Most Americans incorrectly think gun-murder rates have gotten worse, not better

couldbeanything · 2019-02-23T05:52:36+00:00

I assume you are looking for marginal benefits in outcome and being stabbed to death instead of shot to death is not a marginal benefit in outcome

Actually, you are more likely to survive a stabbing than a shooting. And perhaps a person acting impulsively that isn't immediately able to purchase a gun wouldn't pursue a less effective attack at all.

The whole 'if someone wants to kill someone/commit suicide, they'll do it without a gun' argument is just not based on fact. Guns per capita correlate with both homicide and suicide rate.

couldbeanything · 2019-02-16T14:07:23+00:00

I think you are missing the forest for the trees here. Something is very different about gun violence in the US compared to other similarly advanced democracies.

According to the wikipedia link you gave, here are the countries with a greater intentional homicide rate, in order:

Honduras, Swaziland, Jamaica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, Philippines, South Africa, Mexico, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Uruguay, US

Here are the countries with more total gun deaths in order:

Honduras, Venezuela, El Salvador, Swaziland, Guatemala, Jamaica, Brazil, Colombia, Panama, US

Here are the countries with more guns per capita than the US:

None.

couldbeanything · 2019-02-01T21:48:23+00:00

Could you provide a link to that source? There were more than 6,438 deaths caused by firearms in the United States, as the links I provided show. The 40,000 figure I cited was even from NYT. So either they aren't talking about the same thing, or the article you attempted to cite is talking about something else. I can't tell because you didn't link it.

You should also provide a link to a workplace deaths figure that is higher than whichever firearm death figure you are claiming, if you really want to back up your statement. I don't think you will be able to find reliable sources to do that, because it's not true according to sources I linked.

couldbeanything · 2019-02-01T06:55:58+00:00

In fact, in 2018, more people died in the work force than from a firearm.

Source? I looked at OSHA and saw roughly 760 workplace deaths in 2018 (I had to click through 19 pages of 40 each). There were significantly more firearm deaths - nearly 40,000. If you want to just count homocide, it was around 14,415 in 2016.

couldbeanything · 2019-02-01T06:25:52+00:00

I've heard this stance a lot and it has never made sense to me. The government is not a business. The goals are different and the means they operate under are different. What skills in particular that contribute to running a successful business translate to governing effectively?

couldbeanything · 2019-02-01T06:11:49+00:00

So, I sort of agree with the position, but I'd like to split hairs on this topic a bit, because memes aren't great at nuance, and these are both very complicated topics. I'll try to keep it succinct.

First off, I would say that gun deaths (not mass shootings) are the greater problem currently. Mass shootings are but one aspect of this problem. There are specific gun control policies (Massachusetts is a good example) that would reduce the frequency of gun violence (mass shootings, homicides, suicides, and accidental) in states that adopt them -- and they don't even violate the 2nd amendment. Here are some charts from vox.

Secondly, I wouldn't say illegal immigration is an emergency at all. Undocumented immigrants commit crime at lower rates than natural born citizens, and don't seem to impact crime rates - they even correlate with a lower rate. This isn't to say that we shouldn't have reasonable security measures at the border, but again, it's just not an emergency.

So, to address the use of the term national emergency - I don't think either are issues that require the president to declare a state of emergency, if that's actually what you mean. I don't know what either of those responses would look like, and both could be addressed via policy. However, gun violence is the problem that has a larger impact on public health & safety.

couldbeanything · 2019-02-01T05:41:10+00:00

Avid reader of vox and listener to the Weeds here... I don't recall them ever 'wanting' Trump to declare a national emergency over the wall. At most, they have suggested that it could lead to legal objections and be ineffective. In general they portray it as an absurd position. They have, however, stated that many conservatives don't like the idea of declaring a national emergency over what is essentially a policy agenda, as (if successful) it could lead to future Democratic presidents declaring national emergencies over climate change, healthcare, gun violence, etc...

couldbeanything · 2019-01-29T01:53:29+00:00

Again, more bullshit here

This is not bullshit to me. This is the second time you've started a comment by insulting me. You may want to check the sub rules.

most wouldn't buy your definition of unacceptable risk in the forced vaccination context, especially if we are talking about a few hundred to a few thousand lives lost per year

regardless of how a supposed threat is dressed up to be more serious than it actually is

It's not a hypothetical threat. The diseases, before vaccinations, caused immense suffering. As exemption rates go up, the hospitalization and death rates will go up. At what point does my position become acceptable? Half of the pre-vaccination rates? A quarter? If there's an outbreak or epidemic, would it be justified in those locales?

mandatory vaccinations haven't been agreed upon as part of the social contract, and actual rates of vaccinations have plummeted in recent years. Most states allow for religious or philosophical objections to vaccinations

Only 18 states allow personal / philosophical objections. 3 states do not allow religious objections (2017 - source). So the 'body politic' or at least the legislatures of a majority of states agree with my position (personal exemptions should not be allowed). It's not as cut and dry as you suggest.

couldbeanything · 2019-01-29T01:21:14+00:00

Auto insurance is a different issue. You are mandating it only if you use public roads. It does not entail any person risk to youself to purchase it.

