On national television, you can talk about the sordid details of your sex life, the depth of your religious piety or your belief that an organization that no longer exists, Acorn, stole the 2012 presidential election — a fantasy held by half of Republicans. You can call climate change a hoax, you can say the moon landing never happened, you can even praise Alex Rodriguez, though you shouldn’t.What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
But you cannot talk about the 300 million or more guns circulating in private hands in the United States. The most armed society in the world, ranked first among 179 nations in the rate of gun ownership, had 9,146 gun homicides in 2009. The same year, Canada had 173. But don’t bring that up.
Costas made his brief remarks at halftime of the Sunday night game. Within minutes, the censors went after him. Top Republicans called for his resignation. Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin, who are to reasoned argument what salt is to a slug, condemned him. And Herman Cain, the pizza guy who at one point led the Republican presidential primary field in the polls, passed on this tweet: “Excuse me, Bob Costas, but you are an idiot, so shut up.”
Those last two words pretty much define the current climate regarding debate about guns and violence. In this country, it is the issue that dare not speak its name.
People with guns in the home are at a far greater risk of dying of homicide than those without, the American Journal of Epidemiology reported in 2004. For men, the likelihood of death by suicide is much higher if a gun is nearby. And 90 percent of suicide attempts by gun are successful; for willful drug overdoses, the rate is only 2 percent.
Understandably, people buy guns for self-defense. But a gun in the home is 12 times more likely to result in the death of a household member, or a visitor, than an intruder, a 2010 study by the official journal of the Southern Medical Association found.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
NYT Op-Ed on the Gun Debate
New York Times op-ed
Labels: gun debate
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
The story that you link to has some interesting information in it--and the usual gunzloonzgreekchorus of detractors (among them racist anti-immigrant moronz) saying that the study is full of cherry-picked data and the doctors are prolly commies!!!andShutUpThat'sWhy. IOW, they have no fucking idea about how the study was conducted--either its methodology or its data--so they throw a tantrum. Teh Burnin' Stoopit is strong in that group.ReplyDelete
Interestingly they have nothing to say about the cost to taxpayers of the "free care" squandered on GSW patients who are uninsured or underinsured.
Using "z" to make something plural makes it impossible to take you serious in the slightest wayDelete
"Interestingly they have nothing to say about the cost to taxpayers of the "free care" squandered on GSW patients who are uninsured or underinsured."ReplyDelete
We can talk about those as soon as you are ready to talk about the cost savings of not having to treat the uncountable number of people who don't suffer injury from violent crime because of a DGU.
You deny our studies, and we deny yours. Fine, throw out all studies. Let's get down to facts and a discussion of rights.ReplyDelete
The use of facts in the same sentence as "rights" presents a issue. There is no such thing as "individual rights". They exist as a figment of your imagination. Discussing the "facts" pertaining to your claimed "rights" would be akin to discussing the "facts" of other American phenomenon, such as, UFOs, Sasquatch, "healthy" fast food, Sky-Gods, ghosts, modern imperialism, and the seemingly unconditional worship of small arms.Delete
Regardless of whether the "pro-gun" or "anti-gun" studies are correct, the distribution of small arms among mere civilians,(especially Americans) creates a high potential for violence, whether perpetuated against other individuals, or the State. That is an irrefutable Fact.
E.N., if you deny individual rights, shut the fuck up. You don't have the right to speak. If you comment again, you're agreeing with me that you have the right to do so.Delete
I have never stated that rights don't exist, simply that they do not belong to You.Delete
All people throughout all recorded history have a high potential for violence. Small arms simply put weaker people on equal footing with everyone else unlike any weapon or device before.
You are also trying to create a negative association between small arms and violence. When a citizen uses small arms to violently repel a criminal's attack, that is positive, not negative.
