A Hospital Offers a Grisly Lesson on Gun Violence
PHILADELPHIA — In a darkened classroom, 15 eighth graders gasped as a photograph appeared on the screen in front of them. It showed a dead man whose jaw had been destroyed by a shotgun blast, leaving the lower half of his face a shapeless, bloody mess.
Next came a picture of the bullet-perforated legs of someone who had been shot with an AK-47 assault rifle, and then one of the bloated abdomen of a gunshot victim with internal injuries so grievous that the patient had to be fitted with a colostomy bag to replace intestines that can no longer function normally.
The unusual program, called Cradle to Grave, brings in youths from across Philadelphia in the hope that an unflinching look at the effects that guns have in their community will deter young people from reaching for a gun to settle personal scores, and will help them recognize that gun violence is not the glamorous business sometimes depicted in television shows and rap music.
The hospital program also includes listening to tapes of victims’ families.
- more ->>
It's good to show kids these things, especially in Philly. You post this like its some revolutionary new . They should also been shown real life videos of crack heads, alcoholics, hookers, welfare recipients, and car accidents. I'm all about teaching with shock and fear. These kids in Philly are most likely the ones who need to learn about the dangers of guns, considering the guns they'll get their hands on will most likely be purchased illegally.
"guns they'll get their hands on will most likely be purchased illegally."
from "legal" gun dealers who repeatedly sell to straw buyers and bogus background checks, and who repeatedly are shielded from prosecution.
If you have guns, you will have accidents. If children have guns they will have accidents.
If you have guns they will be mis-used, and children will get in the way of those bullets.
The question was meant to be somewhat hyperbolic, but based on these two assumptions.
Do you, can you, dispute either of them?
If you cannot, then the question, however unpleasant, remains relevant to the discussion. It is rather central to the cost-benefit analysis.
Panacea? No. We would agree on that much.
As for whether we should do it or not, what do you think?
I would, for the most part, agree.
Would you say that the first and second amendment are equally important? Why or why not?
I would say no, simply because guns do not in any way guarantee liberty. If one wants to claim that, then you have to tell me why that is more effective than simply being enganged and informed in our democrative political process. Guns = lazy and ignorant way of guaranteeing liberty.
I do acknowledge that free speech can be used for evil purposes, like any tool, as you point out. Even so, the ONLY real use of the gun-tool is to kill people. Free speech is not quite as limited, and used for far more noble purposes.
It cannot be disputed because there are no truths to it. No facts. Pure assumptions.
post hoc fallacy
TX asshole spewing lies
GOP Senator Peddles Debunked Misinformation On Gun Violence
CRUZ: San Antonio has 7 murders per 100,000 people. Austin has four murders per 100,00 people. El Paso has two murders per 100,000 people. That means Detroit, the murder rate is 24 times higher than it is in El Paso…None of those cities I discussed, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, are isolated islands. Indeed, in the entire state [of Texas] you can purchase firearms and what we see with the murder rates is that the murder rates are consistently lower. My question to you, is not your subjective beliefs, but are you aware of any empirical data — every one of us wants to reduce murder rates — my question to you is there any basis to say that stripping the cons utional rights of law-abiding citizens would result in decreasing murder rates rather than increasing them which, unfortunately, is the pattern I think we’ve seen.
State level data contradicts Cruz’s assertion. The two states with the highest per capita murder rates in 2011, Louisiana and Mississippi, have F ratings from the pro-reform Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (the third highest, South Carolina, gets a D-). Louisiana and Mississippi don’t, among other things, require background checks on private sales, require firearm dealers to acquire licenses in order to sell guns legally, or limit the number of guns any one person can purchase at once.
Moreover, there are many factors that go into total homicide rates beyond simply gun laws, like lead saturation or gang violence) in addition to gun laws. Indeed, a recent crime e in Chicago (one of Cruz’s examples of places with firearm regulation and high rates of death) was long predated by gun regulations, indicating that the cause of the recent increase in violence isn’t a change in gun laws one way or another.
So the question isn’t simply whether we can point to cities or states with lax gun regulation that have higher gun murder rates than those that don’t; it’s whether stricter regulations in any given city would reduce that particular city’s homicide rate relative to its current baseline. That’s something that’s best tested by empirical evidence that takes into account confounding factors.
And this systematic evidence, contra Cruz, strongly suggests that gun regulations save live and that there is no real evidence for Cruz’s suggestion that more guns lead to less crime. Three papers that studied homicides by county found that, when you control for factors like poverty, counties with more guns have more gun deaths. Another study found that, at the state level, stronger gun regulations are reasonably well correlated with fewer gun deaths. And research comparing the United States to other countries found that our greater access to guns that led to our higher murder rates.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...-gun-violence/
Cruz telling lies, and the bubbas suck it down as Divine Truth.
