Jeff,
You keep referencing JAMA. I have not heard of the New England Journal as JAMA before. Perhaps you are instead talking about the journal of the American Medical Association? Typically, the former is referred to as NEJM. So, I don't know if you would say the same about NEJM, or COULD say the same, but having a subscription to several scientific journals of the same nature, highly doubt that a faulty article could be published and not totally refuted. However, science never purports to prove anything completely, especially something of this controversial nature, so I would be surprised to find out that NEJM takes the position that only pro-gun control articles can be published. That is in the worst sense unscientific. As a pillar of the scientific research community, NEJM must not take positions on issues, and I have not yet seen anything conclusive to that effect.
True, some ideas in California are a lot different than the rest of the country's, however, the same could be said for anywhere! And in fact, on split issues like this, abortion, etc., I would say that Califoria, NJ, NY are not unrepresentative of the country as a whole. In fact, it reminds me of the election map after it was all over in 2000. W. had the vast majority of land space, but Gore had more votes for him. Some conservatives mocked that Gore had half or 33% or whatever the land space that Bush did. Howeveer, I would remind them, and you on this issue, that land space does not vote, people do. And just the votes of the Western and Eastern Seaboard often may amount to more than the rest of the country combined. So, to say that just because only 4 or 5 states are liberal, does not indicate what percewntage of the population feels a certain way on a certain issue.
As for the cougar cubs, well...mountain lion's population levels are at risk....something I don't think we'll ever say about humans. So, directing money to make sure the species does not die off is a worthwhile cause, though the relative value is a morals-based judgement, by which I assume you are implying Californians (or some) have screwed up morals and values. It's all in the eye of the beholder!
You're absolutely right that guns don't cause deaths, people do. But, you reinforce my point that our society today does not possess the level of maturity or responsibility that it takes to operate and own these items. Perhaps they did a half century ago. Now, they don't. Even the ones who operate them legally sometimes get them stolen and their guns are then used for crimes. So, yes, we need to address the problem with our society, but addressing the symptoms of "disease" almost always has a benficial effect on the organism as well. Perhaps guns should only be taken away until people can and do prove they are ready for them. I do not agree that guns are a right. They are a privilege that are misused by many and that do not effect the quality of life for most people if taken away (I'm not talking about hobbies, here).
Also, if you are saying that Americans are just naturally violent (nature rather than nurture), isn't it useless to do anything but take the guns away? If something is due to one's nature, that means they are unable to be taught or trained differently. So, the only answer would be to not allow them access to objects that let them act out their violent nature? If you would not care to retract that it is just American's "nature," how do you propose to change the state of our country without reducing access to guns, yet also not being able to change genetically or biolgically inherited traits?
[This message has been edited by SuperXO (edited May 03, 2001).]
|