The AMA and CDC have framed the concept of a "gun violence epidemic" in similar biological terminology. Are we the causal organism or the antibody? These terms seem to be a foundation of the control movement. Can all of you smart folks come up with a counter theory or refutation in the same "scientific" language? Or has science in any field been lost to the role of propaganda? We get rid of polio: no more wheelchairs for example. Curious.
The Gun Disease
- Thread starter G-Freeman
- Start date
Brett Bellmore
New member
Guns in the hands of the law abiding are more like a live vaccine than a disease; While they CAN have bad side effects, in most cases they actually help to prevent the disease. And by preventing an epidemic of crime, aid even those who don't own them, just as vacines help safeguard the health of people who haven't used them, by preventing disease epidemics.
Doctors who deny that guns could possibly have this effect aren't unlike the doctors Pasteur faced, who denied that innoculating someone with a disease organism could have anything but harmful effects. Rather than assuming that guns(germs) are under all circumstances harmful, they should take an objective look at the evidence.
------------------
Sic semper tyranus!
Doctors who deny that guns could possibly have this effect aren't unlike the doctors Pasteur faced, who denied that innoculating someone with a disease organism could have anything but harmful effects. Rather than assuming that guns(germs) are under all circumstances harmful, they should take an objective look at the evidence.
------------------
Sic semper tyranus!
I believe that I would frame the issue this way:
Just as "chronic constipation" can be caused by the lack of "fiber" in a diet, the "gun violence epidemic" is probably caused by the lack of "moral fiber" in society and especially in government.
By the way, what you have described is termed "junk science" by many reputable researchers.
Just as "chronic constipation" can be caused by the lack of "fiber" in a diet, the "gun violence epidemic" is probably caused by the lack of "moral fiber" in society and especially in government.
By the way, what you have described is termed "junk science" by many reputable researchers.
Not to be a PITA, but this really belongs in the political area.
I have been reading a lot in the last week/10days from both sides of(and on)this topic. While I still have reservations about doctors, the other side of the arena is frightening to say the least. The AMA and CDC are the far extremes. The other far extremes also seek to disarm and restrict others rights. Both extremes have their own agendas, and are willing to sacrifice everyone in the middle.
I have been reading a lot in the last week/10days from both sides of(and on)this topic. While I still have reservations about doctors, the other side of the arena is frightening to say the least. The AMA and CDC are the far extremes. The other far extremes also seek to disarm and restrict others rights. Both extremes have their own agendas, and are willing to sacrifice everyone in the middle.
I saw these people in action, and boy, were they slick.
CSPAN aired a segment back when the lawsuits against gunmakers started. They showed a symposium of lawyers debating the pro/cons of
these suits.
Somewhere along the line, here come these people talking about the "germs of violence".
They started out by showing the classic water hand pump that a British scientist
isolated as the cause of a cholera outbreak and then neatly made the analogy with handguns.
I watched the audience for some signs of outrage or disbelief, or even intelligence.
Instead, all I saw was blank stares at best and nodding heads at worse. That's when I knew we were REALLY in trouble.
------------------
Nevada alt C.A.N.
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
CSPAN aired a segment back when the lawsuits against gunmakers started. They showed a symposium of lawyers debating the pro/cons of
these suits.
Somewhere along the line, here come these people talking about the "germs of violence".
They started out by showing the classic water hand pump that a British scientist
isolated as the cause of a cholera outbreak and then neatly made the analogy with handguns.
I watched the audience for some signs of outrage or disbelief, or even intelligence.
Instead, all I saw was blank stares at best and nodding heads at worse. That's when I knew we were REALLY in trouble.
------------------
Nevada alt C.A.N.
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
G-Freeman, the following link;
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/1158/VACCINES.HTM
It has a few references to physicians, and why sometimes the "cure" is worse than the disease.
It's also known scientific fact, that there are risks of death from vaccinations.
One of the references on that page, by Dr. Randall Neustaedter, O.M.D., suggest that vaccinations impair the immune system.
Is he suggesting our mandated Federally immunization/Public School System, are contributing to our epidemic of AIDS, without coming right out and saying it?
