The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[cardgame]

Accidents should be counted as a health measure but never lumped in with "gun violence" because that is breaking the sanctity of statistics for the sake of political propaganda

 

[Commodore]

Of course suicides and accidents should be counted. I can't think of any reason they shouldn't be.

I didn't say they shouldn't be counted, I said they shouldn't be counted as gun violence. If someone uses a gun to blow their own head off, that's not gun violence, that's just a suicide. If I shoot myself in the leg because I was negligent while cleaning my gun, that's not gun violence, that's just an accident.

I didn't know the CDC has an entire department dedicated to research firearm violence.

Maybe I misread the article. It sounded like they were saying that department was part of the CDC.

First, I don't know why you think only intentional deaths should be counted.

Again, they should only be counted when we are talking specifically about gun violence. And it is the gun violence argument that the gun control supporters use as the main reason for increased regulation.

That's funny. Did you even stop to think that maybe the reason Conservatives and Republicans face so much opposition is because they are misrepresenting the statistics? For example Trump falsely claimed that illegal immigrants killed 63,000 Americans since 9/11/2001. If you're not "stopping to think" that Conservatives and Republicans are lying about the issues, then its pretty ironic for you to finger wag Democrats for not doing the same about their allies

This would be an excellent point if I had ever claimed the Republicans don't lie or misrepresent facts. But since I haven't done that, this isn't really the "gotcha!" moment you think it is.

Second, why is 30,000 per year not an "epidemic"?

Well, for one, because gun violence is criminal activity, not an infectious disease. Also, because it doesn't fit the definition of an epidemic.

The CDC estimate that influenza kills as "few" as 12,000 people (and as many as 56,000). Are you saying we shouldn't track influenza?

I haven't argued that the data on gun violence shouldn't be tracked. What I have argued against is the politicization of that data. And since it is inevitable that the data will be politicized, by both sides, perhaps it might be better to not track it at all. And that's also why your influenza comparison falls flat. No one is out there trying to politicize the data on the number of people that die from the flu every year.

they just want to secretly take everyone's guns.

Well, it's not really a secret, but whatever. You have all kinds of anti-gun politicians advocating for various forms of bans with the more extreme gun control elements even now calling for a complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment. So it's not really a conspiracy theory to state that the ultimate goal of the gun control crowd is to eventually eliminate private firearm ownership.

I'll just ask you a small series of simple yes or no questions though. Don't worry, I'm not trying to bait you into anything or trying to make you look foolish so please answer honestly. It's just a little exercise to help you understand why saying they are taking our guns isn't just conspiracy theory ranting.

1. Do you support bans on semi-automatic firearms?

2. Do you support bans on automatic firearms?

3. Do you support laws limiting the number of rounds a magazine can hold?

4. Do you support bans on detachable magazines?

5. Do you support bans on certain features of a firearm not related to the actual firing mechanisms (such as adjustable/collapsable stocks, pistol grips, muzzle brakes, etc.)?

 

[Lexicus]

that's not gun violence, that's just a suicide.

"Suicide is not violence"

I haven't argued that the data on gun violence shouldn't be tracked.

perhaps it might be better to not track it at all.

hoo boy

 

[EgonSpengler]

I didn't say they shouldn't be counted, I said they shouldn't be counted as gun violence. If someone uses a gun to blow their own head off, that's not gun violence, that's just a suicide. If I shoot myself in the leg because I was negligent while cleaning my gun, that's not gun violence, that's just an accident.

Well, that sounds like arguing semantics to me. The issue is deaths and injuries from firearms. If there's a better term or phrase, I guess it doesn't matter to me. In one of the articles I linked above, an epidemiologist from Harvard University's School of Public Health is quoted saying,

"We in public health count dead people. It’s one of the things we do. And we count them in order to understand how to prevent preventable deaths."

Maybe I misread the article. It sounded like they were saying that department was part of the CDC.

