After reading the initial post, I feel that doctors should be banned from possession of firearms.
------------------
Allen, New website http://www.ury2k.com/pulse/index.htm mirror: http://home.ici.net/~uechi/
Doctors and guns
Moderator: Available
-
Tim Ahearn
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Charlottesville, VA, USA
- Contact:
Doctors and guns
Are you implying that had she owned a gun, she'd simply have shot herself in the head and saved others from the risk of being crushed by a falling suicidal lady?
Now, I know this is a country where people who smoke and drink and eat unhealthy foods and don't wear their seatbelts freak out when some airline part on a plane 100X safer than their cars is responsible for a crash. But... I *strongly* suspect I could show that guns lead to more deaths than they prevent by eliminating the flights of depressed people from hotels.
Now, I know this is a country where people who smoke and drink and eat unhealthy foods and don't wear their seatbelts freak out when some airline part on a plane 100X safer than their cars is responsible for a crash. But... I *strongly* suspect I could show that guns lead to more deaths than they prevent by eliminating the flights of depressed people from hotels.
Doctors and guns
<blockquote>But... I *strongly* suspect I could show that guns lead to more deaths than they prevent by eliminating the flights of depressed people from hotels.<blockquote>
It has been written that the question isn’t really whether they both occur; it is, rather, which is more important?
This question cannot be answered without examining the data, because these two different effects clearly exist, and they work in opposite directions.
But that all depends on different perspectives and thorough study of the subject matter.
I personally tend to disregard individual, unscholarly, opinions but give a lending ear to demonstrable, consummate, research by both camps.
One of the works I recommend to peruse is the book by John Lott Jr. legal scholar extraordinaire, who teaches criminal deterrence and law and economics at the University of Chicago, where he is the John M. Olin visiting law and economics fellow. There is also extensive research by professor of criminology and criminal justice, Gary Kleck, and law professor Don Kates.
Don Polsby, Kirkland and Ellis professor of law, Northwestern University, writes:
” Until Lott came along, the standard research paper on firearms and violence consisted of a longitudinal or cross-sectional study on a small and artfully selected data set with few meaningful statistical controls. Lott’s work, embracing all of the data that are relevant to this analysis, has created a new standard, which future scholarship in this area, in order to be credible, will have to live up to”
Steve Shavell, Professor of law, Harvard Law School, writes that Lott’s work will-or –should cause the antigun camp to rethink its position!
Regardless of whether one agrees with Lott’s conclusions, Lott’s work should be mandatory reading for anyone who is open-minded and serious about the gun control issue!
His book begins with a description of the arguments for and against gun control and how the claims should be tested. A large portion of the existing research is critically reviewed. [DR X?]
The anti-gun groups wish Lott never existed!
Gun control is a highly emotional issue, and, in my view, not easily resolved by arguments both pro and con, because Our perceptions of the subject will forever be influenced by who we are~
The two camps will continue to be divided until the end of time!
We keep on being seduced into these discussions, but that is, usually, a pointless exercise in futility!
------------------
Van Canna
It has been written that the question isn’t really whether they both occur; it is, rather, which is more important?
This question cannot be answered without examining the data, because these two different effects clearly exist, and they work in opposite directions.
But that all depends on different perspectives and thorough study of the subject matter.
I personally tend to disregard individual, unscholarly, opinions but give a lending ear to demonstrable, consummate, research by both camps.
One of the works I recommend to peruse is the book by John Lott Jr. legal scholar extraordinaire, who teaches criminal deterrence and law and economics at the University of Chicago, where he is the John M. Olin visiting law and economics fellow. There is also extensive research by professor of criminology and criminal justice, Gary Kleck, and law professor Don Kates.
Don Polsby, Kirkland and Ellis professor of law, Northwestern University, writes:
” Until Lott came along, the standard research paper on firearms and violence consisted of a longitudinal or cross-sectional study on a small and artfully selected data set with few meaningful statistical controls. Lott’s work, embracing all of the data that are relevant to this analysis, has created a new standard, which future scholarship in this area, in order to be credible, will have to live up to”
Steve Shavell, Professor of law, Harvard Law School, writes that Lott’s work will-or –should cause the antigun camp to rethink its position!
