Public health approach to gun violence

[satchmo]

Two articles in today's Journal of the American Medical Association caught my attention:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... id=1487470

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... id=1556167

I am a public health physician, so I thought they were interesting. You might too.

Tim

[JLT]

Thanks for posting that, Tim.

The most telling part of the first article was this quote:

The nation might be in a better position to act if medical and public health researchers had continued to study these issues as diligently as some of us did between 1985 and 1997. But in 1996, pro-gun members of Congress mounted an all-out effort to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Although they failed to defund the center, the House of Representatives removed $2.6 million from the CDC's budget—precisely the amount the agency had spent on firearm injury research the previous year.

Now even the NRA is saying that mental health screening is vital to the goal of reduction of gun violence (an issue forced on them by the fact that they cannot admit that it is, in fact, the sheer number and availability of guns that distinguishes us from other countries). But they don't believe it, because they continue to discourage research into this very question. Their solution is, of course, even more guns -- but in the "right hands," of course.

As for the second article, I found it interesting that the multi-cultural approach to cigarettes resulted in a reduction in smoking. And that included the media getting on board with showing a reduction in smoking in movies and on TV. Here's a modest proposal: every time a gun is shown being fired, the production company must donate one cent to a mental-health group. I just watched "Fargo" again and, as bloody as that movie was, there weren't more than a dozen shots fired. 12 cents isn't a high price to pay. On the other hand, if this rule was applied to the average summer blockbuster, we'd have the best mental health system in the world.

[Hippie]

I would support a bill to limit copycat crimes and the media/entertainment industry (including video games) desensitization by restricting what, and how much, the "news" (read, political parties with cameras) can report. And a strict censorship of television, movies, and video games, in general...in the name of public health.

Considering the tremendous number of adults and children killed and maimed on the roads, I would support a bill restricting travel to necessary and reasonable mileage, enforced through fuel rationing cards based upon proven need of mileage to go to work, the store, etc. Vacations or business trips could be taken, with a permit, and route plan filed through a federal government office. Deviation from the filed route would be a felony. There will be no bicycle riding on the public streets. This fuel and pollution savings will be more than offset by the elimination of frivolous, and unecessary automobile travel.

And here, friends, is why I don't really come here anymore. Except for a couple details (I am not an atheist, nor do I own any "assault" rifles), and my lack of writing skills, I could just about have written it myself.