Congratulations to New York Times for their one thousandth op ed piece on how we never talk about gun control.ReplyDelete
There are Trillions of MRSA bacteria and Hundreds of Trillions of other germs in the United States so it's impossible to combat them all. Doctors washing their hands and having surfaces sterilized is a losing battle. Therefore we need to remove these burdensome regulations on Doctors.ReplyDelete
Are you saying that we can't sterilize an operating room? Are you saying that we can't reduce infection rates by washing our hands? I am saying that we can't prevent criminals from getting guns in this country. I am saying that guns in the hands of good citizens prevents some crimes from happening and saves the lives of those good citizens in other cases.Delete
The standard argument is there are too many guns to do anything about them. Despite all the sterilization and cleanliness people still catch infections in Hospitals.Delete
"You deny our studies, and we deny yours. Fine, throw out all studies. Let's get down to facts and a discussion of rights.'ReplyDelete
You have NO fucking studies. You have assertions written by people who are profiting from having idiotz like you buy into their bullshit. Please furnish the many "studies" that rebut the work of the CDC, FBI and other government agencies (who have ZERO to gain by lying, unlike Weenie LaPutrid and his fellow LIARS) or something that is peer reviewed. When John Lott finds his "data" and submits it for critical review, we can talk about it.
Your "millions" or even "hundreds of thousands" of DGU's--complete fucking bullshit and you know it. You cling to your lies just like you cling to your gunz.
Democommie, recall a recent discussion in which you were shown data from exactly the government agencies that you just named? No? Fortunately, I do:Delete
Read first, then reply.
He really painted himself into a corner on this one, didn't he? It will be interesting to see what lies or dodges he can concoct to avoid admitting he was wrong.Delete
Or more than likely, typical DC style, he will just not comment at all after having his ass handed to him.
If you saw Sideways, you'll remember drunk dialing. Democommie has typing rage. My guess is that he's too embarrassed to follow a comment up, but too angry to stop commenting.Delete
It's an interesting point that champions of the 2A often try to silence their opponents in the gun debate, thereby disrespecting the 1st Amendment.Delete
Who is trying to silence anyone? Seriously?Delete
1. Far more gun control advocates moderate comments than gun rights advocates.Delete
2. Frail Liberty and I keep asking Democommie and Dog Gone and Laci to answer the points that we raise. That's encouraging the discussion to continue, not trying to silence anyone.
When it comes to E.N., I'm calling out his hypocrisy. He's using his right to free expression to deny individual rights. If there are no individual rights, he has no right to speak.Delete
1. That's because your side consists of deranged rednecks who cannot seem to create a genuine point. If that which is on your side actually has a valid point to state, then it's comments would not be moderated with such frequency.
2. That which is not deserving of attention, will not receive an answer.
I have never claimed that no rights exist, I only said that they don't belong to you.
1. You mean that when we present facts and logic that demolishes your gun control fantasies, you can't answer and don't want to look foolish.Delete
2. Here's a classic control freak dismissal--claiming that objections to their programs aren't worthy of a response. Marie Antoinette, how are you going to eat cake without a head? That's what happens to control freaks in the end.
3. If rights don't belong to me, then they don't belong to you, either. Shut the fuck up.
1. What "facts" supports it's argument? No legitimate researcher would make any claim to support such an anarchic proposal as (widespread) civilian gun ownership.Delete
2. It which consistently spouts morbid stupidity, is not worthy of dignifying with a response. how does that establish the necessity of removing my (or possibly another commentator who it deems to be a "control freak") head from my shoulders?
3. Some are more equal than others.
That which make the ridiculous claim of individuals possessing "rights" (Greg, Fail Liberty, T.S. and their Anonymous minions) truly devolve into a form of ideological leper. Since individual rights are an inherently irrational concept, the espousal of such deranged beliefs only serves to mark it (the gun rights advocates) as social pariah.
When I refer to Greg's depraved claims of "individual rights", I am not referring to reasonable "rights" exercised by certain persons, such as Mikeb, Dog Gone or Laci's exercise of free expression in order to create in intelligent discussion of what is to be done in regard to the social epidemic of gun violence in the U.S.