Regardless of whether one agrees with Lott’s conclusions, Lott’s work should be mandatory reading for anyone who is open-minded and serious about the gun control issue!
His book begins with a description of the arguments for and against gun control and how the claims should be tested. A large portion of the existing research is critically reviewed. [DR X?]
The anti-gun groups wish Lott never existed!
Gun control is a highly emotional issue, and, in my view, not easily resolved by arguments both pro and con, because Our perceptions of the subject will forever be influenced by who we are~
The two camps will continue to be divided until the end of time!
We keep on being seduced into these discussions, but that is, usually, a pointless exercise in futility!
------------------
Van Canna
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Doctors and guns
This could almost be funny if it weren't such a serious subject. I found myself in a situation similar to watching There's Something About Mary, where you laugh and then feel guilty for doing so.
Anybody every read Vonnegut novels? After reading the first few, you find he repeats many of the same scenarios from book to book. Vonnegut was writing at a time (late 60s, early 70s) when people were first becoming environmentally conscious in this country. A constant theme of the time was the danger of overpopulation vs. the sanctity of life. In many of Vonnegut's novels, he spoke of futuristic scenarios where there were suicide parlors by every Howard Johnson's with the orange roof. Reminds me of Richmond where one finds a liquor store by every Ukrops' supermarket, as Bobby Ukrops doesn't believe in selling alcohol or making his employees work on Sunday. The notorious Howard Stern once went on a public airways tirade when Bobby launched a campaign to get his show off the local airways. Best free publicity Bobby ever got.
Is Van being too callous, or is his humor in poor taste? Is Tim being too sensitive about guns? Can we flippantly call Tim a "tree hugger" if he openly states that he doesn't believe in banning access to guns? Am I being too sensitive about medicine and physicians? Should we be talking about medicine, suicide, and guns in the same subject? Or...should firearm proponents find another flag to wrap themselves in?
Facts, damned statistics, irreverent humor....all things to ponder over morning caffeine.
- Bill
Anybody every read Vonnegut novels? After reading the first few, you find he repeats many of the same scenarios from book to book. Vonnegut was writing at a time (late 60s, early 70s) when people were first becoming environmentally conscious in this country. A constant theme of the time was the danger of overpopulation vs. the sanctity of life. In many of Vonnegut's novels, he spoke of futuristic scenarios where there were suicide parlors by every Howard Johnson's with the orange roof. Reminds me of Richmond where one finds a liquor store by every Ukrops' supermarket, as Bobby Ukrops doesn't believe in selling alcohol or making his employees work on Sunday. The notorious Howard Stern once went on a public airways tirade when Bobby launched a campaign to get his show off the local airways. Best free publicity Bobby ever got.
Is Van being too callous, or is his humor in poor taste? Is Tim being too sensitive about guns? Can we flippantly call Tim a "tree hugger" if he openly states that he doesn't believe in banning access to guns? Am I being too sensitive about medicine and physicians? Should we be talking about medicine, suicide, and guns in the same subject? Or...should firearm proponents find another flag to wrap themselves in?
Facts, damned statistics, irreverent humor....all things to ponder over morning caffeine.
- Bill
Doctors and guns
<blockquote>Is Van being too callous, or is his humor in poor taste?</blockquote>
Bill, I know this is not your intention, but readers may think this to be a personal remark!
You know my credo on these forums “just don’t get personal”!
We may discuss and attack the issues all we want in the third person, but I advise all contributors not to even try to “get personal”!
But out of curiosity, where do you see callousness and humor in poor taste? I thought we were discussing very serious matters! Maybe I am missing something, and if I appeared to be in poor taste or callous, I offer my apologies!
------------------
Van Canna
Bill, I know this is not your intention, but readers may think this to be a personal remark!
You know my credo on these forums “just don’t get personal”!
We may discuss and attack the issues all we want in the third person, but I advise all contributors not to even try to “get personal”!
But out of curiosity, where do you see callousness and humor in poor taste? I thought we were discussing very serious matters! Maybe I am missing something, and if I appeared to be in poor taste or callous, I offer my apologies!
------------------
Van Canna
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Doctors and guns
Van
The question was a rhetorical and academic one. You and I know each other well and so I believe there is no issue between the two of us. The apology was not necessary, but does show others the compassion I know you have.
