A different take on all those firearm deaths

[HenryReardon]

The centers for disease control track death statistics.


Here's their report for 2009:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

It contains the following tidbit of information:

Firearm—In 2009, 31,347 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18 and 19), accounting for 17.7% of all injury deaths that year. The two major component causes of all firearm injury deaths in 2009 were suicide (59.8%) and homicide (36.7%). Firearm injuries (all intents) decreased 1.9% from 2008 to 2009. The age-adjusted death rate for firearm suicide did not change from 2008, whereas the death rate for firearm homicide decreased 5.0% in 2009 from 2008.

So almost 60% of those deaths were suicides. Not mass killings.

Of the rest, a certain number resulted from lawful action of the police.

Sort of puts the numbers into a different perspective.

[Rolyo85]

Really doesn't. Nobody ever claimed mass shootings were the cause of the most gun deaths in the country. Obviously those would be divided between suicides and homicides.

[palbert]

So all non-suicide firearm deaths were within historical parameters and not worthy of curtailment? Pretty brazen hypothesis.

[Benvolio]

I am surprised at the percentage of suicides.

[HenryReardon]

. Nobody ever claimed mass shootings were the cause of the most gun deaths in the country. Obviously those would be divided between suicides and homicides.

The caterwauling of the left and the media would have you believe that all gun deaths were from mass killings.

[JayHawk]

I am surprised at the percentage of suicides.

Still there are a lot of conservatives left.

The caterwauling of the left and the media would have you believe that all gun deaths were from mass killings.

No they would have you and you alone believe that. Because apparently you do believe and tried to make it a point. Twenty Sandy Hooks happened in Chicago this year and no one cared.

[palemale]

The caterwauling of the left and the media would have you believe that all gun deaths were from mass killings.

There has been no claim, implication or suggestion from the media or the left that most gun deaths were from mass killings. One thing is true, however, that nearly all mass killings are committed with assault rifles or guns that are able to shoot large numbers of rounds in a very short period of time. Guns for military use should not be sold or kept by the general public.

[Kyanimal]

All of that really shows is that if you have a gun, it's most likely that if you're going to use it to shoot someone, that "someone" will be YOU!

[andysayshi]

Well, clutch the pearls, Henry has contributed something with a citation! Good for you, Mr Reardon.

I've mentioned the US suicide rate several times since the Newtown massacre in these forums. It's fairly common knowledge, I thought. Hence, most of my discussions have centred on the 10,000 gun HOMICIDES in the US per year.


Now, lets use some more facts to discuss the suicide rate.


The Harvard Injury Control Research Center records numerous extensive studies into the correlation of gun prevalence and gun suicide rates. The results are probably not surprising:

• Gun availability is a risk factor for suicide, particularly to those under 24 years old.

• After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, across the United States, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of suicide, particularly firearm suicide.

• States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment.

• Changes in the levels of household firearm gun ownership over time was significantly associated with changes in both firearm suicide and overall suicide, for men, women and children, even after controlling for region, unemployment, alcohol consumption and poverty.

• In the vast majority of adolescent gun suicides, the guns come from parents or other family members.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research...use/index.html


The correlation between gun prevalence and suicide has also been proven in other countries. Here's an interesting example from Janet Rosenbaum, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Medical Center School:

In Israel, it used to be that all soldiers would take the guns home with them. Now they have to leave them on base. Over the years they’ve done this — it began, I think, in 2006 — there’s been a 60 percent decrease in suicide on weekends among IDS soldiers. And it did not correspond to an increase in weekday suicide.

People think suicide is an impulse that exists and builds. This shows that doesn’t happen. The impulse to suicide is transitory. Someone with access to a gun at that moment may commit suicide, but if not, they may not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...oting-utopias/

[Benvolio]

I reject liberal sources just as liberals reject conservative ones.

[andysayshi]

I reject hot sauces like tabasco.

[HenryReardon]

No they would have you and you alone believe that. Because apparently you do believe and tried to make it a point. Twenty Sandy Hooks happened in Chicago this year and no one cared.

In an earlier thread I mention gun deaths of children in Chicago and nobody seemed to think it important.

- - - Updated - - -

There has been no claim, implication or suggestion from the media or the left that most gun deaths were from mass killings. .