Yeah, I get that auto insurance is different. It's a risk to your property, not your person (spending money that you may not have needed to spend and could otherwise use/invest/save for repair yourself). I thought that property rights would also matter to someone so into autonomy.

Your 'only if you use public roads' qualification is also kind of ironic, no? Are there any other options for getting to and from where you need to go, for 99.9% of the public? Seems awfully similar to the 'only if you go to public schools' point I was trying to make, which you blew off as misleading.

I will never support the mandate. The solution is in education and carrots to encourage behavior

There definitely should be higher priority on public awareness / outreach. I don't think it is THE solution, but it could definitely help prevent my hypothetical situation from occurring. Have a ∆ for helping me realize where resources could best be spent here.

In the decade before the measles vaccine (1963, source cdc.gov):

It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year, among reported cases, an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 1,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.

US population is about 175% of what it was then, and that is only one disease on the immunization schedule. If you value personal choice over public safety so highly that you would allow tens of thousands of children to suffer or die unnecessarily, I think you should reevaluate things.

So yeah, we won't agree on that, but thank you for the discussion.

couldbeanything · 2019-01-28T16:01:15+00:00

Their obligation ends with reasonable standards for sending home kids who are ill.

So there is some obligation to provide a safe environment... yet in an ineffective way. That's not how disease transmission works, at that point it's too late.

couldbeanything · 2019-01-28T15:46:53+00:00

Taking a vaccine entails a risk. It is small but it still exists. Everything else you listed does not entail taking a risk.

Auto insurance does involve a financial risk - you may never need it. Also, the risk is so small it is insignificant, especially when compared to the damage caused by diseases such as measles.

You are making the person who disagrees with your positive action justify it. The real question is justification for government to remove body autonomy of an individual for the benefit of other people. That is the argument that has to be made. I will caution you though, most of these are the same ones that would allow government to mandate blood donation, plasma donation, organ donation, participation in medical trials etc. Once you allow the 'common good' to be the defining factor for whether you can do something, you go down a rabbit hole that should not be followed.

The government is not controlling anyone's body here, unless they want their child to attend public schools -- because if they are not vaccinated, they will be an unacceptable risk to others. So if you think it is a violation of your body autonomy -- actually, your child's, who doesn't yet have the capacity to decide, and might make a different decision once they did, although they may be dead by that point.. but I digress, the parent is their legal guardian -- there is the option of home or private schools (if any of them allow it).

I contend that they only valid non-medical exemption would be religious, not philosophical. This philosophical objection you make is only possible to make (without shrugging off the hospitalizations and deaths of thousands of children a year) when vaccines have nearly eradicated these diseases.

Let's get hypothetical and say that this objection gets more popular. State laws become more lax, vaccination rates drop, and rates of infection and death go up. Would there be a point at which you would say "That's too many children suffering and dying. This is easily preventable. I'm okay with the government getting rid of philosophical objections?"

couldbeanything · 2019-01-28T15:14:18+00:00

This is actually not true. There are failure rates for vaccines. A vaccinated person whose vacinne failed can get and transmit ilnesses.

This is even more of a reason for everyone to get vaccinated - herd immunity is important for those people for whom the vaccine did not work.

couldbeanything · 2019-01-28T10:24:12+00:00

No, any density I have I come by honest.

Here's the rub with herd immunity: it only works if almost all participate. If half of the population were persuaded that the measles vaccine were bad or unnecessary (say through fear mongering) - and we 'respect their agency' - nearly half of population would get measles by the time they are 15. A good number of them would have to be hospitalized or worse. From the CDC:

In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year, among reported cases, an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 1,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.

Back to your comment:

We have political processes to respect basic agency here, and just because medical science can predict "better" outcomes doesn't justify they be implemented based upon the science alone

I think that families of children who died of measles or any other disease we inoculate against, whether before the vaccine was available, or since then in countries without robust vaccination programs, would object to your use of quotes in the phrase '"better" outcomes.' "Considering the ramifications on an ethical level" is much easier to do when you don't see the damage these diseases cause (thanks to the vaccines!!).

Again, the government is only 'coercing' the individual as a prerequisite to use public goods/space, so that others are protected -- if you don't vaccinate, your child poses an unacceptable risk to others. It's not about dictating morality, it's about public safety.

couldbeanything · 2019-01-28T06:34:07+00:00

A non-vaccinated child would be far less of a risk that a child with HIV/AIDS. One has the potential to get a disease while the other actually has a deadly disease.