Yeah, the 1993 study was by the CDC; the Dickey Amendment was incorporated into the budget in '94 or '95.

Again, they should only be counted when we are talking specifically about gun violence. And it is the gun violence argument that the gun control supporters use as the main reason for increased regulation.

If you're talking about the mass shootings that frequently become rallying points, then I sort of agree. The numbers of people killed in mass shootings - even horrific ones like Las Vegas - is a drop in the overall bucket, and doesn't count suicides or accidental shootings. I think these shocking events could or should serve as useful motivators, but we can see that they don't, really. We need to do more than wail and rend our garments after a bunch of children are murdered.

Well, for one, because gun violence is criminal activity, not an infectious disease. Also, because it doesn't fit the definition of an epidemic.

Again, it seems like you're playing semantic games, which doesn't really interest me. "Preventable deaths by firearms" seems a little unwieldy. And "epidemic" certainly applies unless you're following a strict dictionary definition, which is just more game-playing to avoid the topic. You could also say there's no "epidemic" of opioid abuse, if you just felt like being a pedant while all of those working-class towns burn. (And, no, they're not literally burning.)

I haven't argued that the data on gun violence shouldn't be tracked. What I have argued against is the politicization of that data. And since it is inevitable that the data will be politicized, by both sides, perhaps it might be better to not track it at all.

...which is exactly what the Dickey Amendment did. The Dickey Amendment politicized the research of a public health concern by public health agencies by discouraging them from doing their jobs. It wasn't gun control advocates who politicized the research, it was the NRA, the single most biased advocacy group on this subject that there is; letting them set policy would not be taking the high road, letting them set policy would be being spineless and irresponsible.

 

[Farm Boy]

if you just felt like being a pedant while all of those working-class towns burn. (And, no, they're not literally burning.)

They aren't that figuratively either. But they many of them are economically ailing, and they are struggling with a drug toll that was tremendously created/exacerbated by the Rx pad. Calling that particular aspect of it a disease is right on point even if other reaches of the word are inappropriate and grasping.

If the country finds itself awash with stoned, depressed, underachieving, internet-huffing wrecks of humanity in 20 years due to a flood of medicinal weed out of the new American powerhouse production centers(yeah, it's a big if, but we never see problems we're creating or we wouldn't do it, right?) then that would also be an epidemic, like alcoholism(which I think has been on the decline since the 1800s). Human volition may still be worth it, though that's getting to be a harder argument to make in the era of big data never forgives.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I didn't say they shouldn't be counted, I said they shouldn't be counted as gun violence. If someone uses a gun to blow their own head off, that's not gun violence

Huh? Taking a gun and shooting yourself in the face isn't a violent act? What if it's done in front of your girlfriend? If a guy pulls up to the parking lot where some kids are playing baseball, pulls out a gun and shoots himself in front of all the kids and parents... you don't consider that an act of violence? If a guy commits a murder-suicide of his family, the murders are violence but the subsequent suicide isn't? What if the hostage negotiators and SWAT are outside the door trying to talk him down as he holds his family hostage (or has killed them)? Him shooting himself to avoid capture by police isn't a violent act? Do you think the police would agree that his shooting himself wasn't violence?

This would be an excellent point if I had ever claimed the Republicans don't lie or misrepresent facts. But since I haven't done that, this isn't really the "gotcha!" moment you think it is.

First of all, I notice you sidestepped the question of whether you personally consider the illegal immigration problem "a myth" or not, based on the "small and insignificant" number of homicides committed by illegals... which was my actual point. I think your avoidance of the question in favor of snark on a red herring like whether its a "gotcha", proves my point. Your cognitive dissonance prevented you from responding to the question.

I'll also note the irony of you posing a bunch of questions to @hobbsyoyo , when you've failed to respond to the questions I posed to you. Why should anyone answer your questions when you don't answer the ones that are posed to you?