By Michael Z. Williamson

By way of introduction, I'd like to explain some of my former positions. Please do not reply and tell me why I'm wrong. That's not relevant to this post. These WERE my positions, for right or wrong.
I used to believe women had a right to reproductive choice. As a male, I will obviously never have an abortion. I supported access because birth control is cheaper than abortions, abortions are cheaper than welfare, welfare is cheaper than jail. And I don't believe the government is capable of legislating for every circumstance. Most of the time, a woman and her doctor will make a decision that works for the situation, and until a baby is an independent organism, it's a parasite. This was also important to me because my wife was warned that a further pregnancy could kill her. That's been surgically remedied and is no longer a problem.
I used to believe gays were entitled to relate as they wished, including marriage. What two people do together doesn't affect me unless I'm one of them.
I used to believe it was wrong to treat people differently based on their skin color. Even if a few people fit a stereotype, millions of others do not.
I used to believe there should be a strong division between church and state, that any support of a religious entity using property of the state constituted endorsement and was wrong.
I used to believe people had a right to protest, campaign, rant and create non-violent incidents to express themselves and their positions. I also believed they had a right to publish as they chose. I believed they were entitled to burn the Flag in protest, to make a statement.
I have obviously been at odds with conservatives over these positions. There have been loud arguments, heated discussions and occasional insults.
~~~
I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court agrees with me, which means that right is as valid as abortion, sexual privacy, protest and speech.
This should mean that strict scrutiny applies, meaning the government needs to prove the fabric of society itself is at risk before limiting it. Just as the Press has the right to broadcast troop movements it can see or acquire, regardless of casualties, I have the right to own weapons, regardless of how someone else may act. "Someone might get hurt" is an invalid excuse for restriction.
In fact, it's easy enough to prove that freedom of the press HAS caused harm and even death to people, whether it's troop movements, or the address of a person of interest.
The rights of gays to relate as they wish brings the risk of AIDS (60% of all cases are from gay relations, not drugs or medical contamination.)
It's provable that if we required proof of need before awarding a driver's license, we'd have less car accidents.
So, the argument that "guns kill people" is null and irrelevant to the discussion. Lots of things kill people. That's not relevant to our civil rights.
Now, over this position, I've had at least 5 death threats (though of course, no "liberal" actually has the balls to attempt so).
I've twice been reported to Family Services on the grounds that I have guns in the house, which means I'm a danger to my kids (which complaints were laughed at, here in Indiana).
I've been accused of racism...because I own guns.
I've been accused of fascism…because I own guns.
I've been called a coward…no "real man" needs a gun to protect himself. This is a surprise to me as a veteran, who carried guns regularly for the purpose of protecting myself and others, but what do I know?
I've been called a "Fat, Fox News watching, McDonald's munching, inbred, retarded, drooling redneck imbecile."
I've been told I have a small penis.
I've been told I'm insane to "imagine fighting the government" by people with no military experience who also hate the government, sometimes for the same reasons.
I've had a date tell me I "seem so normal, for a gun nut."
I've been called a "rightwinger." Indeed. A gay/female/black/abortion/separation of church and state/free speech supporting rightwinger.
I've been told this right doesn't exist, that if it exists I can't "pretend" it's more important than wage inequality for women, or gay marriage.
When the Heller Decision was decided in favor of gun ownership, I was told "I hope you all shoot yourselves with guns, because I can't marry the man I love!" by an alleged friend.
There's apparently a "Right to feel safe," and my owning a gun destroys it, because I might shoot someone. However, if I say a gun makes me feel safe, I'm paranoid and insane.
I've been told I support "baby killers."
I've been threatened with having my Wikipedia page vandalized, by someone who claimed he was more of a man than me.
I've been told I can't be trusted. How can anyone know I won't go on a shooting spree, because I own an "assault rifle"?
So much for liberal tolerance.
I didn't realize I was so evil and hateful an individual I deserved to be treated in such fashion.
But when I look at the arguments, I think they may be correct:
"At the time the Constitution was written, the weapons in question were muskets."
You know what? You're right. And marriage was between one man and one woman. So what's with gay marriage? No longer will I offer any moral support, oppose any online statements attacking it, speak out for it. They have the same right as anyone—to marry someone of the opposite gender. And given that all gays support raping little boys (just like all gun owners support shooting school kids), I don't think I can support them. We should do things just the way they were done 220 years ago. That's the liberal way.
"The Heller Decision was by an activist court. It doesn't count."
Indeed. Just like Roe v Wade was an activist decision. It doesn't count.
"We're not trying to take your guns away, just have reasonable limits. It's a compromise."
And some people want reasonable limits on abortion, like waiting periods, gestational time limits, ultrasound, etc. It's a reasonable response to an activist court decision, and reasonable restrictions on a right, for public benefit. Don't come whining about your right to murder babies, and I won't come to you whining about my right to shoot school kids.
And no one is saying you can't ride the bus. You just have to sit where people think is reasonable. No one is saying women can't work. They just have to get paid what is reasonable for the work they do, allowing for the fact they're going to leave the workplace and raise a family. It's a compromise.
"Assault weapons are an extreme interpretation."