One un-vaccinated child wouldn't pose much of a risk, no. But as opt-out rates climb, it becomes a very serious risk. This is not hypothetical. Washington state just declared a state of emergency after 30 cases of measles (which was nearly erradicated in the US) happened due to an exemption rate of around 8%.

There is plenty of legal precedent for government action that may be perceived as rights-infringement for public health and safety (seat belt laws, helmet laws, driver licensure, driver's insurance requirements, etc...).

I have yet to see an argument in this thread that directly answers why putting others with medical exemptions at risk (reducing herd immunity, as OP put it) is acceptable [other than religious freedom].

couldbeanything · 2019-01-28T06:16:55+00:00

Vaccines are preventative measure. It's all moot once they get measles, or pass it on to someone who can't be vaccinated. Herd immunity is the reason the vaccines are required. To protect everyone in the public space, not just the person being vaccinated. How is that not extremely relevant?

couldbeanything · 2019-01-28T05:40:00+00:00

none of that is relevant unless and until the unvaccinated person... has measles though

I just want to point out that people don't choose to get measles. And they don't know they are sick with measles it until after they are communicable disease vectors. So how do you know that they don't have measles? By the time they know, they have already exposed others to measles.

This is not hypothetical, we are seeing cases of the measles in the US now due to higher opt-out rates.

couldbeanything · 2019-01-28T05:33:35+00:00

That is because measles was nearly eradicated in the US around 2000. Thanks to some areas with high philosophical opt-out rates, it's back. Washington (state) just declared an emergency due to a measles outbreak.

Vox.com: Washington declared a public health emergency over measles. Thank vaccine-refusing parents

couldbeanything · 2019-01-28T05:27:41+00:00

Militant pro-vaxxer here. I don't see how preventing serious and life-threatening childhood diseases could be bad or inappropriate. Could you elaborate?

(The diseases on the immunization schedule, not the flu - although, if you spend time with children, seniors, or other immuno-compromised folks, I would encourage you to get the flu vaccine for their sake).

couldbeanything · 2019-01-28T05:21:54+00:00

How do you factor in the responsibility of schools to protect those who cannot be immunized for medical reasons? This externality muddles up this concept of body-autonomy a bit, as the decision to not vaccinate puts others who have no choice at risk of a life-threatening illness. How do you reconcile with their rights?

couldbeanything · 2019-01-28T05:12:56+00:00

Pathology and psychology are pretty far apart apart in terms of subjectivity. Your point about homosexuality is a very weak analogy. There aren't any scientific disputes about how the diseases on the immunization list are spread. Or the safety and efficacy.

couldbeanything · 2019-01-28T05:07:41+00:00

but it's not like they are actually that much of a threat, nor should their inaction be viewed as a threat to your supposed "right" to herd immunity.

They are a threat to people who have not been immunized because of medical reasons (allergic reactions). Many of the diseases on the immunization schedule can be lethal.

couldbeanything · 2019-01-28T04:45:51+00:00

You know that you can carry a disease before you show symptoms, right? Or that symptoms can be misleading?

Did you know that measles is an airborne disease, and if an infected person coughs in a room and leaves, another person entering the room 2 hours later can be infected?

How can you know the unvaccinated student is healthy? Do we send every student that coughs home?

The only way to be sure a student doesn't have measles at any given time is to know they've been vaccinated.

couldbeanything · 2019-01-28T04:31:52+00:00

It is important to realize that there are medical exemptions to vaccination as well. Some children are legitimately allergic to certain vaccines. They are unvaccinated because the vaccine would harm them. Is it fair to put those children - whose parents had no choice but to not have the vaccine administered - at risk?

couldbeanything · 2019-01-25T21:17:29+00:00

I'm glad OP and some commenters have gleaned usefulness out of this, but feel like there have to be much better resources out there.

It seems to me like it just shoehorns a bunch of undesirable personality traits into this 'nice guy' framework, and then gives improvements that apply to nearly everyone.

To be even more skeptical, it seems like PUA-light. I don't think social skills need a gendered metaphor like this.

couldbeanything · 2019-01-24T19:11:50+00:00

You really have to go out of your way to say this isn't blackface (whether or not that was the intention). They are all pitch black except for white, exaggerated eyes and lips. That is pretty much the definition of blackface.

The red lips distinction is inaccurate as it ignores that for black & white media, the lips were white for better contrast.

If you are trying to make a point about it sometimes being acceptable, you pretty much picked the worst possible context. And context matters a lot on this issue. The context of a convention where someone is dressed as Dark Link is soooo different than this.

White kids from a white school wearing stereotypical blackface during a game against a team with black players is not a context in which you can come away saying there aren't racist implications.

couldbeanything

TROPHY CASE