Of course there has, and that is precisely how the stories play to the dumb masses - just as the media outlets intend.

[HenryReardon]

Well, clutch the pearls, Henry has contributed something with a citation!

-


]

Now you're overdoing it. I've cited hundreds of sources..

As for Harvard. Don't forget the famous Harvard study which concluded that
gun control doesn't work.

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_stud...terproductive/

[palbert]

I cannot believe we are debating carnage -- and the adequacy of the number of deaths.

[andysayshi]

As for Harvard. Don't forget the famous Harvard study which concluded that
gun control doesn't work.

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_stud...terproductive/

A few of points.

• The study you've cited by Don Kates and Gary Mauser has nothing to do with Harvard. It is a non-peer reviewed paper which was published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, which is a conservative Law Review edited by right-wing Harvard Law students. The study has never been endorsed, reviewed, supported or attributed to any Harvard School faculty.

• Here's a starting point for researching true peer-reviewed research papers from the Harvard School Of Public Health. Overwhelming, these studies find that more guns usually correlate with more deaths.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research...arms-research/

• Mr Kates and Mauser's study has been the subject of substantial criticism, and analysis has shown that much of their data is simply wrong. I'll give you one example to start: their data shows Luxembourg's murder rate as 9.01 per 100,000 citizens. This rather crucial figure propagates discussion throughout the study, but the crucial problem is the placement of a decimal point: the actual rate is 0.91 per 100,000.

• Kates and Mauser conveniently omit the European nations that don't support their findings when they list statistics.

• Kates and Mauser repeatedly refer to the completely debunked studies by Gleck and Lott as supporting material.


There's no doubt that there are aberrations in the comparative statistics of all nations re: gun prevalence vs gun deaths. Cultural factors are, of course, very important: government stability, government and law enforcement corruption, cultural proclivity toward suicide etc. But in general there is substantial evidence proving that less guns means less crime.

Please post a respected peer-reviewed study that proves otherwise if you can. I've yet to see one.

[chrisrobin]

I do not understand the nature of this thread.

Old Chinese proverb: Statistics never lie, but liars use statistics.

Do the number of suicides by gun make the children of Newtown and less dead?

Also, one cannot blame everything on "the liberals". It's an old canard* that really doesn't mean anything now. That dog don't hunt.

*See the dog ate my homework.

[Kulindahr]

Guns for military use should not be sold or kept by the general public.

They aren't, unless you can get the federal license for one, and then persuade one of the people who own one of the limited number that he should sell it to you. It's kind of pointless, though, since the cheapest of such weapons, once you get the license, will cost you $12,000 or more.

[Kulindahr]

No one has claimed that even a large fraction of murders are from mass shootings. What the claim is -- unstated, of course -- is that the mass shootings have such a larger emotional impact that the media can sell more papers of get higher ratings out of them.

[palbert]

I do not understand the nature of this thread. ....

It has no positive purpose other than:

[HenryReardon]

No one has claimed that even a large fraction of murders are from mass shootings. .

They don't have to spell it out, and they have no intention of so doing. That being said, it comes through loud and clearly.
It's all about creating mass hysteria, and the message is crystal clear: guns kill people; guns commit mass murders of small children; ergo all guns are bad. There are no voices of reason among the lamestream media, and that same hysteria is reflected by most of the posters in this forum.

[Rolyo85]

Must be nice, being so self-sufficient that you can even invent an argument without the need for an opposing side. Your mind-reading fails as usual. Nobody is defending anything of the sort you describe, but feel free to argue with THAT, instead of with what people are actually saying.

[rareboy]

The caterwauling of the left and the media would have you believe that all gun deaths were from mass killings.

Oh good lord no. The left wingers and the media know enough to look up the stats for all gun related homicides first.

Only you seem to have some misguided notion that people might be confused.

Another Reardon Epic Fail thread.

[HenryReardon]

Oh good lord no..

Accurately quote just one ABC/NBC/CBS or PMSNBC commentator who has seriously
spoken in favor of moderation on this topic. You can't do it.

[rareboy]

What does this response have to do with my response to your ridiculous assertion.

You are just flailing about here now.