Guns in homes can increase risk of death and firearm-related violence
Having a gun at home not only increases the risk of harm to one's self and family, but also carries high costs to society, concludes an article in the February Southern Medical Journal, official journal of the Southern Medical Association. The journal is published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a part of Wolters Kluwer Health, a leading provider of information and business intelligence for students, professionals, and ins utions in medicine, nursing, allied health, and pharmacy.
"Firearm-related violence vastly increases expenditures for health care, services for the disabled, insurance, and our criminal justice system," writes Dr. Steven Lippmann of University of Louisville School of Medicine, and colleagues. "The bills are paid by taxpayers and those who buy insurance."
Guns at Home Increase Dangers, Not Safety
Based on a review of the available scientific data, Dr. Lippmann and co-authors conclude that the dangers of having a gun at home far outweigh the safety benefits. Research shows that access to guns greatly increases the risk of death and firearm-related violence. A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder.
The most common cause of deaths occurring at homes where guns are present, by far, is suicide. Many of these self-inflicted gunshot wounds appear to be impulsive acts by people without previous evidence of mental illness. Guns in the home are also associated with a fivefold increase in the rate of intimate partner homicide, as well as an increased risk of injuries and death to children.
Gun-related violence also has psychological and other consequences for survivors—especially children. Dr. Lippmann and colleagues point out that easy access to guns also enables tragic episodes like the mass killings at Virginia Tech University, in which a background check might have prevented the shooter from obtaining a weapon. Such "tragically recurrent" events are in addition to gun deaths related to criminal activities, gang violence, interpersonal disagreements, and other incidents.
Gun Violence Carries High Costs for Society
Dr. Lippmann and colleagues cite research showing the massive economic consequences of firearm violence. Medical care for gunshot victims in the United States is up to $4 billion per year. Including indirect costs such as disability and unemployment, the costs may total up to $100 billion. In the authors' city of Louisville, expenses for uninsured gun-injury victims alone exceed the money allotted for indigent medical care costs for the entire community.
"Taxpayers often bear a large percentage of these financial burdens," according to the authors. Other costs show up in the form of increased insurance premiums. Gun violence costs the U.S. criminal justice system approximately $2.4 billion per year—nearly equal to all other crimes put together.
Despite these high costs, "[F]irearms remain so much a part of our culture that gun-related violence and legal expenses are routinely accepted as a normal part of our life," Dr. Lippmann and colleagues write. "Politically, gun control remains unpopular, but raising awareness among doctors about the relationship between firearms, the rates of violence, and expenses involved may have an impact on their thinking."
In publishing the review, the editors of SMJ hope to promote a conversation within the medical profession about the health, economic, and social consequences of guns in the United States. In an editorial in the same issue, Editor-in-Chief Dr. Ronald C. Hamdy writes, "Our goal…is to provide solid, scientific evidence regarding these often controversial topics, in an attempt to avoid the personal and emotional quagmire which is so easily adopted in issues such as these." The SMJ website features a podcast in which Dr. Lippmann discusses his findings.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/201...-violence.aspx
Insurance companies should require disclosure of gun ownership so they can raise their premiums to cover the statistically proven costs.
lol thinkprogress. The studies it links do not say what tp spins them to say. Read the ing article, coward.TX asshole spewing lies
GOP Senator Peddles Debunked Misinformation On Gun Violence
CRUZ: San Antonio has 7 murders per 100,000 people. Austin has four murders per 100,00 people. El Paso has two murders per 100,000 people. That means Detroit, the murder rate is 24 times higher than it is in El Paso…None of those cities I discussed, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, are isolated islands. Indeed, in the entire state [of Texas] you can purchase firearms and what we see with the murder rates is that the murder rates are consistently lower. My question to you, is not your subjective beliefs, but are you aware of any empirical data — every one of us wants to reduce murder rates — my question to you is there any basis to say that stripping the cons utional rights of law-abiding citizens would result in decreasing murder rates rather than increasing them which, unfortunately, is the pattern I think we’ve seen.
State level data contradicts Cruz’s assertion. The two states with the highest per capita murder rates in 2011, Louisiana and Mississippi, have F ratings from the pro-reform Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (the third highest, South Carolina, gets a D-). Louisiana and Mississippi don’t, among other things, require background checks on private sales, require firearm dealers to acquire licenses in order to sell guns legally, or limit the number of guns any one person can purchase at once.
Moreover, there are many factors that go into total homicide rates beyond simply gun laws, like lead saturation or gang violence) in addition to gun laws. Indeed, a recent crime e in Chicago (one of Cruz’s examples of places with firearm regulation and high rates of death) was long predated by gun regulations, indicating that the cause of the recent increase in violence isn’t a change in gun laws one way or another.