Finally, the point isn't that you've claimed Republicans don't lie. The point is that you invited someone to "consider the possibility" that Democrats and gun control advocates are lying about the issue. I responded by telling you to "consider the possibility" that Conservatives and gun proponents are lying about the issue... which they are. Have you "considered that possibility"? If you haven't (since you haven't) then your admonition is hollow/ironic/double-standard, etc.

 

[EgonSpengler]

They aren't that figuratively either. But they many of them are economically ailing, and they are struggling with a drug toll that was tremendously created/exacerbated by the Rx pad. Calling that particular aspect of it a disease is right on point even if other reaches of the word are inappropriate and grasping.

I was thinking of the phrase "Fiddling while Rome burns."

If the country finds itself awash with stoned, depressed, underachieving, internet-huffing wrecks of humanity in 20 years due to a flood of medicinal weed out of the new American powerhouse production centers(yeah, it's a big if, but we never see problems we're creating or we wouldn't do it, right?)

Heh. Right. The tobacco companies leap immediately to mind. I haven't looked, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that tobacco companies suppressed studies that linked cigarettes to health problems or that examined the chemicals being added to the tobacco, and that they had lobbyists trying to steer policy and funding.

then that would also be an epidemic, like alcoholism(which I think has been on the decline since the 1800s). Human volition may still be worth it, though that's getting to be a harder argument to make in the era of big data never forgives.

I think deaths in automobile accidents are way down, too, even from the 1970s. I suppose some of that is because people started driving more safely, part of it is from government mandates on safety features, and part of it is technology and design advances. I think driving while drunk has declined significantly, for example, partly because law enforcement has cracked down and uses tools like "breathalyzers", and also because of a cultural change. I think all of that was probably fueled by data accumulated from studies on traffic fatalities, drunk-driving arrests, and so on.

 

[Farm Boy]

The data mattered to some people, but for changing the culture of driving drunk, that reality on the ground is/was M.A.D.D. and DARE in primary schools and aggressive pullovers/draconian punishments. You should watch(if you don't) the sharks circle at bar close.

Perception isn't necessarily data driven, though we can hope it isn't data averse. The thing with illegals and the thing with gun violence is really springing to mind this morning, the narrative out of Iowa is going to sink deep in more than a few people this week, whatever the numbers say.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Perception isn't necessarily data driven, though we can hope it isn't data averse. The thing with illegals and the thing with gun violence is really springing to mind this morning, the narrative out of Iowa is going to sink deep in more than a few people this week, whatever the numbers say.

Just like when there is a mass shooting/school shooting...

 

[Farm Boy]

A clean cut feels silky smooth, eh?

Oh I'm just messing with you. I don't really know what to make of everything either.

 

[Sommerswerd]

A clean cut feels silky smooth, eh?

Oh I'm just messing with you. I don't really know what to make of everything either.

Well... you see the pattern just as clear as I do...

Event happens. One "side" is outraged and wants legislative action to address the issue. The other "side" says its "hysteria", "overblowing the problem", "using the issue as a political football", "using tragedy for a political agenda", "we need to give the victims our thoughts and prayers not politicize the issue" etc.

However, the numbers say way more folks are killed by "guns" than "illegal immigrants"... so while its possible that both are a big deal, and possible that the former is a big deal, while the latter is not... it is not possible that the former isn't a big deal while the latter is... regardless of people's perceptions... at least according to the metric @Commodore laid out.

 

[Farm Boy]

One is an agent/person/persons, the other is a method/tool(s). The comparison is fundamentally bumpkis.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The data mattered to some people, but for changing the culture of driving drunk, that reality on the ground is/was M.A.D.D. and DARE in primary schools and aggressive pullovers/draconian punishments. You should watch(if you don't) the sharks circle at bar close.

Perception isn't necessarily data driven, though we can hope it isn't data averse. The thing with illegals and the thing with gun violence is really springing to mind this morning, the narrative out of Iowa is going to sink deep in more than a few people this week, whatever the numbers say.