As usual, now you're going to try to make your thread about one thing be about something else.

[HenryReardon]

You are just flailing about here now.

.

Somebody is flailing away, but not me.

[JayHawk]

Somebody is flailing away, but not me.

It would appear you are the one flailing by your failure to even acknowledge the very well stated fallacies your quoted study perpetuates. Here i will quote Andy's well put post so you can respond on topic to your own thread.

A few of points.

• The study you've cited by Don Kates and Gary Mauser has nothing to do with Harvard. It is a non-peer reviewed paper which was published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, which is a conservative Law Review edited by right-wing Harvard Law students. The study has never been endorsed, reviewed, supported or attributed to any Harvard School faculty.

• Here's a starting point for researching true peer-reviewed research papers from the Harvard School Of Public Health. Overwhelming, these studies find that more guns usually correlate with more deaths.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research...arms-research/

• Mr Kates and Mauser's study has been the subject of substantial criticism, and analysis has shown that much of their data is simply wrong. I'll give you one example to start: their data shows Luxembourg's murder rate as 9.01 per 100,000 citizens. This rather crucial figure propagates discussion throughout the study, but the crucial problem is the placement of a decimal point: the actual rate is 0.91 per 100,000.

• Kates and Mauser conveniently omit the European nations that don't support their findings when they list statistics.

• Kates and Mauser repeatedly refer to the completely debunked studies by Gleck and Lott as supporting material.


There's no doubt that there are aberrations in the comparative statistics of all nations re: gun prevalence vs gun deaths. Cultural factors are, of course, very important: government stability, government and law enforcement corruption, cultural proclivity toward suicide etc. But in general there is substantial evidence proving that less guns means less crime.

Please post a respected peer-reviewed study that proves otherwise if you can. I've yet to see one.

*** there left you some space to pen your well thought out reply***

In an earlier thread I mention gun deaths of children in Chicago and nobody seemed to think it important.

Apparently in the gun debate thread we are attempting to define what would work in preventing gun deaths. I too have mentioned Chicago's high incidence of death related to gun violence. The nature of that conversation is different than the nature of this one.

In this one you appear to be claiming that because a high rate of suicide is the nature of the death that the other violent varieties matter less... or how did you say... should be placed in perspective. In my perspective those are all dead human beings. Human beings that should not be dead at that rate.

So is the point of your thread that thirty thousand dead are acceptable each year because it does not affect you?

What is exactly your point?

Do you have one?

How about this... go to your old safe place. Tell me how 'dem libruls' and 'dem damn mexicuns' dun caused all of this. << see how unfair characterization works? That is presuming you are an ignorant yokel. I am sure you don't consider yourself one but that is the characterization that comes across.

So maybe if you could answer the holes poked in your cited proof and then provide some insight into why it matters to the parents of a Sandy Hook elementary child that 30,000 people died often as not from suicide.

[Kulindahr]

Accurately quote just one ABC/NBC/CBS or PMSNBC commentator who has seriously
spoken in favor of moderation on this topic. You can't do it.

They've been a lot more moderate than they used to -- they're even speaking of the need for mental health reform on this, not just repeating the gun control mantra.

[HenryReardon]

[QUOTE=JayHawk;8588320
Apparently in the gun debate thread we are attempting to define what would work in preventing gun deaths. I too have mentioned Chicago's high incidence of death related to gun violence. The nature of that conversation is different than the nature of this one.

In this one you appear to be claiming that because a high rate of suicide is the nature of the death that the other violent varieties matter less... or how did you say... should be placed in perspective. In my perspective those are all dead human beings. Human beings that should not be dead at that rate.

So is the point of your thread that thirty thousand dead are acceptable .[/QUOTE]

Thirty thousand deaths a year are hardly relevant. Look at the larger picture.
For that matter, if people are determined to off themselves, lack of a gun isn't much of a deterrent.

Evidently I struck a nerve with you, given that you've gone to such lengths to bloviate about things.

It must be truly difficult to be a liberal and have such a limited, almost parochial world-view. I almost feel
sorry for you.

[andysayshi]

Thirty thousand deaths a year are hardly relevant. Look at the larger picture.
For that matter, if people are determined to off themselves, lack of a gun isn't much of a deterrent.