Best Regards,
Don
------------------
The enemy of my enemy, is my friend.
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/1158/VACCINES.HTM
It has a few references to physicians, and why sometimes the "cure" is worse than the disease.
It's also known scientific fact, that there are risks of death from vaccinations.
One of the references on that page, by Dr. Randall Neustaedter, O.M.D., suggest that vaccinations impair the immune system.
Is he suggesting our mandated Federally immunization/Public School System, are contributing to our epidemic of AIDS, without coming right out and saying it?
Best Regards,
Don
------------------
The enemy of my enemy, is my friend.
Join NRA today! (SEF)
New member
We'll, I believe that if you cut and paste phrases like "vehicular manslaughter" or "swimming pool drownings" and "alcohol abuse" for "gun violence epidemic" we'll begin to step on the toes of those that don't have any interest in giving up their Suburbans, backyard pools or Jack Daniel's.
(For the children of course)
[This message has been edited by Join NRA today! (SEF) (edited January 23, 2000).]
(For the children of course)
[This message has been edited by Join NRA today! (SEF) (edited January 23, 2000).]
Brett's response was very logical. Sorry RAE (and mods) if the topic is misplaced. Donny - your link will take some time to digest but I appreciate it. I actually have a pretty good raport with my own doc and trust his scientific evaluation. At a recent office visit he calmly told me prior to a prostate exam to hand the nice nurse my gun belt first 
.
.Jeff Thomas
New member
It is sometimes dangerous to try to work with your opponents' metaphors. To each his own.
My favorite lately is to simply explain that firearms terminate violence. Do we give guns to LEO's so they can kill people? Of course not - we provide them so LEO's can terminate violence. Honest civilians use them for the same purpose.
Well less than 1% of firearms are ever used in a crime. Why would we describe their purpose by such minimal use? Autos are involved in fatal accidents with a similarly small ratio ... we don't say cars are designed for killing people, do we?
Metaphors / semantics matter a great deal. It's not about gun rights ... it is about civil rights. They aren't the anti-gun crowd ... they are the anti-self defense movement. It's not just the 2nd Amendment ... it is about the Bill of Rights. They aren't anti-gun commentators ... they are gun bigots. It isn't a high capacity magazine ... it is a full capacity magazine. It isn't a handgun ... it is a sidearm. It isn't an assault rifle ... it is a competition rifle. And, yes, I have a few household guns around my place. [With thanks to Alan Korwin at http://www.gunlaws.com , TFL members, and Bushmaster]
Don't use the enemy's rhetoric - let's be smart, and change our words to match the truth in this discussion. I agree ... words matter.
Regards from AZ
My favorite lately is to simply explain that firearms terminate violence. Do we give guns to LEO's so they can kill people? Of course not - we provide them so LEO's can terminate violence. Honest civilians use them for the same purpose.
Well less than 1% of firearms are ever used in a crime. Why would we describe their purpose by such minimal use? Autos are involved in fatal accidents with a similarly small ratio ... we don't say cars are designed for killing people, do we?
Metaphors / semantics matter a great deal. It's not about gun rights ... it is about civil rights. They aren't the anti-gun crowd ... they are the anti-self defense movement. It's not just the 2nd Amendment ... it is about the Bill of Rights. They aren't anti-gun commentators ... they are gun bigots. It isn't a high capacity magazine ... it is a full capacity magazine. It isn't a handgun ... it is a sidearm. It isn't an assault rifle ... it is a competition rifle. And, yes, I have a few household guns around my place.
[With thanks to Alan Korwin at http://www.gunlaws.com , TFL members, and Bushmaster]Don't use the enemy's rhetoric - let's be smart, and change our words to match the truth in this discussion. I agree ... words matter.
Regards from AZ
There is a growing movement of people who oppose vaccinations due to the "risks". These people, recognizing the real risks of vaccinations (yes, people do die from them) can avoid those risks while being surrounded by a vaccinated population that insulates the non-vaccinated from disease. Their folly comes from promoting non-vaccination, thus reducing that protective vaccinated population.
Same with firearms.
