Scientific studies won’t find path to peace
It certainly seems like a good idea that you couldn’t argue against. That is, using public money to research the causes of gun violence and its effect on our communities.
Start Free AccountGet access to 10 premium stories every month for FREE!
Already a Subscriber?Current print subscriber? Activate your complimentary Digital account.
Subscribe NowChoose a package that suits your preferences.
What we have here is another effort at elevating so called “common sense” (in reality: a lifetime collection of biases) above the work of those snooty experts who wasted their time and money going to college!
Common sense tells us that we humans are too itty bitty to affect climate change and shouldn’t waste money trying. Science has a nearly unopposed consensus that will not only repair the damage, it will improve the health of all.
Common sense tells the person with chronic laryngitis with aphonia to sip tea with honey. A Speech Pathologist addresses the harmful environment created in the throat and the effects of anxiety and tension on 32 muscles of the larynx.
The alternative to the proposed “evidence based solution” is an opinion based solution. That opinion will be based on whether you’re in the tribe that likes guns or the tribe that doesn’t. True naiveté is going tribal and letting opinion rule the day because that only works on the 50-50 laws of chance!
The fallacy with the writer’s argument is that it fails to offer reasons why science won’t work.
Simply saying something won’t work just for argument’s sake is weak and does not offer clear solutions to a quandary.
“The end of violence is possible to find. But you don’t need to spend millions of dollars and years trying to figure it out. It must begin with each of us, and how we treat each other, how we act, what we say, and what we do.”
In the paragraph above, the writer suggests millions of dollars are being spent to “figure it out,” but does not offer any evidence to suggest that millions of dollars are being spent.
How are we as readers able to take what this writer says at face value when the person writing a statement could or could not be a reliable source? That fact alone gives the writer zero authority to make statements which could dissuade an opposing voice or convince and validate another’s.
“What would happen if this country’s leaders just asked people to do as the Bible says, and love thy neighbor? They would probably be voted out of office. Far too simple, some say. There must be more to it.”
This is clear speculation without, again, any evidence — an opinion from a faceless writer hiding behind the screen and the authoritative voice of this newspaper.
“Ending violence is far more complicated than being a nice, loving person. Naive thinking. A Pollyanna approach. That won’t end violence or lead to a kinder, gentler world.”
What is the solution? Raising another question to invalidate an argument you provide zero evidence for validates nothing. The writer offers nothing to readers, but fake news and propaganda.
Here are some scientific facts provided by: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts
1) America has six times as many firearm homicides as Canada, and nearly 16 times as many as Germany.
America far and away leads other developed countries when it comes to gun-related homicides. Why? Extensive reviews of the research by the Harvard School of Public Health’s Injury Control Research Center suggest the answer is pretty simple: The US is an outlier on gun violence because it has way more guns than other developed nations.
2) America has 4.4 percent of the world’s population, but almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world.
3) There have been more than 1,500 mass shootings since Sandy Hook.
In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, six adults, and himself. Since then, there have been at least 1,518 mass shootings, with at least 1,715 people killed and 6,089 wounded as of October 2017.
The counts come via the Gun Violence Archive, which has hosted a database that tracks mass shootings since 2013. But since some shootings go unreported, the database is likely missing some, as well as the details of some of the events.
The tracker uses a fairly broad definition of “mass shooting”: It includes not just shootings in which four or more people were murdered, but shootings in which four or more people were shot at all (excluding the shooter).
Even under this broad definition, it’s worth noting that mass shootings make up a tiny portion of America’s firearm deaths, which totaled more than 33,000 in 2014.
4) On average, there is more than one mass shooting for each day in America
Whenever a mass shooting occurs, supporters of gun rights often argue that it’s inappropriate to bring up political debates about gun control in the aftermath of a tragedy. For example, former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a strong supporter of gun rights, criticized former President Barack Obama for “trying to score cheap political points” when Obama mentioned gun control after a mass shooting in Charleston, South Carolina.
But if this argument is followed to its logical end, then it will never be the right time to discuss mass shootings, as Christopher Ingraham pointed out at the Washington Post. Under the broader definition of mass shootings, America has nearly one mass shooting a day. So if lawmakers are forced to wait for a time when there isn’t a mass shooting to talk gun control, they could find themselves waiting for a very long time.
Without science, one cannot find a solution to gun violence.
But with the help of science and statistics, lawmakers can create regulations the curb gun violence in the nation and in the United States.
One such example is the nation of Japan.
From http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-how-japan-has-almost-completely-eliminated-gun-deaths-2017-10: “If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.
“Japan has also embraced the idea that fewer guns in circulation will result in fewer deaths. Each prefecture — which ranges in size from half a million people to 12 million, in Tokyo — can operate a maximum of three gun shops; new magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones; and when gun owners die, their relatives must surrender the deceased member’s firearms.”
Writer, whomever you are, I appreciate that you took time to write this article. However, please take the time to offer your readers the scientific evidence to validate your argument.
What is the crime rate on Kaua’i? Will limiting possession of guns reduce the crime done? Culture has many avenues that displays tendencies to violence. Tv, Hawaii Five 0 new series has a lot of violence on that show, every Friday nights. Can they increase the price of TVs instead? Maybe. I’d say religion in our culture has its say on the topic of violence. It says to do good to your neighbor, and not steal from them. Or do not kill. The religion preaches peace and not war. The solutuon may be all of it. Start with science, what works. Don’t sell guns to anyone not aquainted with it. Still people get their hands on guns and use it to kill innocent lives. What now? More laws.
There is also the argument of watching too much pornography which leads to more rape or violence. But how can they relate these two statistics together to prove it? Science. Ethnic studies may be of use. How many people live in poverty and desire more goods? A lot. Where is the figures coming from? Low income people or rich families. As it pertains to rape and violence? You’ll have to do your own research. Figure it out yourselves. I’m not being paid for this, so what for. Your local politics should do this study and find out.
What is NY’s crime rate? As in the Yankees. Anyone know this number. (%)
Crime rate for NY in 2017, is 3.91 murders per 100k. So that is a percentage. PER CAPITA or people.
Capita= “for each person.” Latin
As you can see, per capita on Kaua’i is for each person. A percentage.
What is it? Something per 1000s or 100s.