Studies suggest otherwise.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/mag...art/index.html

“Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide.”

[FuryOfFirestorm]

I reject liberal sources just as liberals reject conservative ones.

I had no idea that the CDC, Harvard and the Washington Post were bastions of liberal thought. Who knew?

[FuryOfFirestorm]

Thirty thousand deaths a year are hardly relevant.

Only if they voted for Fartbongo, amirite?

[JayHawk]

Thirty thousand deaths a year are hardly relevant. Look at the larger picture.
For that matter, if people are determined to off themselves, lack of a gun isn't much of a deterrent.

Evidently I struck a nerve with you, given that you've gone to such lengths to bloviate about things.

It must be truly difficult to be a liberal and have such a limited, almost parochial world-view. I almost feel
sorry for you.

Actually it was rather easy. To write the words and to define your post for what it was intended to be. Simply a juvenile attempt at insult.

Obviously suicides will continue without weapons however suicides with collateral damage will be greatly reduced.

Finally as far as a parochial outlook on life, I would imagine every long term user on here would understand I have expanded and changed over the last six years. Whereas you simply appear to be a scared xenophobe. So I imagine your grasp for insults merely reflected yourself.

God is kind to children, drunks and fools. I will try to follow the example. So again what perspective does the statistics for rampant gun death in America do for your guns in ever book bag policy for school children safety?

[JayHawk]

I posted this in the gun control thread. However for you Henry I will put this video here as well since it more readily resembles a different perspective. We have had your perspective for 30 years of school violence and it hasn't changed a thing... in fact the issue has gotten worse.



That is a different perspective that many people fail to recognize.

[Kulindahr]

Thirty thousand deaths a year are hardly relevant. Look at the larger picture.
For that matter, if people are determined to off themselves, lack of a gun isn't much of a deterrent.

Evidently I struck a nerve with you, given that you've gone to such lengths to bloviate about things.

It must be truly difficult to be a liberal and have such a limited, almost parochial world-view. I almost feel
sorry for you.

If you think JH is a liberal, I do feel sorry for you -- and so should everyone else here.

[Kulindahr]

I posted this in the gun control thread. However for you Henry I will put this video here as well since it more readily resembles a different perspective. We have had your perspective for 30 years of school violence and it hasn't changed a thing... in fact the issue has gotten worse.



That is a different perspective that many people fail to recognize.

I didn't see any evidence they gave those kids proper training. They also set them up with shirts that made it hard to draw.

Ergo, it's bogus.

If you're going to carry concealed, you customize your wardrobe to facilitate access to your weapon -- that's one big error they imposed. But any course on carrying concealed should drill into the students' heads that to try to react immediately is suicide: first you drop and cover, assess the situation, and only then draw and engage. The only time you should even think about reacting the way they had those students do is if there is no cover at all -- but even then there's the possibility of playing dead until you have a chance.

This got me thinking, though, about how far Congress' authority to discipline the militia could be pushed. Would a national law setting standards for concealed carry training fly? If so, I'd suggest the following standards:

• initial training minimum four hours classroom, two hundred rounds firing, two hours tactical
• minimum of two hours per month on the firing range with an instructor available
• annual re-training

Right now I wouldn't qualify to carry, and neither would half the people I know who have concealed licenses. Time to get busy.....

[JayHawk]

I didn't see any evidence they gave those kids proper training. They also set them up with shirts that made it hard to draw.

Ergo, it's bogus.

If you're going to carry concealed, you customize your wardrobe to facilitate access to your weapon -- that's one big error they imposed. But any course on carrying concealed should drill into the students' heads that to try to react immediately is suicide: first you drop and cover, assess the situation, and only then draw and engage. The only time you should even think about reacting the way they had those students do is if there is no cover at all -- but even then there's the possibility of playing dead until you have a chance.

This got me thinking, though, about how far Congress' authority to discipline the militia could be pushed. Would a national law setting standards for concealed carry training fly? If so, I'd suggest the following standards:

• initial training minimum four hours classroom, two hundred rounds firing, two hours tactical
• minimum of two hours per month on the firing range with an instructor available
• annual re-training

Right now I wouldn't qualify to carry, and neither would half the people I know who have concealed licenses. Time to get busy.....

