't need a gun. Does one make it easier? That really depends on the intended target, environment and security.
It's funny how people can assume fewer guns equals fewer murders, yet there are no studies to support that theory. For every case you can name, I can find a case that proves the opposite -- that more guns equals fewer deaths.
You're still unable to grasp that whole "correlation doesn't prove causation" thing, aren't you? You and I went over this round-and-round before. I believe you never proved your case -- just left it as "agree to disagree" or some such withdrawal.
No need to dive into that rabbit hole again.
-
If someone wants to commit mass murder, they don't need a gun. Does one make it easier? That really depends on the intended target, environment and security.
It's funny how people can assume fewer guns equals fewer murders, yet there are no studies to support that theory. For every case you can name, I can find a case that proves the opposite -- that more guns equals fewer deaths.
You're still unable to grasp that whole "correlation doesn't prove causation" thing, aren't you? You and I went over this round-and-round before. I believe you never proved your case -- just left it as "agree to disagree" or some such withdrawal.
No need to dive into that rabbit hole again.
No, mass murderers don't need guns but if you compare mass stabbings to mass shootings, the shootings generally have many more deaths. Guns also make it fundamentally easier than many other alternative methods. There is data that suicide is more likely with a gun due to the fact that gun suicides are much more successful than other methods which offer an option to change one's mind and reverse their action.
Let me back up a little and try to illustrate the pointlessness of debating whether banning guns would save more lives. If they did a bunch of studies and could conclusively show that banning all guns would significantly reduce deaths (both homicides and suicides) would you concede defeat? If they could prove that homicide rates would fall greatly, would you be willing to give up your guns? If your answer was no then it was pointless to argue whether legal guns cause more deaths or not because you aren't going to give up your guns either way. Guns serve a number of important roles so even if banning guns would conclusively result in a net number of lives saved I wouldn't give them up. Therefore I don't choose to place my eggs in that basket because my justification for owning a firearm doesn't rest on trying to prove guns save more lives than they cost.
Banning cigarettes and alcohol would definitely result in a net number of lives saved but no one is willing to give up alcohol so the debate about how many lives would be saved ends up being moot.
-
Bombs are a far better way to mass kill than guns will ever hope to achieve.
-
No, mass murderers don't need guns but if you compare mass stabbings to mass shootings, the shootings generally have many more deaths. Guns also make it fundamentally easier than many other alternative methods. There is data that suicide is more likely with a gun due to the fact that gun suicides are much more successful than other methods which offer an option to change one's mind and reverse their action.
Let me back up a little and try to illustrate the pointlessness of debating whether banning guns would save more lives. If they did a bunch of studies and could conclusively show that banning all guns would significantly reduce deaths (both homicides and suicides) would you concede defeat? If they could prove that homicide rates would fall greatly, would you be willing to give up your guns? If your answer was no then it was pointless to argue whether legal guns cause more deaths or not because you aren't going to give up your guns either way. Guns serve a number of important roles so even if banning guns would conclusively result in a net number of lives saved I wouldn't give them up. Therefore I don't choose to place my eggs in that basket because my justification for owning a firearm doesn't rest on trying to prove guns save more lives than they cost.
Banning cigarettes and alcohol would definitely result in a net number of lives saved but no one is willing to give up alcohol so the debate about how many lives would be saved ends up being moot.
Defeat to whom?
The anti-gunners who want to pretend they can take away all legal guns, and that somehow magically all illegal guns will no longer be available?
The politicians who paint every problem as a simplistic subset of causes that never fix anything?
The only "defeat" I would concede is the loss of our second amendment, and the loss of freedoms to a government that already displays a desire to trample on individual rights time after time.
That's a defeat that other countries have experienced, only to wish they had their guns back when everything went to hell in a hand basket as the government leaders raided the treasury and private industry, then left the public to fend for itself in the face of armed police and military.
There's no Constitutionally protected right to vices: booze, tobacco, etc. Funny how the ATF regulates firearms in addition to alcohol and tobacco, even though one of them is supposed to be left alone without infringement. Anyway, arguing that banning a substance to save lives can be a valid discussion, since there is no civil right being violated. Guns are on the opposite end of that spectrum.
