Just look up Wikipedia, the CDC or some other authoritative scientific sites and this video is full of misinformation. Of import, the origins of the top 3 and other lesser ranked Y. P. strains are still best guesses and points to Central Asia, not China in most recent studies. China is like the "first mass victim," not the "patient zero" of the pandemics, but these plagues ultimately spread far and wide with deadly repercussions all over the world. Fact those Y.P. plagues devastated Europe so much speaks more of the unsanitary living they had back then and other misconception of how the plagues spread they had exacerbated the spread more than anything.

Time to learn those lessons and take Covid-19 seriously. Wash your hands, keep a good physical distance, and shut up around strangers as much as possible in public. And don't go out as much as possible.

And so...in the period from Oct 1 to Dec 11 2019, the CDC reported that est. 2.5 million people were infected, 29,000 hospitalized, and about 2,400 died. This is roughly 2x the rate of infections and deaths compared to the 2018 "season". So why are we so wound up about the coronavirus? Because it has a cool name?

Yes, they have lower rates. But the point isn't that the rates are the same (they're not), the point is that the rates are low enough to not have an immediate fear of them. An immediate fear would be unwarranted and irrational.

E.g. you probably don't fear dying every time you hop into a vehicle because it has a relatively low risk of killing you (even though the risk is much higher than that of being killed in a homicide by firearm). Having an immediate fear of it would be irrational.

You probably don't fear dying in a general accident (i.e. including all work place and public accidents together). Even though it represents about 170,000 deaths a year (an number so large it makes the topic of firearms deaths look like a joke), it is still a relatively low risk. Having an immediate fear of it would be irrational.

This is not to suggest that these things are not to be respected. We must try and reduce all mortality and morbidity. But you need to be effective at it. This is public health. You choose the method that will have the largest effect.

For example, you will have a bigger effect restricting sugar intake to reduce diabetes deaths, which outnumber homicide by firearm deaths by about an order of magnitude.

The majority of the 40k firearm deaths consist of suicides. There is an important distinction between homicide (the topic) and suicide. Don't mix them up if the topic is homicide by firearm.

Go look at what is actually killing people:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_06-508.pdf

It isn't as rare as you think. There are numerous accounts of false accusations that don't make it as far as court or they do and the accused choose to take a plea versus chancing half their life.

Brent E. Turvey, a criminologist, wrote a 2017 book that dispels this notion. His research, and that of two co-authors, cited statistical studies and police crime reports. One academic study showed that as many as 40 percent of sexual assault charges are false. Mr. Turvey wrote that the FBI in the 1990s pegged the falsity rate at 8 percent for rape or attempted rape complaints.

“There is no shortage of politicians, victims’ advocates and news articles claiming that the nationwide false report for rape and sexual assault is almost nonexistent, presenting a figure of around 2 percent,” writes Mr. Turvey, who directs the Forensic Criminology Institute. “This figure is not only inaccurate, but also it has no basis in reality. Reporting it publicly as a valid frequency rate with any empirical basis is either scientifically negligent or fraudulent.”

A recent study supports this assessment. The Pentagon issues an annual report on sexual assaults in the military. Nearly one-quarter of all cases last year were thrown out for lack of evidence, according to a report released in May.

As far as the rape every 98 seconds, I am unsure where you found that number. There were 95,730 rapes under the revised FBI definitions (which include more categories that previously were not considered rape, like child molestion, under the legacy definitions) in the last year I could find which was 2016. These are the combined rapes of men, women, and children for that year. That means the actual rape of a 'person' is occurring somewhere around every 5-6 minutes. Now if you are going by a different statistic, like the CDC ones that include such a wide definition of what constitutes 'rape' that it isn't funny, you might get the result you quoted. I wouldn't go by those stats, even TIME magazine had to call out the CDC for overstating the numbers.