That's what I mean. I am quite familiar with many states CCP requirements and doubt many reach the bar for effective employment of an asset. I agree the video was biased as well. Unfortunately they could have given the subjects much more training and even outfitted them with relatively easy to use military garb so they could react as efficiently as possible and I will bet you they would get damn near the same results. Equally the shooter would already be in the zone where everything has slowed down and shooting is mechanical. They should have also instructed the active shooter to kill everything but the armed subject until that subject revealed him or her self.

I am confident they would have gotten similar results. You don't recover from freezing up or develop accuracy under stress unless you practice. So then the question goes to the offered solutions of the NRA. Are we going to pay to create a paramilitary teaching force?

It would be easier and more productive to simply reintroduce the draft. That would also facilitate psych evals.

[xbuzzerx]

The centers for disease control track death statistics.


Here's their report for 2009:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

It contains the following tidbit of information:



So almost 60% of those deaths were suicides. Not mass killings.

Of the rest, a certain number resulted from lawful action of the police.

Sort of puts the numbers into a different perspective.

Is this the same logic you apply to embassy attacks and World Trade Center attacks?

Just curious.

[Kulindahr]

That's what I mean. I am quite familiar with many states CCP requirements and doubt many reach the bar for effective employment of an asset. I agree the video was biased as well. Unfortunately they could have given the subjects much more training and even outfitted them with relatively easy to use military garb so they could react as efficiently as possible and I will bet you they would get damn near the same results. Equally the shooter would already be in the zone where everything has slowed down and shooting is mechanical. They should have also instructed the active shooter to kill everything but the armed subject until that subject revealed him or her self.

I am confident they would have gotten similar results. You don't recover from freezing up or develop accuracy under stress unless you practice. So then the question goes to the offered solutions of the NRA. Are we going to pay to create a paramilitary teaching force?

It would be easier and more productive to simply reintroduce the draft. That would also facilitate psych evals.

All they need is what we got in my handgun training course: the instruction to get cover, assess, and only then act. In those classroom setups cover is easy; shooting back would be the hard part because there's no way to track the attacker once you're behind those solid walls dividing the levels of seats.

The only time I've been in a situation where I was going after a shooter, I wasn't alone, and that made a huge difference. As we worked our way in, we could talk over our approach. Fortunately -- this was a pair of drunken assholes shooting into an occupied swimming hole -- by the time we got there the morons were out of ammo and were being faced down by some swimmers; when our guns came into sight they lost their belligerence.

I still can't imagine anyone being stupid and brazen enough to shoot into a river where kids were swimming.


Anyway... the draft. I favor a national service program for everyone, anyway -- complete it to actually become a voter. Military, medical, environmental, whatever; start everyone with weapons training before they move into specialties.

[xbuzzerx]

Anyway... the draft. I favor a national service program for everyone, anyway -- complete it to actually become a voter. Military, medical, environmental, whatever; start everyone with weapons training before they move into specialties.

Some of us are here and do not choose to live in Israel or similar countries for a reason.

[Kulindahr]

Some of us are here and do not choose to live in Israel or similar countries for a reason.

How is that in any way a response to what I said?

[xbuzzerx]

How is that in any way a response to what I said?

Because you advocated compulsory national service for voting rights. I live here, not in Israel or similar countries that have compulsory service, for (among a list of others) that reason.

[Kulindahr]

Because you advocated compulsory national service for voting rights. I live here, not in Israel or similar countries that have compulsory service, for (among a list of others) that reason.

I see no reason that anyone should be allowed a say in the governing of the country who hasn't put in a substantial period of service to that country.

It has always baffled me that immigrants have to earn citizenship, while people born here can sit on their fat asses and never do anything to show a commitment to the country yet expect to have a say.

Israel has nothing to do with it -- reason does.

[Rolyo85]

I see no reason that anyone should be allowed a say in the governing of the country who hasn't put in a substantial period of service to that country.

It has always baffled me that immigrants have to earn citizenship, while people born here can sit on their fat asses and never do anything to show a commitment to the country yet expect to have a say.

Israel has nothing to do with it -- reason does.

