Skip to main content

View Diary: The NRA's solution to gun violence is... (250 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not based on (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pete Cortez, tytalus, oldpunk

    our current practice. (I assume you mean end a vaccine where the incidence is less than 0.001%.) For example kids are still getting polio vaccines in the US and there hasn't been a case here in decades. The reason they haven't stopped it is that if someone from a place where it still exists flew in it could cause a terrible outbreak if there still isn't residual immunity.

    Chickenpox is another example. Everybody used to get chickenpox before the vaccine, and it caused about 50 deaths a year in children in the US IIRC. There are 4 million births a year so that means 0.00125% of children died from it. The percent hospitalized was higher obviously but the same is true with gunshots. In any case, they thought that was worth a vaccine even with a similar percentage mortality.

    •  No, I mean end it when incidence is greater. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpunk, PavePusher
      • mean (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        end it because the vaccine caused the disease?

        Sorry, I am not following.

        •  Precisely. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk, PavePusher

          But you've already made my point.  You accept the mortality rate for applying...say...the HiB vaccine, because incidence is one to two three orders of magnitude greater.  You do not obsess over the marginal cost.

          I imagine this is less obvious to epidemiologists when they get into areas outside of their expertise--particularly crime--where treatments can be fanciful as you can imagine.

          •  Not really (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I meant the mortality from HiB was relatively low as a percentage of all infants, but even though it was low, we made a vaccine anyway. The fact that it was a small percentage of infants who died didn't stop us from acting, and really on a grand scale relative to the number of deaths.

            The mortality from the vaccine (if any) is lower than the mortality from the disease. They do worry about the marginal cost actually. Costs and benefits are assessed as part of the vaccine approval process.

            I don't really see firearms death as being different from that. I do approach it from a public health perspective. Like HiB, it's an unnecessary set of deaths (much larger than the number of HiB deaths) that may be preventable. HiB didn't have the NRA behind it though.

            •  HiB had a vaccine (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpunk, PavePusher

              And your approach suffers some extraordinary defects.  One, a disease by definition is undesirable; the only way you get to that point with guns is from a position of personal disgust, a dismissal of excess deaths prevented from defensive use, or an unjustified conflation of firearm injury with the implements themselves.  Two, intentional homicide and suicide are not pathogenic and directionless; they are purposeful.  You have additional burden to show that your proposed treatment actually defeats intelligent efforts to surmount it; not one study by the epidemiologists bears out any such conclusion about any sort of proposed policy impacting any subset of firearm death and injury.

              Otherwise, you leave well enough alone.

              •  It's not that guns (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tytalus, oldpunk

                per se are undesirable. Firearm deaths are (in my view). It is not the object itself, it is the killing people part that I have a problem with. It's all costs and benefits; personally I do not value the enjoyment of guns as highly as the lives that would be saved without them. The value of defensive use would be irrelevant if nobody had them (eg: the UK).

                However, I agree that the "treatment" of this problem isn't straightforward given how awash in guns our country is. The gun lobby has been very smart in creating a situation where there would be no other practical option other than going their way. I would love to see more restriction, but I realize it is not going to happen any time soon.

                •  "...the lives that would be saved without them." (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher, Robobagpiper

                  That's the issue.  If it's not the "guns per se," but firearms mortality and injury that concerns you (or, in my view, violent crime in general), why focus on the tool?  The same reasoning has been applied to recreational drug use with similar (lack of) success.  

                  Your epidemiology is also immature.  The UK and Colombia have effectively the same rates of gun ownership, yet vastly different outcomes in intentional homicide overall and firearms homicide in particular.  South Korea and Japan have extraordinarily low rates of gun ownership, yet lead the world in suicide rates.  With a small enough sample and set of covariates, you can conclude just about anything; and this is before you even cover the question of excess deaths due to inhibiting laws against self-defense.

                  So that's where we stand today.  Gun rights activists have no reason to accept your point of view because there's little to no evidence for it, and none whatsoever favoring any specific prescriptions the Brady bunch has devised.  On the other hand, there is a powerful argument for self defense, and it only requires counting to make.  What does that leave your side with?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site