“The public health approach leads to conclusions that there should be registration and heavy regulation of access to guns like in Europe. But nobody can be elected in the U.S. on such a platform. So you have to dilute the message and then it becomes inconsistent.” – University of Chicago Asst. Prof. Alexandra Filindra in A Round Table on Gun Politics in the Age of Trump and Violent Protests [via thetrace.org]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

37 COMMENTS

  1. The “public health approach” leads to the conclusion that medical errors kill at least 10 times as many people (per the AMA) as people who use guns (for whatever reason) do.

    How are we to control this massive scourge of killer doctors?

    • I never lost my hatred of communism either. After the USSR collapsed many stopped seeing communism as the greatest threat, I didn’t and the war is here not somewhere else.

      • Why isn’t there a hunting season on Marxists?

        As marxists have been the scourge of mankind for over 160 years
        worse than wild boar.

  3. The public health approach leads to conclusions that there should be registration and heavy regulation of access to guns like in Mexico, er, Nigeria, I mean Brazil hold on, hold on… Europe! Yeah, that’s the ticket! Forget all those other places I mentioned.

  4. Also, might I add that I just love the whole tone of “How frustrating that these plebes insist on maintaining their rights and refuse to obey the whims of their betters in academia.”

  5. And the left still refuses to acknowledge that the Alt-left- (Anti-Fa and BLM), are violent marxist based gangs that utilize terror tactics and violence to intimidate and silence opposition.

  6. If those that would so nonchalantly be willing to infringe on God given, constitutional rights of others, had skin in the game and be subjected to the harshest penalties, including loss of life, we’d see the end of this politically motivated march towards tyranny. My rights aren’t open for debate. Any attempt to neuter them should be considered an ultra violent attack upon liberty.

    • “…God given, constitutional protected rights of others…”

      FIFY

      The thing of it is that Constitutional protections only work if you are willing to protect the Constitution.

  7. The public health approach would mandate the registration and tattooing of all HIV positives, and because preemptive action is always preferred, the similar registration and tattooing of all gays, whether professed or suspected. Pink triangles on their clothing to be sure everyone notices and keeps their distance. The final politics of the public health approach. And they wonder why gun owners are suspicious.

    • Can’t tell if troll or serious but I’ll bite. A recent study concluded that those HIV+ guys in relationships with those that are negative (10,000+ sample size) that have a zero detectable viral load (easy with triple cocktail therapy) present an effectively zero risk of HIV transmission (no cases during the study period) both pitching and catching without condom use so unless you need a constant reminder to not have sex with random men in the street then you should be fine. Combine that with PrEP and you the closest thing you can get to absolute safety. So there is no need for pink triangles or tattoos.

      • “So there is no need for pink triangles or tattoos.”

        If, and that is a BIG “if”, we trust them to take their chemical cocktails, without ever missing a dose. (Assuming that your assertion that a person on the cocktail cannot infect another person. If that assertion is false, then all bets are definitely off.)

      • And as a doctor, I can tell you that it is quickly being realized that HIV is a non-existant disease. The virus has never been isolated, and as such, fails Koch’s postulates.

        Watch House of Numbers if you really want to blow your mind.

        HIV was purely political, to ensure the gravy train keeps rolling in for the Pharma Cartels. It gained traction because the homosexual lobby demanded something be done about the massive uptick in deaths due to the use of poppers. The homosexual lifestyle is inherently massively suppressive to the immune system, but it was not PC to suggest this. Robert Gallo (a complete hack), had pushed a failed paradigm that cancer was caused by a virus. He had backed an orphan drug, AZT (which was/is one of the most toxic chemicals ever created as a pharmaceutical), and was looking for some way to recoup he reputation. Luc Montagnier had speculated on a species jump with a monkey virus he had been tracking, and Gallo saw his chance.

        In spite of the fact that the “HIV” had not been isolated, a press conference was called hailing Gallo’s “discovery.” Massive funding followed. This was the first time that a new disease had been introduced via press conference and not peer-reviewed research. Montagnier, along with hundreds of other scientists and doctors, are incredulous that nearly 40 years later, this hoax has continued. However, since untold trillions of dollars and millions of lives have been lost due to the (incredibly lucrative) fraud, it is highly unlikely that the perpetrators will walk their position back.

        There would be heads on pikes.

  8. This is why I don’t subscribe to the ‘public health’ approach to g un control – if a criminal threatens my life, I don’t give a shit about the public’s health, I only care about my health. And if I get perforated it will be primary goal in life (whatever’s left of it) to make sure the party responsible is perforated as well (repeatedly). Only then will I call 911 and keep pressure on the wound while I wait for the ambulance. The ‘public health’ approach would have you believe that it would be better for only me to be shot and I think that’s wrong. I think it’s better for the bad guy to be shot also.

  9. Europe doesn’t take a ‘public health’ approach to guns, they just don’t really believe in individual rights over the “public interest” (code for State interests). Chines tourists arrested for “Nazi-era pose” I guess they should have just kept thinking they were in China.

  10. “Why Gun Control Advocates Lie — And Fail”

    Could it be…….,
    they open their mouths?
    their lips are moving?
    they are paid to lie?
    the truth hurts?

  11. This is the best Trace article I have ever read. It’s a candid round table of propagandists talking shop. Key take away:
    ‘Jason: I think Alexandra has nailed it. Identity trumps “evidence” in any political argument.’

    Identity politics is the secret sauce. People are persuaded by stats, but being proud to put that NRA sticker on your vehicle is the closer that makes the sale.