True. And not allowing any religious emblems on government premises is an extreme interpretation. As long as they're privately paid for, what's it to you? No one is saying you can't belong to the Christian church of your choice, just not to extreme groups, like atheists or Muslims. It would be paranoid to think anyone was trying to infringe on your legitimate right to be free from state religion, just like I'd be paranoid to think they wanted to take my guns. Quite a few states had official churches well into the 1800s. This is not an infringement on your freedom of religion.
"Given Sandy Hook, you have to make reasonable compromises."
"We just want licensing and safe storage requirements so the wrong people don't get guns."
"Publicizing the information lets people make informed choices about who they live near."
Accepted. In exchange, gay men should make reasonable compromises over Penn State. They will simply have to accept being registered and kept a safe distance from children. This isn't a violation of their rights. It's just common sense. The public has a right to know.
This should apply to protests, too. No reasonable person would object to being identified. They should welcome it—it means they can't be wrongly maligned. All union members, blacks, gays and feminists should be signed in with ID before a march or gathering, just so we can track the real criminals to keep the rest safe.
"The country survived without assault weapons for 240 years."
True (well, no, it was 135 years, depending on your definition of "assault weapon"). And it survived without women in combat even longer. The infantry's trying to scare off women? Serves them right. Things were working just fine the way they were.
"This woman is being badly portrayed on the cover of a book."
No, no, that's an accurate portrayal, just like all military contractors are sociopathic mercenaries who torture people, all gun owners are moral cowards with Walter Mitty complexes and all gun dealers exist to make money from gangbangers. It's silly to suggest one group is singled out for inaccurate portrayals when we know the other portrayals are spot on.
Yup. I'm taking you at your word. Want money? Don't care. Want a petition signed? Call someone who who gives a shit. Want a link spread? Yawn. Women or gays or blacks or Hispanics don't feel they're being treated nicely? So what?
~~~
First they came for the blacks, and I spoke up because it was wrong, even though I'm not black.
Then they came for the gays, and I spoke up, even though I'm not gay.
Then they came for the Muslims, and I spoke up, because it was wrong, even though I'm an atheist.
When they came for illegal aliens, I spoke up, even though I'm a legal immigrant.
Then they came for the pornographers, rebels and dissenters and their speech and flag burning, and I spoke up, because rights are not only for the establishment.
Then they came for the gun owners, and you liberal shitbags threw me under the bus, even though I'd done nothing wrong. So when they come to put you on the train, you can fucking choke and die.
~~~
Or you can commit seppuku with a chainsaw. I really don't care anymore. This is the end of my support for any liberal cause, because liberals have become anything but.

[glasseye]

they cannot admit that it is, in fact, the sheer number and availability of guns that distinguishes us from other countries). But they don't believe it, because they continue to discourage research into this very question.

It's not that they don't believe it, it's that they don't want people to be aware of the facts. It would appear that that's why they engineered de-funding of the research.

The combined venality of corporations and politicians continues to amaze and dismay.

[JLT]

What a fascinating essay by Williamson that Hippie posted. It certainly came from the writer's heart, but I think that that may be part of the problem. Let me explain:

Williamson seems to be saying that he's being stigmatized as a gun nut by liberals simply because he owns guns, and gets hate mail for that reason. Maybe that's true, but most of the liberals I know wouldn't have that attitude. So is he creating a straw man to knock down, or is he attracting the most extreme people on the liberal spectrum?

He decries the inconsistency of those who, on the one hand, say that changing circumstances in society call for changes in legislation (gay marriage) and, on the other hand, should not call for changes in legislation (gun laws). "Why can't we be consistent about this?" he asks. The answer is that societal attitudes do change, and that laws must change to reflect that. In each case, we have to ask ourselves, as a society, which laws need changing and which ones don't. So most of Williamson's argument seems to be that a society, to be consistent, must be willing to change everything or nothing or nothing at all. That is not a proposition I would care to defend.

To take just one point, let's examine this quote:

"We're not trying to take your guns away, just have reasonable limits. It's a compromise."
And some people want reasonable limits on abortion, like waiting periods, gestational time limits, ultrasound, etc. It's a reasonable response to an activist court decision, and reasonable restrictions on a right, for public benefit. Don't come whining about your right to murder babies, and I won't come to you whining about my right to shoot school kids.

In one fell swoop, he equates "reasonable limits" on gun access with "reasonable limits" on abortion access, although those limits are in place for entirely different reasons, and address entirely different moral issues. The waiting time for guns is for the purpose of determining whether the owner will use it properly. A week doesn't matter much. But the purpose of a waiting period for abortions is solely to shame the abortion-seeker, who probably has already done a lot of soul-searching. And a week does matter, because each week that the abortion isn't performed means more risk for the mother.

Williamson begins the essay by listing the things he "used to believe" ... all positions generally taken as liberal. He never says why he doesn't believe them any more, except that they seem to be liberal positions, and since he feels that he's been thrown under the bus by liberals, he feels that those people, and the positions they espouse, are not worth supporting anymore. It's as if he's saying "I liked you guys when you agreed with me on a number of points, but since there's one point on which we can't agree, screw you all." I can't follow the logic of that.

