"There are more women dying, there are more men dying, and there are more children dying."

[Robb]

Pediatricians take on gun lobby -- carefully

To pediatricians, gun control is a public health issue, not a political one. But they're treading a fine line, and they know it.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has begun a renewed push to try to get Congress to pass gun control measures, sending more than 100 pediatricians to Capitol Hill earlier this month. But others who have taken on the issue over the past decade have a warning for them: they can run afoul of the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups that are quick to paint anyone who advocates for gun control as a political extremist.

What the doctors want is an assault weapon ban, mandatory background checks and waiting periods before all firearm purchases, a ban on high-capacity magazines, handgun regulations and requirements for safe firearm storage under federal law.

Pediatricians are puzzled that the statistics aren’t speaking for themselves.

“Where there are more guns in the United States, there are more people dying,” Dr. Matthew Miller of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center told the meeting in Washington, D.C.. “There are more women dying, there are more men dying, and there are more children dying. We are talking about a lot of people who are dying when they live in places with a lot of guns and homes with guns.”

Read More: http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/13/18200262-pediatricians-take-on-gun-lobby-carefully?lite

[hack89]

1. When you cherry pick your data to only cover the peak in gun violence

and ignore the subsequent 16 years of steady decline, then yes, he is right.

He divided the U.S. population in half, classifying half as living in high-gun-ownership states and half in low-gun-ownership states. In the “high gun states,” 21,148 people were murdered between 1988 and 1997, compared with 7,266 in the “low gun states”. He found 369 kids up to 14 of age who were murdered using guns in states with high rates of gun ownership; 97 were killed deliberately with guns in low-ownership states.

We have cut our murder rate in half over the past 20 years - how is that possible if gun ownership has increased so much?

[Robb]

2. As an NRA member, surely you're aware that not every gunshot wound kills.

Gunshot wounds are up; deaths by gunshot are steady or even declining.

And YOU want to talk about cherry-picking? Try that back on AR15.com, we don't buy it here.

[hack89]

3. But the good doctor is talking about deaths, isn't he?

so tell me - do you disagree with me that there was a significant drop in gun deaths from the end of his study until the present?

Or is that another inconvenient fact you will ignore or hand wave away?

And why did he have to deceive by leaving off 16 years of the most recent data?

[Robb]

4. You're *proud* of being in the NRA.

A group that works to unseat Democrats and enable gundamentalists.

Shall we "wave that away" as you continue?

[hack89]

5. So I take it you support the doctor's deception

because it supports your agenda.

Ok.

[Robb]

6. Why do you belong to the NRA?

It's incompatible with being a Democrat.

[hack89]

7. Gun ownership is not incompatible with being a Democrat

despite what many like you believe.

You and I see eye to eye on many aspects of gun control. The only thing I oppose is the AWB and registration. Why not simply leave it at that? What's more important to you - working to find common ground or waging a scorched earth culture war on DU?

[Robb]

8. No, but belonging to the NRA is.

Can you find no ways to defend your NRA membership? Many gun owners are progressive Democrats, they do not join the NRA.

Why are you a member?

[hack89]

10. Cultural wars it is

good choice - much more entertainment value. Actual compromise and working with your opponents is way overrated.

Good talking to you - see you around. Give my regards to everyone in the echo chamber.

[Robb]

11. This is a site for Democrats and Progressives.

Why post here if you're a member of the NRA?

[hack89]

12. I am a liberal Democrat

I am pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, pro-union, pro-women's rights. I live (by choice) in the bluest of states and every one of my elected officials (all of whom I voted for) is a Democrat.

I am also a gun owner. You are simply going to have to live with that fact.

No one made you the purity cop. Hard as it might seem, you will have to share this web site with those that disagree with you on some issues.

[Robb]

15. Yet you belong to the NRA.

That seems, to be generous about it, contradictory, wouldn't you say?

[hack89]

18. You really yearn for a simple black and white world, don't you?

where everyone is neatly labeled and in it's proper (proper as defined by you) place.

Your angst says a lot more about you than it does about me.

[Robb]

22. You support a group that works to get Democrats out of office.

I'm looking for shades of gray, here...

