Skip to main content

View Diary: Physician who headed up CDC's study of gun violence blocked by the NRA explains what they looked at (244 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The cigarette effect (22+ / 0-)

    I'm thinking the best approach to reducing gunshot injuries would be similar to the effect to reduce cigarette usage.

    With cigarettes, we had a growing body of evidence that showed cigarette use was dangerous to the smoker and to others around the smokers.  We had (and have today) a concerted public relations campaign to tell the public about the dangers of cigarette use.  We also asked the cigarette manufacturers to pay for the public relations campaign and re-imburse the government for the health care costs of treating tobacco-related illnesses.  The government also raised taxes and fees on cigarette sales, retailers, and manufacturers.  And there was also a series of very public trials that revealed the lies and manipulations of the cigarette industry to keep Americans smoking.  Smokers were never told they cannot smoke, but the message was clear that there was a consequence to continued smoking.

    The result has been a decrease in the percentage of Americans who regularly smoke from around 45% after WWII, to about 20% today.  Today, smoking is the opposite of cool, and much more expensive.  all this, despite the phyiscally addictive nature of cigarette use.

    Fortunately, gun use is not physically addictive.  I suggest a similar effort should be brought to bear against gun sales.  Rather than getting bogged donw in fights about constitutional rights, we should be saying to the gun consumers that owning a gun is dangerous to you and those around you, and make it more expensive to own and use a gun.  We should be shaming gun enthusiasts, rather than seeking questionable and perhaps undoable restrictions and limitations  

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 11:02:46 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  That would reinforce existing trends. (11+ / 0-)

      Gun ownership as a percentage of the population is in decline. Fewer gun owners own more guns. Making the case that guns are likely to make you less safe would likely help increase the trend.

      I suspect the gun manufacturers would then move on to other markets (China, third world nations, etc.) just like the cigarette makers did.

      •  Yes, already working (9+ / 0-)

        Yes, there are trends away from gun use already.  As you say, fewer people are choosing to be gun owners.

        Yet, guns sales are increasing (as meausred by the FBI NCIS data).

        I sugest we lobby our government to get into the game with a) more research into the health aspects of gun use (which Obama has made a goal of his), b) a PR campaign to tell the public about the dangers of gun use, c) to apply a tax similar to a "sin-tax" on guns and ammo to pay for the healthcare costs of all those gunshot injuries

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 11:35:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  To continue the analogy, we also have (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RadGal70, WakeUpNeo, LilithGardener, anana

      Sweeping laws forbidding smoking in many many places. As we should with guns. Like deciding whether to take the risks of smoking, but not being allowed to cause risks to others. Keep your guns if you choose to ignore the fact that you are putting family members in danger, but have laws keeping those weapons away from others. I won't blow smoke in your face if you leave your gun at home.

      Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

      by Smoh on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 01:20:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  See the attached editorial in the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Portland Oregonian titled, "Are Gun Owners the New Smokers?"

      The Big O doesn't like the idea of making it illegal to carry guns in public places and argues against restrictions, but they are accepting the premise.  They just don't like it.  

      I think it does and will continue to work and that is why the gun lovers object.  Gun owners are the new smokers and drunk drivers and they will find themselves isolated over time.

      •  The writers of that editorial are idiots (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WakeUpNeo, Meteor Blades

        A couple of mooks walked through a Portland neighborhood with their AR-15s strapped to their backs. That scared a lot of law-abiding folks, & those two were lucky that another gun nut didn't decide to blast them away because they might reenact what happened at Clackamas Town Center in December.

        And following the links, I'm saddened to see Ginny Burdick backed away from promoting some common-sense laws to better control gun violence (i.e., smaller magazines & banning sales of assault rifles). Which all happened with minimal attention from the local media. (I, for one, didn't hear of it until now; I can't spend all day watching the tv or reading the newspaper in case the PTB want to kill the bill on the QT.)

        The nuts are still in control of gun laws in Oregon, dammit! And I'm glad I stopped my subscription to the Oregonian after learning what stupidity they advocate!

    •  Are you sure? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fortunately, gun use is not physically addictive.
      I see plenty of evidence suggesting addiction --- if not physical, then at least psychological addiction.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site