You like to create hypothetical straw arguments. "If" a study says fewer guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners saves more lives than it costs, and "if" the study can be proven independently across a broad variety of demographics, social environments, etc., then I'd be able to view the data and make a judgment. Asking if I'd make that choice before any details are offered is a red herring, meant to paint me as uncompromising. That's a leftist tactic, meant to prove your case without having to prove anything.
Ever see the movie "The Village?" The residents all had some tragedy in their lives that they blamed on society. So, they all moved into an isolated village to escape the forces of violence and bad decision making that lead to their life altering events.
The result was a murder -- something many residents joined the village to ensure would never happened again.
Humans love to think they can control their destinies by forcing others to live by rules that limit freedom of choice.
(https://i.imgur.com/qZ5jpOC.jpg)
-
Bombs are a far better way to mass kill than guns will ever hope to achieve.
In the right circumstances yes, but harder to accomplish as well.
-
Defeat to whom?
The anti-gunners who want to pretend they can take away all legal guns, and that somehow magically all illegal guns will no longer be available?
The politicians who paint every problem as a simplistic subset of causes that never fix anything?
The only "defeat" I would concede is the loss of our second amendment, and the loss of freedoms to a government that already displays a desire to trample on individual rights time after time.
That's a defeat that other countries have experienced, only to wish they had their guns back when everything went to hell in a hand basket as the government leaders raided the treasury and private industry, then left the public to fend for itself in the face of armed police and military.
There's no Constitutionally protected right to vices: booze, tobacco, etc. Funny how the ATF regulates firearms in addition to alcohol and tobacco, even though one of them is supposed to be left alone without infringement. Anyway, arguing that banning a substance to save lives can be a valid discussion, since there is no civil right being violated. Guns are on the opposite end of that spectrum.
You like to create hypothetical straw arguments. "If" a study says fewer guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners saves more lives than it costs, and "if" the study can be proven independently across a broad variety of demographics, social environments, etc., then I'd be able to view the data and make a judgment. Asking if I'd make that choice before any details are offered is a red herring, meant to paint me as uncompromising. That's a leftist tactic, meant to prove your case without having to prove anything.
Ever see the movie "The Village?" The residents all had some tragedy in their lives that they blamed on society. So, they all moved into an isolated village to escape the forces of violence and bad decision making that lead to their life altering events.
The result was a murder -- something many residents joined the village to ensure would never happened again.
Humans love to think they can control their destinies by forcing others to live by rules that limit freedom of choice.
Defeat to their argument.
This is not a straw argument, I am simply asking you to consider a stance if the oppositions arguments ended up being proven. It's not some complicated thing that you have to dodge the question by saying you would need to see the data first. It's basically one of three possibilities, banning all guns would either produce a decrease in deaths, an increase in deaths, or no significant change in deaths. It isn't a gotcha type question, it's meant to merely make you think through
When I look at how people argue the point of whether legal guns save more lives or cost more lives I often see pro gun rights people who almost cling to the idea that were it not for guns we would be awash in blood. They are very invested in the idea that guns can't possibly be playing a role in homicide and suicide rates to the point that they fail to be objective about the data and are letting their interest in firearms lead their conclusions instead of the data. For example I notice this when they all point towards the liberal estimate of 2 million crimes stopped per year instead of a more conservative and documented number of 60,000 instances per year according to the FBI (which by the way is still doubt the amount of gun deaths). Its not that I want guns to be banned, I want to be able to keep owning firearms, but I can see past that bias where sometimes the data supports guns and sometimes it doesn't. Some data does show/correlate with a reduction in homicide or suicide when guns are more strictly controlled and some other data swings the other way as well. The real scientific position is to look at both sides of the data.