EN ... the only facts we are talking about here are:Delete
1. The FACT that in 1994 a U.S. government agency, the Centers for Disease Control, conducted a study and concluded that citizens of the United States use a gun defensively 498,000 each year.
2. The FACT that this study (and others) have been presented to democommie on more than one occasion.
3. The FACT that he still makes statements like this one:
"You have NO fucking studies. You have assertions written by people who are profiting from having idiotz like you buy into their bullshit. Please furnish the many "studies" that rebut the work of the CDC, FBI and other government agencies (who have ZERO to gain by lying, unlike Weenie LaPutrid and his fellow LIARS) or something that is peer reviewed. When John Lott finds his "data" and submits it for critical review, we can talk about it."
4. Finally, the FACT that on several occasions, when presented with his falsehoods, he never seems to show his face in that thread again.
"Demmocommie" is perfectly capable of asserting the fact that it is cognitively challenged without your help. In recognition of it's idiocy I have stated that it "only serves to bastardize it's own cause". It's name is a blatant, yet unimpressive attempt to annoy the more conservative readers of this blog, (not that anyone would care if they where annoyed) and only serves to incise other nincompoops into responding with petty bickering. It's incoherent rantings should be ignored, like those of an old leper, preaching from the pulpit of the street-corner. "Demmocommie" serves only to provide a leftist counterpart to those simian throwbacks who populate much of the American south. He is, in a sense, a liberal redneck.
To address some of the points that Fail Liberty made:
Yes, firearms may be utilized in a defensive manner numerous times each year. I do not deny (most) publications by the U.S. government, and so I will make no argument against the findings of your CDC study. However, civilian ownership of firearms diminishes the authority of the collective State, and enables the common person to challenge such State authority. Also, most humans are not cognitively and emotionally capable of handling a firearm in a safe manner.
E.N. Yes ... armed civilians diminish the authority of the collective State. That is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and that is why citizens are armed.Delete
You think it is a bad thing. Most U.S. citizens think it is a good thing.
E.N. wrote, "Also, most humans are not cognitively and emotionally capable of handling a firearm in a safe manner."Delete
I do not agree with your definition of "most". About 80 million adult citizens own firearms in the U.S. They will accidentally kill just 600 people this year with their firearms according to data from the Centers for Disease Control. And about a thousand who have no previous criminal record will use their firearm to murder someone this year. In my world 1,600 out of 80 million is not "most". Rather it is 0.002%. Of course a few more armed citizens with no previous criminal record will assault (but not kill) someone with their firearm this year. We are still talking much less than a fraction of percent. That is most definitely not "most".
In case you doubt my number of about 1000 armed citizens with no previous criminal record committing murder this year, that is pretty simple. There will be about 9000 murders this year where the criminal uses a firearm according to FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Various government reports also indicate that drug pushers and gangs will commit about 80% of those murders. That means we can attribute about 1800 murders this year to either a violent criminal (not involved in gang or drug activity) or an armed citizen with no prior criminal record. I conservatively choose citizens with no prior criminal record to commit more than half of those murders.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your discussion.
"People with guns in the home are at a far greater risk of dying of homicide than those without ..."ReplyDelete
That's probably why the people who have guns bought the guns ... because their lifestyle puts them at greater risk of homicide. Nothing remarkable there. Next topic?
"But a gun in the home is 12 times more likely to result in the death of a household member, or a visitor, than an intruder ..."
We have hard numbers. There are about 300 justifiable homicides versus 600 accidental deaths every year with firearms. The rest of the difference is due to a person in the home who attacks another family member or acquaintance ... about 3000 events if the "12 times" claim is accurate. And armed homeowners stop tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of home invasions and violent assaults every year. Sounds good to me. Next topic?
In the end the numbers one way or another are not important. It is a person's right to choose how they live their life -- armed or defenseless. Someone else does not get to make that call for you.