As far as Trump goes, he is a complete idiot dickhead. He shouldn't have insulted anyone, least of all Dr. Ford. I will point out one thing though, and this is subjective in that your viewpoint will differ from mine, Dr. Ford is an alleged rape survivor. She has made the claim and took a polygraph test, but other than that she can only claim that in her recollection she was at a party where Brett Kavanaugh was also at supposedly. She also claimed to be heavily intoxicated. If you want to believe her Ex, she has lied in her testimony. (https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/christine-ford-boyfriend-ex-letter-blasey/) Heavy leans left, so this isn't a bobknight cherry picking of information.

Now, why would she come forth and deal with all the negatives of making the claim? I guess that is the kicker, normally you would expect a person to really be telling the truth if they are going to be put through hell. I would put forward though that this was one of the most hotly contested confirmations for SCOTUS ever. Even more so than for Bork, and I remember that one clearly. In my opinion, far more than for Thomas. If you were adamantly opposed to a person sitting on the Supreme Court, had went to school with that person, and were willing to fall on your sword for your beliefs, you might do it.

In any case, that is just supposition on my part.

How many of the 200 deaths a year are suicides?

US CDC 2015

All suicides
Number of deaths: 44,193

Firearm suicides
Number of deaths: 22,018

I think it's great that people ask questions about vaccinations, but I think the overwhelming body of evidence shows vaccines are, for the most part, safe and most definitely beneficial to society as a whole. There is definitely the potential for an increased risk of side-effects with certain vaccines, for example MMR-V versus just getting the MMR (1), but by asking questions and doing a bit of research, you can make informed choices.

(1) https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/hcp/vacopt-factsheet-hcp.html

I like how he mentioned the inability of the CDC, due to regulations, to gather a comprehensive database on gun violence. As that seems to be an oft to ignored law. Undo that law, let the CDC gather all the various data points into one set, and then let that set be used for analysis. A gun used to commit a robbery, rape or other violent crime? That needs to be reported to the CDC database, along with any details known such as gun source, legality etc. A gunshot victim gets treated at a hospital or clinic, that gets reported to the CDC database along with cause, which in most cases is accidental. Suicide by gun, homicide by gun, mass shooting, all get put into that database. That data then can be used by all sides to support their cause, perhaps it will show that many of the proposed regulations would have little effect. I suspect, however, the fact that the gun lobby fights so hard to prevent the CDC from gathering the data for others to use, means they fear it will be far less favorable to their side.

I personally would be happy enough for now though for this step to be taken. So that we aren't making choices based on incomplete data and conjuncture.

I personally support the right to own a gun for hunting and self-defense. I'm not sure how an AR-15 or something like that would be useful in either case, short of an unrealistic scenario of a zombie apocalypse... and before the right-wingnuts suggest self-defense of in case of a military invasion, or from some odd right-wing fantasy of our own military, let me remind you of how well even better weapons and training worked out for the Branch Davidians. Admittedly, a military invasion scenario of either type is more likely than a zombie or otherwise apocalypse, but exceedingly low... Now if Trump gets us into WW3, and we lose power for years, and it becomes survival of the fittest, then there may be an argument, the solution to that, of course, is don't get the world into that situation with idiots like him at the wheel.

You’re right. Cars and trucks are deadly in the wrong hands.

Which is why we regulate them. You need a licence to drive one. You are tested to see if you are a competent driver. People with serious mental health issues are restricted from driving and there are MASSIVE industry regulations that attempt to make these vehicles safer.

There’s also entire departments dedicated to studying road fatalities.

None of which is true of guns. The CDC can’t even STUDY gun violence.

Can't watch the vid because it's blocked for me, so I apologise if anything I mention is covered by the vid.

There are very few cases where opiates are a good idea for chronic pain (as yours is). The research (which the new CDC guidelines on pain management incorporate) shows there is very little evidence opiates are beneficial for managing chronic pain. The only situations where it should be considered for chronic use are basically end of life (including cancer and palliative). The downsides are just huge, and outweigh the benefits for just about every other situation.