True, but isn't part of the purpose of a representative government, and of non-partisan organizations like HHS and CDC, that they be educated on the issue at hand and make informed policy decisions?

 

[Farm Boy]

We don't send the Department of Ag to administer the military. Might have role in collecting data, or providing assistance. Maybe even running a program or two at the DoD's request. But classifying something disease is inherently political.

Edit: I mean, I try to do due diligence, this is the google hit on the definition(emphasis added)-

Some people will think the expansive definition puts criminal acts more appropriately under the purview of criminal justice branches of that representative government. Specifically, because we limit the power of certain functions of our government depending on what it is they're tasked with doing. Law enforcement and criminal justice branches are hobbled intentionally. The only way not to use data is to not collect it, etc and so forth.

dis·ease
dəˈzēz/
noun
noun: disease; plural noun: diseases; noun: dis-ease; plural noun: dis-eases

1. a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury.
   "bacterial meningitis is a rare disease"
   synonyms: illness, sickness, ill health; More
   infection, ailment, malady, disorder, complaint, affliction, condition, indisposition, upset, problem, trouble, infirmity, disability, defect, abnormality;
   pestilence, plague, cancer, canker, blight;
   informalbug, virus;
   datedcontagion
   "herbal preparations to treat tropical diseases"
   • a particular quality, habit, or disposition regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people.
     "departmental administration has often led to the dread disease of departmentalitis"

 

[Sommerswerd]

One is an agent/person/persons, the other is a method/tool(s). The comparison is fundamentally bumpkis.

OK geez... I amend my statement to "illegal immigrants" versus "gun-users"

 

[Farm Boy]

So you want me studied as a person as a societal disease?

Heck, even them illegals should have criminal justice protections in their rights and privacies from the datas, rather than those of a contagion.

 

[Uberfrog]

This thread is fast becoming a dictionary for terms no-one is actually confused about.

No-one in this thread is attempting to call gun violence a disease per se. But public health is about more than disease control. We may be familiar with what the D in CDC stands for, but we shouldn't let this pedantry obscure the fact that public health is about more than disease.

If we accept that the CDC has a remit to study workplace injuries, road traffic incidents, drug use and suicide (all of which depend on personal agency to an extent), I don't see why it should be objectionable that they also investigate firearm injuries.The same epidemiology can be applied, and can and should be used in policy decisions.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Der, only the NRA should be allowed to investigate, research or report on firearm injuries, derp diddy derpy tum tilly dumb.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't see why it should be objectionable that they also investigate firearm injuries.

Obviously.

The nuts is in that we hobble our government agencies differently, so putting an issue under the purview of one, rather than another is very much a thing that matters. All the more relevant as we delve deeper into the era of big data. The only way to not use it is to not collect it, even on tertiary statistics. Ya'll should really be paying closer attention to algorithmic policing. Maybe you are and just have a more authoritarian bent than I think is appropriate. That's really the most likely thing there, if I had to guess.

 

[Lexicus]

So you want me studied as a person as a societal disease?

I mean, I would understand you asking this if the context was me ranting about ammosexuals and their insane bloodlust, but the context of this is literally that people are stating gun violence should be studied by the CDC. That's all people are saying here.

If the idea of the CDC studying gun violence makes you think you are being "studied as a person as a societal disease" I just don't even know what to say or how to respond to that. The closest I can come to understanding your position here is to note that as a heavy stoner, I do not have remotely the same reaction to the fact that the CDC has a page on the "health effects of marijuana." Referring to marijuana use as an "epidemic" would not make me feel attacked "as a person as a societal disease" either.

I'm not sure why that is? Maybe I have less of an emotional/identity connection to marijuana than you do to guns? I know you don't respond to my posts but I couldn't help musing about this line. It's just deeply, deeply strange to me and I would like to understand.