Quote:
If we accept the thought that crime involving guns is a social disease then owning guns would be symptom, a possible indicator. Owning multiple guns with ammunition for them would be a strong indicator and therefore should probably be reported in some form to the CDC so that if this patient's disease kills people the details can be used to develop solutions to the problem. You wait for multiple shootings.You then blame it on the guns, after all the indicator that these deaths had in common was gun and ammunition ownership by the perpetrator.
If you understand the way these researchers think this is an easy logical progression. Are there indications of this now? I don't think I'd stretch that far yet but the framework is there. We better make sure that they don't build a house on this framework while we're not looking.
|
There is merit to this thinking. We ignore it at our peril.
I
*HAVE* done some work with physicians and electronic medical records, and some of them are alarmed. One, a urologist, was specifically alarmed enough to ask me to remove the gun questions from his canned questionnaire because he expects everything to become centralized one day in the future. (Say what you want abut the SSN "never" being used for ID.)
The people who are
*NOT* alarmed are the "social workers" in the medical field. Look up what someone with an MSW does. They look for ways to control your life.
Now I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread. I'm not going to get sucked in. But I worked with these people. They are not our friends, and they are not benign. They are not after you individually or personally. They may even like you personally.
But they are after us as a class. Remember all the rhetoric you hear on talk radio about class divisiveness. You must learn to think in term of class, not individuals or you cannot get the big picture.
They see no trees. It's a forest, or nothing. Don't get burned up in the forest fire defending the trees.