[hack89]

24. Fixating on one thing to the exclusion of others

has a tendency to wash out the shade of gray, leaving black and white.

It is a complex work full of complex people with complex beliefs. I have found that being open minded and non-judgmental helps. Perhaps you should give it a try.

[Robb]

25. Nutty me, I'm "fixated" on electing FEWER Republicans.

Next you'll be telling me it's OK to vote for just a FEW Republicans, or be just a little bit of a bigot.

[sarisataka]

31. Which is worse then...

an NRA member who votes Democrat or people who cheer billionaires who support any candidate based only on their position on gun control?

I have seen people post that they will not vote for a Democrat who receives an A rating from the NRA. Are they not then supporting Republicans indirectly?


I have trouble understanding the single-issue purity test.

[Robb]

35. *Claims* to vote DemocratIC.

It's such an absurd contention it should be filed under "some of my best friends are black."

It's entirely possible to be in favor of fewer
restrictions on guns WITHOUT belonging to the NRA.

But if you proudly side up with a group working against Democrats, you're really not much of a Democrat, are you?

[sarisataka]

38. I was not speaking of the other poster specifically

-we have people who cheer Bloomberg's statement and specfically point out his money will not only be for Democrats

-others have said they will never vote for a Democrat based on a positive NRA rating

-it is possible to be in favor of MORE restrictions, have nothing more than a basic NRA membership and vote straight Democrat

Who of the three are the better Democrat?

[hack89]

33. Hard to tell with your desire to relive the AWB and the 1994 election

I guess being anti-gun means forgetting the past - it has been a shitty couple of decades for you, hasn't it?

[Robb]

36. You still haven't explained your NRA membership.

Why not simply advocate for fewer restrictions on guns? Why join and remain a proud member of an anti-Democratic lobby?

[hack89]

39. I have publically advocated for gun control measures

I support all proposed gun control measures with the exception of the AWB and registration.

And I also support Dems in elections.

[Robb]

41. Why do you belong to the NRA?

[hack89]

44. Pissing you off would be an excellent reason to join.

considering how upset it makes you. You are close to ARM flapping stage, aren't you?

[Robb]

46. Really. You joined to piss off liberals.

Is that why you're still an NRA member?

[hack89]

48. Not liberals - just you.

give it a rest - you are trying to hard.

[Robb]

53. Why do you hide the reason you belong to the NRA?

What are you afraid of?

[ohiosmith]

26. This post was alerted on. The jury voted 6/0 to let it stand.

At Mon May 13, 2013, 12:47 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

You really yearn for a simple black and white world, don't you?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2837851

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

NRA shill.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon May 13, 2013, 12:55 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I read the thread up to his post.Leave it be.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Oh pooey! Leave the post.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Unless DU Admin has decided to ban members for past, present, future NRA membership (which I have NOT seen that anywhere on site) then don't alert on this again.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Perhaps but he said nothing untoward in this post.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[hobbit709]

29. So was this one, using the same argument by probably same alerter. Results were 2-4 LEAVE IT

At Mon May 13, 2013, 12:23 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Cultural wars it is
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2837538

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

NRA shill.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon May 13, 2013, 12:26 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Hack89 is definitely an NRA shill. That is ALL he does on this site.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Alerter is hyperventilating. There is nothing in the post that is hideable.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Nothing in the post about the NRA. The alerter should be alerted if anyone.

[ohiosmith]

30. No doubt!

Would they like a little cheese with that whine?

[petronius]

34. Lots of alerts flying out of this thread, it seems (this one goes to Post #5)

At Mon May 13, 2013, 11:05 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

So I take it you support the doctor's deception
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2836836

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

NRA shill.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon May 13, 2013, 11:13 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: belonging to the NRA isn't an offense in itself. asshole!
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: NRA
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Weak alert - have a conversation or ignore the (sub)thread, but don't use the jury system as a weapon.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The poster is arguing about statistics; he claims the numbers being cited are inaccurate or cherry-picked. While I have no love for the NRA, I don't see that arguing about statistical accuracy, including making a claim that the statistics in question are deceptive and support another agenda, necessarily violates DU standards. I would, however, insist that the poster back up his her claim with his/her own numbers that do not originate from (or have the taint of) the NRA.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

59. You mean like "Good Guys with Guns" and "Bad Guys with Guns"?

Except when a Good Guy with a Gun does a not so good thing with his gun and is magically transformed into a Bad Guy with a Gun?

