BANG !

[Wise One]

Public health and the law are not mutually exclusive. Do you really mean to impose an absolutist "If it's a crime, it's a crime, and public health considerations have nothing to do with it"?

Since the subject of guns sometimes provokes a kind of involuntary reaction that inhibits clear thought and discourse, let me switch to an analogy in which the principle might be more apparent.

Knowledgeable people and public health experts recognized that the wearing of seat belts in cars would reduce rates of injury and death. But for a long time there was no law or regulation. Laws were then passed, more people use seat belts now, and deaths/injuries are down.

Nevertheless, some people continue not to use seat belts, so those people are technically criminals. (To you, absolutely criminals.) Surely you do not mean to say that public health considerations are no longer relevant to people who fail to wear seat belts just because they have a new status as lawbreakers? The same public health principles still apply, whether law and regulation exist or whether individuals obey the law. It is more dangerous not to wear a seat belt than to wear one, period – one need not consult the Virginia Code to verify the truth of that statement.

It seems unremarkable and non-controversial also to accept the public health reality that it is more dangerous to have guns about the house than not, irrespective of what the law says or what legal status an individual must assume if she picks one up and uses it. Every time I go to a doctor's office and fill out one of those long medical history forms I see and answer the question "Do you have guns in the house?" That question is not there because the medical profession has an irrational hatred of the NRA, it is there because the profession realizes the question is as relevant as "Do you drink more than two glasses of wine per day?"

[ParkerLongbaugh]

Public health and the law are not mutually exclusive. Do you really mean to impose an absolutist "If it's a crime, it's a crime, and public health considerations have nothing to do with it"?

You're bobbing and weaving. You were the one that stated "Again, your arguments and those of virtually all gunnies brush aside the majority of deaths and injuries to focus only on the minority directly connected to crime. I am interested in the larger part of the problem, the part that gunnies seem determined not to allow to surface in public debate. In confining arguments to crimes, one deliberately omits the larger numbers of killings by and of spouses, family members, friends, children, and otherwise unremarkable people who go bonkers."

I posted the real facts to point out that your claimed "larger part of the problem" pretty much DOES NOT EXIST, and your "larger number of killings" is a made up problem. Now you want to ignore the fact that those claims and arguments were destroyed and shown to be groundless, and move on to compare it to seatbelts? And throw barbs that the real facts that tear apart your arguments are "involuntary reactions"? That's what we consider an intelligent discussion of the issue? Seriously?

I've tried and tried, but it's impossible to have rational discussions on this forum. I welcome the chance to talk with and debate folks, especially those with differing views. I've done so publicly and privately, and even at formal events as a guest speaker representing different issues. Nowhere has that effort and exchange been pointless or wasted, except here.

I'm done.

[Wise One]

Parker, don't go cruxish on us. I'm doing my level best and am trying to do anything but bob and weave. I find your attention to fact and logic to be better than some here, so don't explode when we see things a bit differently sometimes ... one can disagree without being disagreeable.

Yes, we probably have a disconnect if you insist that classification as a crime wipes the slate clean of all factors that might contribute to that crime. If a criminal deliberately plans a bank robbery and executes all witnesses, is he truly indistinguishable to you from an otherwise perfectly nice wife who loses it and shoots hubbie with a gun she impulsively grabs from the nearest drawer? If so then it may be difficult to find common ground.

But please mute any frustration in return for my pledge to go back and look at all the numbers with a sharp eye. I love fact-based discussion and detest ideology-based rants. You seem inclined in the same direction, notwithstanding our differing perspectives, so we should proceed. I "foed" him because Crux has nothing interesting to say, but you do and so discussion is worthwhile.

Just don't insist on finding a clone of yourself at this end. That's neither possible nor desirable ... it would make for dull conversation indeed.

[crux]

You've proved quite inclined to take your intellectual bat and ball and go... Then you come back to play as if you never threw the tantrum.

I could care less if you think I have nothing of interest to say from your point of view. You "foed" me! The truth is out! Have a nice day AO. This is really too funny... AO indeed. "A perfectly nice wife who shoots hubby..." Too funny.
Maybe it will be ruled negligent homicide. Why the need to state, "I FOED CRUX"? You Serious?

Pompous is what comes to mind. Puffed up and premised upon a notion that everything that YOU say is interesting, and wise... Playing the Pander Card too?. "Parker good boy, crux BAAAAAD" Your post is telling.

Just admit you have learned something, and move on. As if...

The ability to self examine eludes you still my friend...

[crux]

...some of us have been following this story closely: Fast and Furious. Learn. Pay attention and SEE...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-all ... ious-case/

Fascinating. Our Justice Department selling thousands of "assault weapons" to known drug gangs, border criminal cartels who traffic in people, drugs and terror, and other KNOWN illegal purchasers, straw purchasers, etc...

These guns have fueled border violence and crime. Interesting...

[Wise One]

This is fascinating, something I missed until this morning's news.