However I am pointing out to you why it is not a key argument that we have to hold so dear to. We don't have to prove that guns don't cause more deaths because our interest, our justifications, and our rights to have guns do not rest on whether the guns can be proven to have a net lives saved or lives lost. Even if we could prove that a revocation of the 1st amendment would save more lives it is something I (and I assume you as well) would never give up. Since my assertion that guns are an important right does not hinge on whether there is a net life savings or a net lives lost I do not become so attached to this idea that I must defend at all costs the idea that guns being legal cannot have anything to do with our homicide and suicide rate problems.
-
Defeat to their argument.
This is not a straw argument, I am simply asking you to consider a stance if the oppositions arguments ended up being proven. It's not some complicated thing that you have to dodge the question by saying you would need to see the data first. It's basically one of three possibilities, banning all guns would either produce a decrease in deaths, an increase in deaths, or no significant change in deaths. It isn't a gotcha type question, it's meant to merely make you think through
When I look at how people argue the point of whether legal guns save more lives or cost more lives I often see pro gun rights people who almost cling to the idea that were it not for guns we would be awash in blood. They are very invested in the idea that guns can't possibly be playing a role in homicide and suicide rates to the point that they fail to be objective about the data and are letting their interest in firearms lead their conclusions instead of the data. For example I notice this when they all point towards the liberal estimate of 2 million crimes stopped per year instead of a more conservative and documented number of 60,000 instances per year according to the FBI (which by the way is still doubt the amount of gun deaths). Its not that I want guns to be banned, I want to be able to keep owning firearms, but I can see past that bias where sometimes the data supports guns and sometimes it doesn't. Some data does show/correlate with a reduction in homicide or suicide when guns are more strictly controlled and some other data swings the other way as well. The real scientific position is to look at both sides of the data.
However I am pointing out to you why it is not a key argument that we have to hold so dear to. We don't have to prove that guns don't cause more deaths because our interest, our justifications, and our rights to have guns do not rest on whether the guns can be proven to have a net lives saved or lives lost. Even if we could prove that a revocation of the 1st amendment would save more lives it is something I (and I assume you as well) would never give up. Since my assertion that guns are an important right does not hinge on whether there is a net life savings or a net lives lost I do not become so attached to this idea that I must defend at all costs the idea that guns being legal cannot have anything to do with our homicide and suicide rate problems.
You don't have to "think through" anything if you simply look at the reality that's in front of your eyes.
New York is reporting a 31% drop in GUN CRIMES even after a massive increase in LEGAL GUNS inline with the national numbers of new gun sales.
To state it plainly: MORE LEGALLY OWNED GUNS = FEWER GUN CRIMES.
Officials in NY are explaining the drop by pointing to the arrest and sentencing of ILLEGAL gun owners. That flies in the face of the anti-gunners' narrative completely. It also destroys your academic "thought experiment" here. Having more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens does NOT increase gun crimes.
There are too many examples of locations with increased gun ownership and lower gun crime stats to dismiss the probable causal effect more legal guns in the hands of citizens does not create more gun crimes. The opposite has been proven over and over.
I think what you and other "purely hypothetical" gun crime thinkers have in common is you only focus on one aspect of guns at a time. Instead, reality shows that while more guns sold might show a small increase in suicides (a victimless "crime") or domestic violence cases, the number is offset by increased defensive uses of guns as well as a reduction in criminals willing to take the risk of getting shot -- thus they find ways to get paid other than violent crimes.
I'd rather go with what's been demonstrated rather than trust the disproven theories of "thinkers."
https://youtu.be/j57tKxMS8Gs
-
MDA and ET have many studies that show less guns=less crimes. We all know theyre wrong, but the sheep dont know.
So how do u know that covid things now are not wrong?
Same thing already mentioned earlier when blacks were told they cant fight in ww2 due to night blindness in blacks. Then studies by scholars that said jews spread disease.
A wise man questions an organization when they have been wrong often.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Banning firearms only reduces firearm deaths.
It doesn't reduce man's desire to kill.
As seen around the world, other deaths just take their place, like increased stabbings.
Banning an object doesn't address the reasons behind why they occur. , it just limits how people can effectively defend themselves
-
Banning firearms only reduces firearm deaths.