[hack89]

61. No - I don't mean that at all. nt

[G_j]

32. There are no liberal Democrats in the NRA. nt

[oldhippie]

13. You know, really?

Your whole NRA shit is pretty lame. It looks like you are just using that shit to avoid having to take part in the discussion.

Just an observation. No need to reply.

[Robb]

16. hack89 said he was an NRA member.

You don't find that at odds with supporting Democrats?

[oldhippie]

17. Furthering my point .....

..... lame.

What does it cost to join the NRA? I might look into it just to piss some people off.

[Robb]

23. You want to send money to support GOP candidates?

Brilliant.

[oldhippie]

40. Bugs ya, don't it?

I've spent way much more money on stupider stuff.

[CokeMachine]

51. Good god Robb

Your flame baiting isn't working. Did the 6-0 hurt your alerting inabilities. You may want to go back to the ECHO chamber where everyone agrees with your grand hosting duties. You are getting close to the record for most blocked members. Please try harder -- OK.

[OriginalGeek]

28. I got a year for free

some promotion they were doing. It's long since expired but they still send the funniest emails.

That said, and in spite of the fact that I do believe the NRA works to get republicans elected over democrats I still have room in my tent for democrats who are also in the NRA.

Heck, I even have religious friends.

[Neoma]

9. The NRA might be the best known gun club, but it's not the only one.

Gun ownership does not automatically mean NRA, surprising as that is.

[hughee99]

19. Come on, what's wrong with using a study that ended about 15 years ago?

What's the point of citing a decades old study if you're not supposed to cherry pick your data?

Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue… A-y-y-y!

[The Magistrate]

20. Nice Bit Of Cherry Picking Yourself, Sir

The article goes on to state that the cut-off point of 1997 was not chosen but imposed by limitations on CDC data; said limitations being imposed by the political ( read money ) influence of the NRA, an organization you proudly pay membership dues to, which wishes there to be no public health data available with government imprimature on the health risks of gun ownership, both to persons who own guns as a class and to society as a whole.

The relation pointed out, of course, holds true even as gun deaths decline, along with a general decline in violent crime: where in locales where more guns are present, more people are shot than are shot in locales where fewer guns are present. It was this relation which the study demonstrated from existing data, rather than, as you pretend, a simple claim greater numbers of guns mean more deaths over-all.

[hack89]

21. The good doctor could have used FBI data

But then that might have undermined his conclusions.

[The Magistrate]

27. That Would Not Have Altered It In The Slightest, Sir, As You Know Perfectly Well

In states where more guns are owned on a per capita basis, more people are shot per capita. The number of people shot in crimes is only a sub-set of the total, and it is the total, including suicides and accidental injuries, which is the focus of public health concern.

[hack89]

37. "Public health concern" - bulls eye.

Since 66% of gun deaths are suicides, which none of the good doctor's proposed laws would address, why not solve the problem with public health solutions? Single payer health care with mental health coverage, couple with an aggressive anti-suicide campaign would save a lot of lives.

[The Magistrate]

42. Public Health Solutions, Sir, Tend To Include Restrictions On Dangerous Substances

A fair analogy would be poisons, which are difficult to purchase, and which when contained in articles in general use, are festooned with warnings making quite clear their deadly potential.

Another element of public health in this regard would be a rational assessment of the balance of dangers incurred with protections intended, when people purchase weapons for 'self defense', which often enough end up as the means of suicide, or of accidental injury.

Indeed, a proper focus on mental health in regards to fire-arms would be to focus on treatment for the variety of fantasies and delusions which haunt the minds of many convinced they 'gotta have a gun to protect me and my family'....

"If you think the government is coming to take away your guns, it's high time somebody did."

[hack89]

45. I can walk out of Home Depot with an arm load of chemicals

that can kill me. Every kitchen an garage in America are full of such chemicals - why do you think poisoning is such a killer of young children. Yet there are no storage requirements, no safety training, no limits on amounts.