  12. Today, overdose deaths in the US are a few times the number of “gun violence” deaths.

    So, as the opioid epidemic rages and increases, let’s take a moment to remember the “elites” who steered national conversations to gun control and away from drugs over the past two decades. [sarc] Thanks, best and brightest, for promoting your own blinkered agenda at a cost to the greater crisis. [/sarc]

  14. Hold on let me get this straight…. Opioids, meth, bath salts, booze, doctors, nurses, cars, trucks, trains, undercooked chicken, raw fish, and bad pork kill more people a year than guns, but we should definitely worry about OMG GUNZ!1! because?

  15. It’s always funny to see an academic elitist get trick themselves into being honest about how the Emperor’s not actually wearing anything. Feels almost like when a well-dressed pedestrian is walking around in public with toilet paper stuck to their shoe.

  16. “The public health approach” — they don’t specify to what in that sentence — is insane on the face when applied outside disease and wellness, doubly so applied to an intrinsic aspect of being a person. “The public health approach to breathing…” “The public health approach to having a thought…” “The public health approach to doing what you like…” “The public health approach to living your own life…” “The public health approach to watching MTV…”

    The point of “public health” is to enable individual people doing more of what they particularly want, not the other way around. Because unhealthy people end up dead, after which they can’t do much of what they like. Doing what they like that erodes some distant measure of “public health” means you’re measuring wrong.

    These pudding-heads compound the first fallacy: that anything they might claim influences some population “health” measure is therefore a “public health” issue, with two aggregation fallacies. So, of course their conclusions are wrong. This leads to conclusions that they are engaged in “motivated reasoning”(*), and doing even that badly.

    “But nobody can be elected in the U.S. on such a platform. So you have to dilute the message and then it becomes inconsistent.”

    There’s that pesky problem of the proles wanting the wrong thing again, compounded by a government system designed to let them have some say, sometimes, occasionally.

    I need to towel off from the contempt for individuals dripping off that piece. — Sacrifice individual choices to the god of aggregate measures of the “good.” — Lament that the inconvenient govt lets the moorlocks choose wrong. — A coffee-club of the right thinking, scheming how to hoodwink all that because they know better.

    I’ll tell them, but it won’t help: You get no traction because nobody trusts you. It doesn’t matter how right you are, the way you go about it ensures you’ll get no traction. The righter you are, the more you must be honest brokers, or you’ll dirty up the position with the politicing you use to advance it.

    Fortunately the vast majority of the folks against disarming citizens get thing, and argue with integrity. You want to be empowered with a powerful machine like a gun … show some integrity and restraint. You want to be empowered with a powerful machine like government … show some integrity and restraint. The anti’s can’t seem to do that. They can’t help themselves. Shoot themselves in the foot every time.

    (*) The term “motivated reasoning” bugs me. The point is, it’s not legit “reasoning”, because it is motivated.

  17. Now, if I recall correctly, the previous administration wanted to approach gun control (or guns in general) as a “Public Health Issue”. They wanted to use the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and its researchers to study the issue of gun violence on society in the USA and then publish their findings but the Republicans blocked the initiative with legislation and, Oh there was much hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth by the left for doing so. For, one must see the plausible manipulation of statistics adjoining a group’s findings and subsequent Journal(s) when that group’s current and future funding comes from an entity (govt.) that is trying to push an agenda or makes it known what type of outcome they want the group to present – “Play ball or you will lose your funding” kind of scenario.

    Using, or trying to use, the CDC for their (Left’s) attempt to finally prove gun control has to be set upon the masses of this country because they are dangerous and can/will affect one’s health in a negative manner was the sneaky way the left was finally going to cement their dreams of a gun-free utopian society upon America. Declaring firearms as a direct causality for lowering the life expectancy of all Americans “Has now been proven by the medical professionals who studied all the factors and empirical data associated with gun crime…” would be their rallying cry to finally push their objective on our country. Because doctors and scientists are always honest, neutral and unbiased [/sarc].

    My first reaction to the article linked above is these political scientists are amongst peers; they feel comfortable enough to have an honest, yet myopic discussion where they dropped to whole pretext of the current buzzword, “Gun-Safety over the more accurate “Gun-Control” label. They feel they don’t have to use the contrived poll-tested safe words. These scientists are poring over factual data or statistics. No. They are discussing how they can formulate the right platform, messaging and talking points to get more of the voting public to their side of the issue.

    For example, the first statement which jumped out at me came from Alexandra: ”Exactly. We have not been able to articulate a right from violence as something that the state must guarantee.” That liberal line, right there, is one that always raises my hackles. You see, the state’s (govt.’s) job is to protect the whole of its citizens, mainly from attack. But this liberal Mensa-member [/sarc] isn’t talking about actual measures that can be implemented to decrease gun violence. No. She is more worried about the correct wording in a partisan presentation. Furthermore; it all falls in line with the Snowflakey idea that people must have a guaranteed notion of feeling safe where they really aren’t. They only have the illusion they are safe and that makes them feel warm and fuzzy.

    She goes on to say they (politicians) have to dilute their message to get elected where gun control is concerned. Where she is basically admitting they have to lie, obfuscate or downplay a platform just to get elected.

  18. The public health approach to curtailing, eliminating individual freedoms will eventually work even with the 2nd amendment. The younger generations are increasingly mentally compromised with the toxic soup they are injected with, eat, breathe, drink, as well as the 24/7 mind control collectivist mind control agenda they are exposed to in their schools, on the TV, and on social media.

Comments are closed.