People enjoy a high degree of safety, a safety born of armed individuals that strike down the "disease" of crime. Guns are a "vaccine", CCW is a "vaccination". Those vaccinated individuals suppress the disease, with rare negative side effects. Feeling safe from the disease and seeing the rare negative side effects, some promote the elimination of the vaccine...terrorizing those who know the value and elminating the insulation from the disease. Should they succeed, they may rediscover the great value of the vaccine, and face the real horrors of the disease that it kept at bay.
Same with firearms.
People enjoy a high degree of safety, a safety born of armed individuals that strike down the "disease" of crime. Guns are a "vaccine", CCW is a "vaccination". Those vaccinated individuals suppress the disease, with rare negative side effects. Feeling safe from the disease and seeing the rare negative side effects, some promote the elimination of the vaccine...terrorizing those who know the value and elminating the insulation from the disease. Should they succeed, they may rediscover the great value of the vaccine, and face the real horrors of the disease that it kept at bay.
As RAE noted, this thread belongs in L/P. I'll move it there and close it here.
Good discussion, BTW.
------------------
"If your determination is fixed, I do not counsel you to despair. Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are performed not by strength, but perseverance."
-- Samuel Johnson
Good discussion, BTW.
------------------
"If your determination is fixed, I do not counsel you to despair. Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are performed not by strength, but perseverance."
-- Samuel Johnson
One of the problems that I see with this argument is that 'they' are equating guns with disease. We fall into their trap by arguing that guns are an immune system. Thus we further the misconception that guns are live things, taking active or proactive measures.
We need to stress the responsibility of the critter that misuses them, that guns aren't a disease, antisocial behavior is a disease.
Every time we give weapons traits that only living creatures have, we make it that much easier for the gun bigots to move the responsibility for the violence from the critters to the guns--making the guns the problem instead of the anti-social little parasites that misuse them.
This is a scenario that we can't win, guys-n-gals.
LawDog
We need to stress the responsibility of the critter that misuses them, that guns aren't a disease, antisocial behavior is a disease.
Every time we give weapons traits that only living creatures have, we make it that much easier for the gun bigots to move the responsibility for the violence from the critters to the guns--making the guns the problem instead of the anti-social little parasites that misuse them.
This is a scenario that we can't win, guys-n-gals.
LawDog
p220fortyfive
New member
When dealing with anti-gun fanatics, it is counterproductive to let them shape the paradigm of the debate. The way to approach the subject is to reveal just how absurd and bigoted their arguments actually are; if necessary by attacking them personally. Clinton and his "goon sqaud" have shown the way to win a political argument is not by reason, but by smear and ridicule. Dirty but effective.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p220fortyfive:
When dealing with anti-gun fanatics, it is counterproductive to let them shape the paradigm of the debate. The way to approach the subject is to reveal just how absurd and bigoted their arguments actually are;[/quote]
I agree with that much of your posting, p220.
But once we reveal how absurd their arguments are, why attack them personally? You have said that we should not let them "shape the paradigm of the debate" and you are absolutely correct. Just because they take the "low road" doesn't mean that that is where the fight should be.
If we take the same approach as the anti's then we are allowing them to set the stage for the debate. They will set it in the mud and we will have lost just by showing up.
------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
When dealing with anti-gun fanatics, it is counterproductive to let them shape the paradigm of the debate. The way to approach the subject is to reveal just how absurd and bigoted their arguments actually are;[/quote]
I agree with that much of your posting, p220.
But once we reveal how absurd their arguments are, why attack them personally? You have said that we should not let them "shape the paradigm of the debate" and you are absolutely correct. Just because they take the "low road" doesn't mean that that is where the fight should be.
If we take the same approach as the anti's then we are allowing them to set the stage for the debate. They will set it in the mud and we will have lost just by showing up.
------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
p220fortyfive
New member
The reason for attacking gun opponents personally is to let them know in no uncertain terms that this is not a friendly discussion. Gun opponents have decided that law abiding citizens should arbitrarily be prosecuted as felons for the mere possesion of an inanimate object. This is not only offensive, it is an act of terrorism. A few well chosen insults are nothing compared to the jail sentences and the destruction of lives that anti-gun fanatics have in mind for gunowners.