A nutty law was enacted and signed by the NRA-cowed Florida legislature and governor, prohibiting doctors from discussing the truth about the public health consequences of guns in homes.

A Federal District Court, of course, quashed the law as unconstitutional.

It seems that discourse of many kinds, including that between doctors and patients, is protected as free speech by some piece of paper that goes way back to the 1700's. Who knew?

[crux]

I do not wish my doctor to ask me about guns, keep in my medical records information about me owning guns, or being required to keep such information either!

Nevada was HUGE as this is the district which only went to Bush by 7,000 votes, then Obama by 12%!!, now BIG to the GOP

crux

[Wise One]

I think we'll simply need to agree to disagree if folks insist on trying to paint criminal acts as public health issues.

Honestly, it’s not an either/or, black/white choice. An act can be purely criminal, purely one with public health consequences, or a mixture of the two in varying proportions. Examples:

• Intentionally shooting your strongest competitor for a job promotion is purely criminal.
• A man hit by a bullet that explodes when the first earthquake in 200 years knocks over a locked cabinet containing very old ammunition, is the victim of a freak accident unaccompanied by criminality. Earthquakes and storing ammunition carry small but nonzero public health risk.
• Not wearing a seat-belt can be a crime, or not, depending on the state. But in all states it is more dangerous (public health) not to wear them.
• Selling guns to minors is both a crime and an act with public health consequences as immature kids go forth with guns. The allowed age of a minor for gun purchase/ownership varies by gun type and state, so criminality varies but public health risk in that age cohort is elevated regardless of what the local law is.

I still owe you a reflective response on statistical arguments you made regarding hazard. I’m working on it but have competing demands on time. I hope that we can find facts to agree on, even if opinion continues to vary on what the implications of those facts are. All is lost without some mutual acceptance of objective fact.

[crux]

...then I am sooo very glad I do not live in Mexico.

Learn what Fast and Furious is all about (no 'dog it is not an action movie)
Look at the poor public health to the south.
This and Solyndra are the kinds of things that could bring this President down.

crux

[crux]

This is a teachable moment to be sure. Just remember the shooter had a history of violence, assault, battery, abuse and State convictions/interventions...in California. California has a huge incarcerated population of the violent and dangerous. This crime took place in a very large gun free zone. California JUST outlawed OPEN UNLOADED CARRY. The citizenry can not carry concealed and can NO LONGER EVEN carry an unloaded handgun, with a magazine or speed loader retained separately. This already ridiculous RIGHT to carry was made, illegal. CONCEALED CARRY could have prevented this crime. The kinds of Progressive Utopian Laws and "commonsense restrictions" seen here IN ACTION in the once Golden State, FAILED these victims who were left defenseless, by the good intentions you espouse...

I know there is violence.

There are also Happy Meals, Trans-fats, and Circumcisions to be banned by the Progs in Cali.

[coondog]

Guns in America (see below)

http://www.military.com/video/guns/rifles/the-best-gun-accidents-of-2011/1092731756001/?ESRC=navy.nl

Coondog

[crux]

I never really got into it. I could only get to Uncle Billy... It is all instructive on the need for instruction.

[Rockbridge]

In the final analysis, words are much more powerful than any weapon formed by man.

[Frank Strickler]

Anti gun people do not want to hear this, and will not accept it, but the following is very true.

IT IS BETTER TO HAVE A LOADED GUN AND NOT NEED IT, THAN IT IS TO NEED A LOADED GUN AND NOT HAVE IT.

[coondog]

Bart Simpson has a good point, there!

Coondog is basically a pacifist, Coondog is also cognitive of the potentiality, in these troubled times, of uninvited adversarial conflict.....in which case, he prefers a level playing field.

Coondog

However! Snakes...armed or not....do not deserve an even break!

[Wise One]

IT IS BETTER TO HAVE A LOADED GUN AND NOT NEED IT, THAN IT IS TO NEED A LOADED GUN AND NOT HAVE IT.

No matter how often this statement is repeated, it remains untrue.

Statistically, more harm will come to you and your family by having a loaded gun near at hand than from not having it. A gun is far, far more likely to be used by family members against themselves than it is to be used against an intruder.

[coondog]

I had to shoot a horse once. Didn't want to, but, it was old and feeble and couldn't stand up any more. It was like a family member.

Coondog
Shooting it was better, and more humane, and less traumatic for both of us than beating it with a stick.

[Wise One]

Ha!

PS. My wife is reading your comment with entirely too much interest.

[Frank Strickler]

Wise One Wrote:
Statistically, More harm will come to you and your family by having a loaded gun near at hand than from not having it.

All the statistics that I have been able to find on the subject msay just the opposite. Where did you find those statistics?

[Wise One]

Reputable research by professionals, not ideologues in the NRA. Centers for Disease Control, many research articles by professionals. I can dig them up if you like, but in my experience gunnies really do not care what the facts are, so maybe there is no point. Ideologues operate exclusively on belief, rejecting all facts that fail to conform to belief. I don't know if you fall into that category or not.