Whenever one discusses one of many such "hot button" issues (gun control, abortion, relations between the sexes), it's difficult to delve into the facts without eliciting strong responses and reactions - verbal, written, or otherwise. Humor is often a device used to deal with such, but as you know, it can be a dangerous approach depending on the perspective. God knows...I have learned to never discuss driving fast or animal issues (strange combination) with my assistant at work. I can't even joke about them. I just don't broach the subjects, and we get along famously. I remember at the movie I mentioned above that several of us at work were laughing but simultaneously worried about the "dog" scenes, knowing that the sensitive co-worker was there. We just didn't talk about it later.
Fortunately I don't see that as being the case here. We are among learned gentle(wo)men who are interested in learning.
- Bill
The question was a rhetorical and academic one. You and I know each other well and so I believe there is no issue between the two of us. The apology was not necessary, but does show others the compassion I know you have.
Whenever one discusses one of many such "hot button" issues (gun control, abortion, relations between the sexes), it's difficult to delve into the facts without eliciting strong responses and reactions - verbal, written, or otherwise. Humor is often a device used to deal with such, but as you know, it can be a dangerous approach depending on the perspective. God knows...I have learned to never discuss driving fast or animal issues (strange combination) with my assistant at work. I can't even joke about them. I just don't broach the subjects, and we get along famously. I remember at the movie I mentioned above that several of us at work were laughing but simultaneously worried about the "dog" scenes, knowing that the sensitive co-worker was there. We just didn't talk about it later.
Fortunately I don't see that as being the case here. We are among learned gentle(wo)men who are interested in learning.
- Bill
-
Tim Ahearn
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Charlottesville, VA, USA
- Contact:
Doctors and guns
If the public danger of death by jumping, and risks of shooting suicide (which minimizes the public jumping risk) are to be seriously compared, let's do it. I will check and re-post if I am incorrect, but I believe suicide is the number 8 leading cause of death, or at least it was *in the year cited in my psychiatry notes*. Homicide was 14, by the way, for those of you who want to truly judge the relative importance of threats facing you. Jumper crushing deaths may have occured, but I've never heard of a jumper killing anyone but themselves.
I haven't read Lott's work. I read only medicine and Uechi at this point. But I do know whatever he writes, suicide by shooting is a significant phenomenon in our society. Death by crushing by suicidal jumping person is a vanishingly small phenomenon if in fact it has ever occured. I also know that for every jump avoided by a shooting suicide attempt, close to one suicide death occurs (a few manage to screw it up). Whereas for every jump avoided, approximately zero bystander deaths are avoided. Thus when suicide as a public health hazard is discussed in this way, guns are only a detriment.
Now of course Canna sensei is correct that in discussions such as these, the two sides rarely alter their general opinions. But can we agree to limit the discussions to the real issues at hand and eschew such outlying phenomena as jumper crushings? They can only obscure the important issues.
I haven't read Lott's work. I read only medicine and Uechi at this point. But I do know whatever he writes, suicide by shooting is a significant phenomenon in our society. Death by crushing by suicidal jumping person is a vanishingly small phenomenon if in fact it has ever occured. I also know that for every jump avoided by a shooting suicide attempt, close to one suicide death occurs (a few manage to screw it up). Whereas for every jump avoided, approximately zero bystander deaths are avoided. Thus when suicide as a public health hazard is discussed in this way, guns are only a detriment.
Now of course Canna sensei is correct that in discussions such as these, the two sides rarely alter their general opinions. But can we agree to limit the discussions to the real issues at hand and eschew such outlying phenomena as jumper crushings? They can only obscure the important issues.
Doctors and guns
Bill,
Never a problem! But at times it is good to air things out for " reinforcing" the concept we are all subject to " mental highjackings" out of the blue!
Peace,
------------------
Van Canna
Never a problem! But at times it is good to air things out for " reinforcing" the concept we are all subject to " mental highjackings" out of the blue!
Peace,
------------------
Van Canna
Doctors and guns
Tim,
I understand where you are coming from, but I still suggest you read Lott's work if you have a chance! He covers this topic from a very logical point of view!
------------------
Van Canna
I understand where you are coming from, but I still suggest you read Lott's work if you have a chance! He covers this topic from a very logical point of view!
------------------
Van Canna