How about we stay clear of the moronic Starship Troopers philosophy that having been in the army somehow makes you more "deserving" of having a say. Modern countries are - and should be - a peaceful entity. Having cleaned toilets and been made "a man" has zero bearing on your capacity as a responsible citizen.

And for someone praying to the altar of self-ownership and considering himself to be ultra free and non-sheep/slave, you are awfully keen on a LOT of invasive government things - first compulsory arming of teachers, now compulsory national service?

Democracy - like freedom of speech - can't be screened. Either everyone has a say, or you have a dictatorship with those who "deserve", and those who don't. And you become a slave.

[JayHawk]

Because you advocated compulsory national service for voting rights. I live here, not in Israel or similar countries that have compulsory service, for (among a list of others) that reason.

I am convinced this would be a incredibly different country for making positive decisions collectively if we all had skin in the game. Yet that does not have to constitute carrying a weapon. Being trained in its use certainly but your average Corpsman serving the medical needs of children in remote parts of Peru dont really see the need to be armed to do their work.

How about we stay clear of the moronic Starship Troopers philosophy that having been in the army somehow makes you more "deserving" of having a say. Modern countries are - and should be - a peaceful entity. Having cleaned toilets and been made "a man" has zero bearing on your capacity as a responsible citizen.

And for someone praying to the altar of self-ownership and considering himself to be ultra free and non-sheep/slave, you are awfully keen on a LOT of invasive government things - first compulsory arming of teachers, now compulsory national service?

Democracy - like freedom of speech - can't be screened. Either everyone has a say, or you have a dictatorship with those who "deserve", and those who don't. And you become a slave.

It has absolutely nothing to do with cleaning toilets or the starship trooper ideology. The apathy of the average american is astonishing and the lack of knowledge of the average american is equally appalling. The only reason is they don't have to give two flying shits. Have you ever seen a week prior interview asking voters -- actual fucking voters about the issues?

No you have to have skin in the game to have a desire. We should have compulsory service only exempted by medical defect. Of course that means eighty percent of america is instantly disqualified from service. Mostly due to obesity and moral defects such as criminal background or high drug use. There already is a separate class of American lower and middle class. Might as well have all the citizens earn it. All immigrants should have to prove that they have adequate employment or necessity to be in this country as well. Just like Canada, Australia and other western nations. Citizenship is already almost immediate instead of waiting five years should a resident enlist. Those folks who do not serve should be forever in resident status.

[Rolyo85]

Yeah, no. Not at all.

If the problem is apathy, you find ways to educate, inform and motivate. You don't invent compulsory militarization of society, just because that's the cliche way of making people "care about their country" or something. And I know that with the background you have, you'd support such a thing, but as a musician, compulsory military training could be extremely damaging to me, and I shouldn't be denied citizen rights (were I born here, and not a foreigner) just because I don't want to go be a soldier for a while.

Which is to say, I understand your position, but I absolutely don't agree with it, and I think that it's a remnant of a different age to believe compulsory service would do anything to make people care about politics and current events.

[Rolyo85]

Oh, and for the record, I am literally the first generation in my country not to go to compulsory military service (as in, the people graduating the year before me had to go), and we had ZERO involvement of people in politics, current events and social issues. True, patriotism plays a much bigger part in Americans' lives, but how long will that last when it's a mandatory burden instead of a privilege that you volunteer for?

[JayHawk]

Yeah, no. Not at all.

If the problem is apathy, you find ways to educate, inform and motivate. You don't invent compulsory militarization of society, just because that's the cliche way of making people "care about their country" or something. And I know that with the background you have, you'd support such a thing, but as a musician, compulsory military training could be extremely damaging to me, and I shouldn't be denied citizen rights (were I born here, and not a foreigner) just because I don't want to go be a soldier for a while.

Which is to say, I understand your position, but I absolutely don't agree with it, and I think that it's a remnant of a different age to believe compulsory service would do anything to make people care about politics and current events.

See a musician could further themselves in the service of their country. So we definitely see it differently. Art is often enhanced through experience so that alone could expand your horizons. Militarization is a weird way to look at civil service but ok. Is the Peace Corps military?