Didn't work in Mexico.... or Columbia... or Nicaragua ... or El Salvador ... .... ....
-
Banning firearms only reduces firearm deaths.
For that to be true, the opposite must also be true: Increasing the number of firearms in a given community will also increase the number of firearm deaths.
There's no study to support that premise. in fact, it's been shown that more guns = fewer gun deaths and less crime.
When the sheep are armed, the wolves look for food elsewhere.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/IhNqTUe.jpg)
Taliban started taking away private firearms telling Afghans they were safe so they didn't need them. Then the beatings, rapes, and forced marriages started.
-
You don't have to "think through" anything if you simply look at the reality that's in front of your eyes.
New York is reporting a 31% drop in GUN CRIMES even after a massive increase in LEGAL GUNS inline with the national numbers of new gun sales.
To state it plainly: MORE LEGALLY OWNED GUNS = FEWER GUN CRIMES.
Correlation doesn't equal causation. We could point to other states with very strict gun control and low gun crime as well to counter that argument. But of course it isn't that simple.
Officials in NY are explaining the drop by pointing to the arrest and sentencing of ILLEGAL gun owners. That flies in the face of the anti-gunners' narrative completely. It also destroys your academic "thought experiment" here. Having more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens does NOT increase gun crimes.
There are too many examples of locations with increased gun ownership and lower gun crime stats to dismiss the probable causal effect more legal guns in the hands of citizens does not create more gun crimes. The opposite has been proven over and over.
I think what you and other "purely hypothetical" gun crime thinkers have in common is you only focus on one aspect of guns at a time. Instead, reality shows that while more guns sold might show a small increase in suicides (a victimless "crime") or domestic violence cases, the number is offset by increased defensive uses of guns as well as a reduction in criminals willing to take the risk of getting shot -- thus they find ways to get paid other than violent crimes.
I'd rather go with what's been demonstrated rather than trust the disproven theories of "thinkers."
Keep in mind that there is a different between just making guns illegal and getting rid of them. If the CDC could get rid of guns then we would see fewer deaths. Most other countries where guns are outlawed or heavily restricted have much lower murder rates overall. Even if people are not less violent, without guns they are less successful at taking lives. Suicides by gun are also more successful than suicides by other means.
But none of that matters because our right and interest to own guns don't hinge on whether guns result in a net loss of life.
-
Banning firearms only reduces firearm deaths.
It doesn't reduce man's desire to kill.
As seen around the world, other deaths just take their place, like increased stabbings.
No, it doesn't make people less violent but it does reduce their ability to be violent. Mass stabbings almost never suffer the body count that mass shootings manage to attain. Have 5 people ever been killed by a gang related drive by knife-throwing? Violence rates absolutely matter but if liberals believe or can show a net amount of lives saved then they say it is worth it.
-
No, it doesn't make people less violent but it does reduce their ability to be violent. Mass stabbings almost never suffer the body count that mass shootings manage to attain. Have 5 people ever been killed by a gang related drive by knife-throwing? Violence rates absolutely matter but if liberals believe or can show a net amount of lives saved then they say it is worth it.
Read up on mass poisoning in Japan. they happen enough to be more frightening than mass shooters. Where there is a will there is a way.
-
Also the Bail Fund that Kamala Harris was championing while Anti Fa was burning cities? Yeah they let loose a guy who committed murder a couple days later. And the No Bail / Own Recog things they keep pushing in Dem cities on the mainland has many similar stories.
You want to lower violent death numbers stop letting felons loose. Legal gun owners dont even move the needle on CDC gun death statistics.
-
Read up on mass poisoning in Japan. they happen enough to be more frightening than mass shooters. Where there is a will there is a way.
I did look at mass stabbing data in Asia a while back. Though the victim numbers were still quite high, the fatalities were much much lower. I would have to look the data up again but IIRC in the UK knife attacks are quite high but the death rate is much lower than if it were gun attacks.
But our homicide problem is mostly gang violence, not mass murder. The crazy people will usually find a way