The question now, of course, is whether the half-hour I've spent in writing all this down will elicit some thoughtful comments, or whether the reader thinks "Shit, JLT just doesn't see it the way I do. Screw him, and screw you all, I'm outta here."

Your turn.

[Hippie]

they cannot admit that it is, in fact, the sheer number and availability of guns that distinguishes us from other countries). But they don't believe it, because they continue to discourage research into this very question.

It's not that they don't believe it, it's that they don't want people to be aware of the facts. It would appear that that's why they engineered de-funding of the research.

The combined venality of corporations and politicians continues to amaze and dismay.

Fair is fair. Ever watch Bob Schiefer or others effectively lie about the facts on CBS? So if "they" the media feels they have to mislead the public into thinking there is a benefit to additional gun control legislation, then what is their real agenda?
None of you have bothered to learn any facts that may not agree with your pre-selected, emotion-based poit of view, and therefore have no legitimate right to an opinion at all.

And JLT, this goes for the other liberal agendas Williamson mentioned. After a while, you can't give a shit anymore. Let them hash it out themselves. I have been called "one of them" as if I had committed a crime by being a gun owner. And I'm thinking, "One of what, a car owner? You've got one too, and a cell phone, and drive when you please...you baby killer."

If you are going to go as far as trying to selectively apply logical debate terms such as "straw man" then you will need to go further and look deeper into some evidential data that may not agree with your position.

[RSorak 71Westy]

The 1st article just says he thinks some federal ban on gun related safety research should be lifted. I agree. Knowledge is power.

The 2nd articles point seems to be that improved gun owner education and other tactics may help. Possibly so.

Guns are inanimate objects. They do nothing without a human operator. This is where the problem lies. All the operators in these recent shootings have been crazy and should not have had access to guns based on this. The problem is we are not treating and identifying these unstable people. If we dont know who they are how can we keep guns away from them?

[JLT]

None of you have bothered to learn any facts that may not agree with your pre-selected, emotion-based poit of view, and therefore have no legitimate right to an opinion at all.

You have absolutely no right to make suppositions about what I have or have not bothered to learn, any more than I have to make suppositions about what you have or have not bothered to learn. Believe me, as both the owner of a handgun and the friend of somebody who died of a handgun in the wrong hands, I have a dog in this hunt, and I am listening to all sides, weighing their arguments, and coming to my own conclusions. The fact that they may not be yours does not mean that they are meritless, and assuming otherwise shows a breathtaking arrogance on your part ... that if you are right, then I am wrong, and my opinions don't mean a thing. Frankly, I thought better of you before, not because I agreed with you, but because I thought that you had the ability to respect those who did not happen to agree with you. Maybe I was wrong.

I have been called "one of them" as if I had committed a crime by being a gun owner. And I'm thinking, "One of what, a car owner? You've got one too, and a cell phone, and drive when you please...you baby killer."

To use a car, you have to demonstrate that you have an understanding of how to operate it safely, and that is regulated by law. That is as it should be. The fact that you also own a cell phone does not make you a bad person. But if you use both of those articles in such a way as to compromise the safety of others on the road, then we may have a problem. Would sterner cell-phone/driving laws work? I don't know. The evidence is that they are not a panacea, but they do help, just as ticketing speeders helps to reduce (but not eliminate) the number of speeders on the road.

I agree that no law will cure everything. No law can. You have to balance the good that a law will do with the harm that it can do. That's what we're debating, I think.

If you are going to go as far as trying to selectively apply logical debate terms such as "straw man" then you will need to go further and look deeper into some evidential data that may not agree with your position.

I would be happy to investigate any of this "evidential data" if you would be so kind as to steer me in that direction. (You may recall that it was the need for accurate data, and the NRA's attempt to stifle the collection of this date, that began this thread in the first place.) We all need this data. We don't need rants; we already have enough of those.

[Hippie]

1. No one, and certainly not I, care(s) what you think of me.

2. Public safety requires that we do something about allowing citizens to travel when and where they wish, and that the media is strictly censored. Can you stomach that?

3. I will not do your homework for you.

4. I should have stayed away from the forum.

[Amskeptic]

4. I should have stayed away from the forum.

Why? There *are* different opinions here. They are discussed by people I consider *friends*.
There is nothing in these differences of opinion that changes my friendship.

I wonder, have you been triggered by this debate?

I do not think it is only because some people have different opinions than you. They are only opinions! The vehemence of the national dialogue is friggen nuts! It is not even! the people I meet all across this country in Texas! Georgia! Missouri! Massachusetts! Whatever! I think it is stupid news outlets trying to fire up ratings by breathing insanity into the different camps!

I'd like to sit your butt down and remind you that I have spent good time with so many people on this forum with some seriously different lifestyles and perspectives. I have sat on your patio with you! We have hung out with chitwnvw and your friends with the bug and the bus. We are a group of friends who share all number of interests along with Volkswagens. There is not a damn thing more important than that.
Colin

[Hippie]

You're right, Colin.

My apologies, JLT.

[JLT]

You're right, Colin.

My apologies, JLT.

Apology accepted, with relief.

[Amskeptic]

You're right, Colin.

My apologies, JLT.

Apology accepted, with relief.

Yay! One small step for friends, one big leap for the future of mankind.
Colin =D>