Btw, I don't think anyone wants to take away my guns. When even the president is happy with people keeping their AR15s, it is hard to argue otherwise.

[The Magistrate]

47. Noted In The Comment You Are Replying To, Sir

You are talking about items with other uses, in dilute concentration, and while they can be readily purchased, they are labeled with warnings, and public education campaigns make just about everyone aware of the dangers, and of first aid remedies, and the need to contact professionals quickly. Highly poisonous chemicals in serious concentration are a good deal less readily available, in quickly lethal concentrations; insecticides only licensed practitioners may acquire and employ, for instance.

It is noted you did not engage what would be another prong of a serious public health approach, namely rational assessment of the risks inherent to possession of a fire-arm, balanced against the safety from crime many purchasers imagine they will acquire by owning a fire-arm, and examination of the paranoid and aggressive ideation many purchasers and owners of fire-arms display.

While you personally may not be in the 'government will come for my guns' camp, it is abundantly clear the NRA leadership, and many of its active members, do take this as a serious factor determining their assessment of public policy on the matter. We are in a political environment where a plurality of self-identified conservatives believe they will have to rise up in armed rebellion against the U.S. government to 'defend liberty'....

[hack89]

49. The mental health aspect is what I was really referring to

considering that suicides make up 66% of all gun deaths. Short of a total ban it is hard to see what gun laws would prevent suicides. So lets fix the problem a different way.

A rational assessment of the risks of self defense is ok - just don't know what you expect to do with the results. Until Heller is overturned, it is a civil liberty to own a handgun in your home for self defense. It is not policy issue.

[The Magistrate]

52. It is Part Of The Mental Health Question, Sir

It is quite obvious that many fire-arms owners are mentally unbalanced, and making decisions that place them and others at serious risk of harm while in the grip of delusional and obsessive beliefs.


"It's a helluva catch, that Catch-22...."

[rl6214]

14. Like in Chicago where all of those things are banned?

[nomorenomore08]

43. The more guns there are in all, the more easily they can be illegally obtained.

I'm not blanketly condemning gun owners by any means, I do think that guns have some legitimate uses. But I suspect that the only way to "keep guns away from criminals" is, ultimately, to have fewer guns in the first place.

[BainsBane]

50. that might work for the NRA

but the rest of us aren't so stupid as to not realize it's not very difficult to drive to the suburbs to get a gun. A comparison would be Japan, which has an extremely low homicide rate, which is exactly what the gun lobby doesn't want. Every dead body is profit for them, and that is all they care about. It's a simple issue of whether one values human life or the machinery of death. Everything else is just self deception people engage in to try to live with supporting policies that are immoral to the core.

So save your breath. No one here is stupid enough to buy that propaganda.

[rl6214]

55. The suburbs? Try the state.

So save your breath, those of us that don't have blinders on aren't stupid enough to buy your propaganda.

[BainsBane]

56. so are you saying you don't even know that

people can legally purchase guns just outside Chicago, in Winnetka and Evanston, for example? Hardly surprising. Why inform yourself when you prefer to repeat fraudulent NRA propaganda? Chicago is the favorite talking point on Fox News and right wing radio.

Ignore Japan and Australia. You wouldn't actually want to live in a society where the lives of children mattered more than corporate profits and selfish desires of individuals to stockpile mass murder machines. When corporate profits and personal selfishness matters more than human life, we have stopped being a civilized nation. That is exactly how gun lobby want it. Deaths lead to gun sales, which in turn generate more profits.

[rl6214]

57. I wouldn't know, I don't belong to the NRA

Or listen to foxnews or talk radio. You keep on wringing your hands, I don't.

[Skittles]

58. Chicago! CARS!!! KNIVES!!! 2nd AMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!

[Hoyt]

54. Thank god for the NRA and those who support them, directly or indirectly.

Good luck peds, admire your courage against gun culture.

[ananda]

60. The pediataricians wonder why the statistics ..

.. aren't speaking for themselves?

What, do they live in a bubble?

What do they think all that NRA and lobbyist money pays for?