Great, Doctors think our actions are a "social disease."

[Guest HvyMtl]

http://www.usatoday....alth/56979706/1

"Disease patterns, observing how a problem spreads. Gun ownership — a precursor to gun violence — can spread "much like an infectious disease circulates," said Daniel Webster, a health policy expert and co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore."

So, a negative event, such as a mass shooting, or series of armed robberies occur, the urge created to purchase protection is a "social disease?" Am I reading this article right?

Since when did the want to protect yourself become such a negative?

Edited August 13, 2012 by HvyMtl

[Guest 6.8 AR]

When you read USA Today, for starters. It's like the National Nashville Tennessean. Worth about the same.

I saw absolutely nothing in that article that made any sense. What was it? The American Public Health Association?

big crowd of tax payer supported Docs congregating in Cali, to boot.

Just another something to adorn the pages of a lousy newspaper.

[E4 No More]

http://www.usatoday....alth/56979706/1

"Disease patterns, observing how a problem spreads. Gun ownership — a precursor to gun violence — can spread "much like an infectious disease circulates," said Daniel Webster, a health policy expert and co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore."

So, a negative event, such as a mass shooting, or series of armed robberies occur, the urge created to purchase protection is a "social disease?" Am I reading this article right?

Since when did the want to protect yourself become such a negative?

Well, one would need to own a gun in order to cause gun violence, so yes, it is a precursor to gun violence: however, criminal possession of a gun is a greater precursor to gun violence, correct? Doesn't violence around us cause alarm, and why many of us carry? Technically, they are correct, but it is a small portion of the problem IMHO. It's simply a typical one-sided argument presented in a scientific context to try and garner more support for the argument. In other words, it's BS. Edited August 13, 2012 by SWJewellTN

[billyscott]

Doctors got to have an excuse for not doing their jobs.

Like this nut case.

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/19242416/doctor-who-treated-escaped-mental-patient-resigned-amid-state-investigation

So don't blame it on the person, blame it on the gun.

The nut killed his mother and cut off her head.

Gouged out his step father's eyes.

Less than ten years he's released to a "home" where the only security is a rule.

"Don't leave without supervision".

"Orange hair" in Colorado had been to doctors, they missed it.

Kills twelve people, "blame it on the guns".

STUPID

[Guest vca2004]

Well, one would need to own a gun in order to cause gun violence, so yes, it is a precursor to gun violence: however, criminal possession of a gun is a greater precursor to gun violence, correct? Doesn't violence around us cause alarm, and why many of us carry? Technically, they are correct, but it is a small portion of the problem IMHO. It's simply a typical one-sided argument presented in a scientific context to try and garner more support for the argument. In other words, it's BS.

100% Agreed!

You can always lay out the data to suit your need, make it look different by taking certain subsets and excluding others. Don't just believe what some doctor says! Trust me, there are a lot of not-so-bright doctors out there.

Perfect exmple: One day a certain food is good for you and cures cancer but the next day there is a new publication showing how much pesticide is used to grow that food and that's why nobody should eat as it can cause cancer!

Edited August 14, 2012 by vca2004

[Guest HvyMtl]

After think about this, I think the article is a symptom of the doctors' specializations. They want to use their specialized knowledge to "diagnose" other, non-medical, things. They want to expand their field into other aspects, or look at other things by the limiting scope of their field. Dangerous to do.

Yes, the USA Today is, quite litterally, bottom of the birdcage material.

[LagerHead]

Well, one would need to own a gun in order to cause gun violence, so yes, it is a precursor to gun violence: however, criminal possession of a gun is a greater precursor to gun violence, correct? Doesn't violence around us cause alarm, and why many of us carry? Technically, they are correct, but it is a small portion of the problem IMHO. It's simply a typical one-sided argument presented in a scientific context to try and garner more support for the argument. In other words, it's BS.

I don't think it is technically correct. Most who commit violence with guns have a history of violence. So actually violence is more likely a precursor to their (illegal) gun ownership.

[E4 No More]

I don't think it is technically correct. Most who commit violence with guns have a history of violence. So actually violence is more likely a precursor to their (illegal) gun ownership.

The subject wasn't violence; it was gun violence. The gun was the modifier, so they were more specific than that.

[Wheelgunner]

http://www.usatoday....alth/56979706/1

"Disease patterns, observing how a problem spreads. Gun ownership — a precursor to gun violence — can spread "much like an infectious disease circulates," said Daniel Webster, a health policy expert and co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore."

You ever heard that old saying, "To a man with only a hammer every problem is a nail"? Mr. Webster lives in the world of healthcare research and medical policy implementation. No big surprise he sees the issue in those terms; he probably sees everything in those terms. To him, teenage girls living in the United States is a precursor to the medical phenomena of teen pregnancy, and owning a car is a precursor to the "social disease" of car accidents.

Unfortunately for Mr. Webster, Dr. Hargarten, and all the other good liberal medical professionals in the U.S., before they address the public health problem of gun ownership they must first remove the malignant tumor of the Second Amendment from the federal Constitution.

I wish people would just stay in their own lane.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

After think about this, I think the article is a symptom of the doctors' specializations. They want to use their specialized knowledge to "diagnose" other, non-medical, things. They want to expand their field into other aspects, or look at other things by the limiting scope of their field. Dangerous to do.

Yes, the USA Today is, quite litterally, bottom of the birdcage material.

I don't know the effect of specialization on a group of public health doctors, in this case, but I would assume there

could easily be a political component to their attitudes, considering the types of patients they may see, and how they

are funded.

Other than that, it could be more of the association(not unlike the AMA and their attitudes, which speak for a very small

percentage of doctors) than a particular doctor.

I'm glad you noticed I wasn't slapping you for reading a crappy newspaper. I only look at what female adorns the upper

right corner on the front page.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Wheelgunner explained the point, I was attempting to make, much better. I am also thinking,"Where is the funding for this coming from?"

6.8 AR, no worries. I respect you, even if we are sometimes at odds in opinion. You, Sir, are a gentleman, and I do not expect you to baldly attempt to offend, unless it is to get someone else to actually use their brain.

Edited August 14, 2012 by HvyMtl

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Attaboy!

[mikegideon]

I went to the doc today, and wore my NRA Tshirt. It's libtard central. Didn't even get a funny look.

[Guest vca2004]

I went to the doc today, and wore my NRA Tshirt. It's libtard central. Didn't even get a funny look.

Shocker! Do you think you are the first one they've seen in a T-shirt like that?

[mikegideon]

Shocker! Do you think you are the first one they've seen in a T-shirt like that?

Don't know.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I went to the doc today, and wore my NRA Tshirt. It's libtard central. Didn't even get a funny look.

Aw, come on now. Not one?

[mikegideon]

Aw, come on now. Not one?

Not one. Vanderbilt Medical Group in Green Hills. Those folks are wearing Obama underwear.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Liberal Underoos. Oh, my goodness!

[mikegideon]

Liberal Underoos. Oh, my goodness!

You know what I'm saying. A whole building full of your next door neighbors .

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Touche!

[jtmaze]

Do you think they knew what NRA stood for?

JTM

Sent from my iPhone

[Oh Shoot]

Do you think they knew what NRA stood for?

Every good liberal knows it's the National Recovery Act, FDR's blanket program that saved America.

- OS