Oh, and for the record, I am literally the first generation in my country not to go to compulsory military service (as in, the people graduating the year before me had to go), and we had ZERO involvement of people in politics, current events and social issues. True, patriotism plays a much bigger part in Americans' lives, but how long will that last when it's a mandatory burden instead of a privilege that you volunteer for?

Actually there was a draft until after the Vietnam war. So I would say around 200 years. However that was not compulsory. i have worked with a variety of Western democracies that require service and it is beneficial.

here is an odd idea for you that i heard just after Sandy Hook.

Part of the reason that places like Israel and Switzerland have very low incidence of domestic gun violence although the ownership is compulsory is because they have much more socialistic societies. (I know some of our posters will stop reading at that scary word but stay with me). Socialistic societies depend on one another for a variety of benefits and are therefore vested in one another. They see the value and worth because they have blood sweat and tears invested into the success of one another. Whereas in America the value has always been placed on striking out on your own. Having your own space. Not taking any shit from anyone. All of those spawn from our heritage. The revolution, the expansion west, the industrial revolution and then the militant and capitalistic domination of the world. It leads to a sense, a built in sense, that to get ahead you must do better than the guy standing next to you. NOT that you will be successful together.

So if anything a team oriented two years of service in return for a free education and healthcare would build that desire to work together. Hell that was the talent that propelled Obama to such heights. He organized people to work together and change their situation. We just need to do it on a grand scale. Obama promised to expand the peace corps and the Job corps and has not really made much out of that campaign promise but that was something I really liked about the guy.

[andysayshi]

I'll say here, rather randomly, that I was a professional musician for 10 years. (I still work for the music industry primarily, but within the video realm.) The best drummer I ever played with was a big hairy (hot!) guy nicknamed Chewy, who was ex-Australian Navy Band. The Navy musicians went through standard basic training etc. but he was so fucking steady as a drummer, perfect timing, and could play quiet as a mouse or loud as an orchestra, on demand.

I guess my point is that serving some military time clearly doesn't damage all great musicians.

[xbuzzerx]

I see no reason that anyone should be allowed a say in the governing of the country who hasn't put in a substantial period of service to that country.

It has always baffled me that immigrants have to earn citizenship, while people born here can sit on their fat asses and never do anything to show a commitment to the country yet expect to have a say.

Israel has nothing to do with it -- reason does.

There's two sides to that. One way of looking at it is yours... "whee, we get people who actually care/have invested something with a say." The flipside would be that most of the people with any say would be people with a military background and primarily men. And laws affect everyone, not just able bodied people who've served in the military.

I'm AMAZED at how far out of your own character you have gone on the topic once guns comes into the discussion.

I am convinced this would be a incredibly different country for making positive decisions collectively if we all had skin in the game. Yet that does not have to constitute carrying a weapon. Being trained in its use certainly but your average Corpsman serving the medical needs of children in remote parts of Peru dont really see the need to be armed to do their work.

Being a natural born citizen in this country is skin in the game JayHawk. I reject this arrogant notion that the only people whose opinion, viewpoint or perogatives matter are people who joined the military (or would do so if that were a requirement to vote.)

This country would also be a "far different place" if only college educated people could vote, or only people who passed psychological evaluations could own any firearms, or only people who passed intensive education on parenting could have kids. But that's just sitting here and postulating what-if's that Kul would shoot down as horrible ideas on any other topic, right?

I'll tell you guys in one line my biggest problem with the idea. The military is not an institution that fosters free and critical thought. The military is an institution that regimentizes and yes, brainwashes. Whether or not either of you agree with it I am sure you both have heard the phrase "you don't have a thought of your own until you leave the military." There's a reason people say that. It is a beyond terrible idea to take an institution where many personal freedoms are suppressed and channels of information and propaganda can be controlled and make it the exclusive pool from which people have a say in the direction of this country. It's moronic and backwards.

Any gains in terms of "well then the people voting are people who actually care" would be more than undone by the fact that our country would be getting votes only from people very comfortable with the idea of regimented thought and with a lessened sense of the need for respect for individual rights.

[rareboy]

Well posited reasoning for the other side of the argument.

This country would also be a "far different place" if only college educated people could vote, or only people who passed psychological evaluations could own any firearms, or only people who passed intensive education on parenting could have kids. But that's just sitting here and postulating what-if's