So the question isn’t simply whether we can point to cities or states with lax gun regulation that have higher gun murder rates than those that don’t; it’s whether stricter regulations in any given city would reduce that particular city’s homicide rate relative to its current baseline. That’s something that’s best tested by empirical evidence that takes into account confounding factors.
And this systematic evidence, contra Cruz, strongly suggests that gun regulations save live and that there is no real evidence for Cruz’s suggestion that more guns lead to less crime. Three papers that studied homicides by county found that, when you control for factors like poverty, counties with more guns have more gun deaths. Another study found that, at the state level, stronger gun regulations are reasonably well correlated with fewer gun deaths. And research comparing the United States to other countries found that our greater access to guns that led to our higher murder rates.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...-gun-violence/
Cruz telling lies, and the bubbas suck it down as Divine Truth.
lol thinkregress
lol at the ed leftbots that suck this pablum down.
Guns in the home provide greater health risk than benefit
Author David Hemenway studied the various risks of having a gun in the home, including accidents, suicide, homicide, and intimidation. Additionally, the benefits of having a firearm in a household were also examined and those benefits included deterrence, and thwarting crimes (self-defense). From this in-depth look, it was concluded that homes with guns were not safer or deter more crime than those that do not. In fact, it was found that in homes with children or women, the health risks were even greater. "Whereas most men are murdered away from home," wrote Hemenway.
"Most children, older adults, and women are murdered at home. A gun in the home is a particularly strong risk factor for female homicide victimization." It's not just the increased risk by others in a home with a gun, but also an increased risk of suicide.
"Even though suicide attempts with guns are infrequent, more Americans kill themselves with guns than with all other methods combined," wrote Hemenway. "That is because among methods commonly used in suicide attempts, firearms are the most lethal."
After weighing the evidence on both sides, the review concluded that the risks greatly outweighed the benefits or perceived benefits.
"There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes, and it appears that a gun in the home may more likely be used to threaten intimates than to protect against intruders," wrote Hemenway.
"On the potential benefit side, there is no good evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in."
More information: ajl.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/01/1559827610396294.full.pdf+html
http://phys.org/news/2011-04-guns-ho...h-benefit.html
gun fellator TB
lol moving the goal posts again. let's go back to the thinkregress article on Cruz since that was what I was refering to.
Please. Come slap my . See how that works out for you, coward.gun fellator TB
ok I posted it, YOU go back to it and tell us all what's wrong about Cruz's pure rabble-rousing bull .
Repugs really know how to find non-white garbage: Gonzo, Clarence Thomas, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, etc.
This ring a bell?
I thought you were against logical fallacies, and the likes.
just chicken- "associated with" weasal words.
Listen up, you weasal, coward : MORE GUNS = MORE GUN VIOLENCE, MORE GUN DEATHS
Calm down, cowardmy studies didn't say what I wanted them to.
Wtf is a weasal?
That was the whole point of sex education, wasn't it?
STUDY: Gun Homicides Increased 25 Percent After Missouri Background Check Law’s Repeal
Preliminary evidence suggests that the increase in the diversion of guns to criminals linked to the law’s repeal may have translated into increases in homicides committed with firearms.
From 1999 through 2007, Missouri’s age-adjusted homicide rate was relatively stable, fluctuating around a mean of 4.66 per 100,000 population per year.
In 2008, the first full year after the permit-to-purchase licensing law was repealed, the age-adjusted firearm homicide rate in Missouri increased sharply to 6.23 per 100,000 population, a 34 percent increase.
For the post-repeal period of 2008-2010, the mean annual age-adjusted firearm homicide rate was 5.82, 25 percent above the pre-repeal mean.
This increase was out of synch with changes during that period in age-adjusted homicide rates nationally which decreased ten percent and with changes in other states in the Midwest which declined by 5%.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...k-laws-repeal/
It is only a post hoc fallacy if it is unproven that guns aren't involved in accidental gun deaths.
Props for trying to use and show good logic, but you failed rather badly in the execution.
I generally contend that most conservatives or people who call themselves conservative suck at constructing logical arguments, and constantly commit logical fallacies. Sorry but your post rather plainly added evidence to support that assertion. I don't think you understand what that fallacy means.
What a post hoc fallacy would look like in this case:
There was a gun in the home.
A child died in the home.
Therefore the gun caused the death.
or similar.
I hope that helps.
You should, if you are going to be serious about actually trying to catch real logical fallacies, go to this website:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Anything that you can actually show is clearly a logical fallacy, I will happily withdraw, and thank you for.
Otherwise... you simply add more evidence to my general assertion regarding "conservatives".
I generally am.
I also find it highly amusing when you seem to assume that SNC was correct, without fact checking him. Simply more evidence.
I have come under the impression that you cannot be both logical and considered a "true" conservative. What is generally held out to me as "conservative" seems to invariably boil down to flawed logic or factually false underpinnings.
Parenthetical fail. lol
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