The reasons? Apart from the obvious stuff like tolerance, addiction, death and the rest of the massive list of side effects, there is also a lesser known problem called hyperalgesia. Opioid induced hyperalgesia is where the use of opioids actually prime the body to become more sensitive to pain, even after the opioid has left the body. So in essence, people unaware of this problem think they are reliant on opioids, but in reality taking the opioids may make them more likely to need more analgesia. It's pretty messed up actually, and there should be more education about it, particularly to the doctors doing the prescribing.

It's been a while since I posted. I also rarely spew politics on the Internet anymore, but the arguments in the video are just weak.

Most gun control arguments amount to a bunch of cherry picked statistics, and then a complaint about other cherry picked statistics supporting the other argument. For example, you can't cherry pick the Chicago argument, that's just showing a lack of nuance, but let's go ahead and cherry pick the Australia and CDC arguments.

There was a ban on assault rifle sales in the US. Violent crime has dropped since it was repealed. How's that for a cherry picked argument?

Chaos's reasoning is aligned with my own. The issue is cultural, not legislative.

I'm also particularly peeved about the defense of a free state argument. I believe in the second amendment for this reason. You can't hold a block of houses with f16s. You do it with boots on the ground worn by soldiers bearing arms. To me, the second amendment is one of the last remaining checks on executive authority in this country. Tell the black panthers that bearing arms did nothing to protect them against abuses of state. Any policy maker considering a radical and unpopular extension of executive authority (ahem, Trump) needs to consider the logistical ramifications of an armed populace, wielding millions of firearms, the locations of which are unknown. That's a deterrent, plain and simple. Spend all you want on the military. The military is made up of people just as hesitant to wage war against their own countrymen as you or I. Especially so if there is a real possibility they are putting themselves at considerable risk in the process.

Although I'm in favour of sensible gun regulation, I'm not sure legislation alone will solve your gun problem.

The problem in the USA is, IMO, cultural.

The idea that you would need a gun for "protection" is quite foreign to almost every other country in the developed world.

But, as we've seen in threads here since Orlando, people in the US seem genuinely afraid that they will be "defenseless" if stripped of their arms.

Why is this?
When I've asked people before, I hear responses like "it takes the police 10 minutes to get to your house". Er ok, fund your fucking police?

But that doesn't address the fear of home invasion in the first place. Is it really that common in the US? And if it is, WHY is it?

It's simply not a concern for anyone I know in any other country (excluding war zones, etc). Clearly, if it is such a problem, having a gun isn't deterring people from doing this.

Maybe instead of looking at the short-term symptoms, you should be asking yourselves what is driving people to be so desperate that they are willing to risk their lives breaking into other people's homes knowing that the occupants are potentially armed.

The problem is essentially escalation ( the "Chicago Way").

10: "All the criminals have guns, I better have one too"
20: "Shit, if I'm going to rob that place, they probably have a gun, better go armed"
30: goto 10

Breaking this cycle means addressing inequality, racism, and poverty. People in the US aren't inherently worse than everywhere else, but your system is set up to incentivize criminals to carry a gun.

But FFS, at least stop burying your heads in the sand and let the CDC study this.

For obvious reasons. People that want something banned, don't want statistics showing that shows it doesn't kill. And people that don't want something banned, don't want statistics showing that it kills people.

Bed manufacturers wouldn't want the CDC studying beds - because 400+ people die each year by falling out of bed. Windows tint manufacturers would have no problem with the CDC studying the effects of window tint.
Combine that with sufficient political influence, and you get either a ban or a mandate.

Pretty much most things you encounter in the day have some lethality rate to them, just most don't have such an effective organization defending their use. Nor do most draw as much attention. Not much noise about the lethality of bad bread, or errors in GPS maps, or whatever else gets people killed each year. But if there was noise, and there was political strength behind it, you'd be seeing bans on CDC studying GPS map errors.

-scheherazade

Man, CDC always seems to take it up the ass. Don't they also have some crazy restrictions on research into marijuana usage as well that prevents any meaningful research from getting done?

I agree that the restriction on the CDC shouldn't be happening.

As far as the limitation of what type of weapons we can have, I'm fine with the system in place. Civilians can own machine guns if they get the proper papers and tax stamp. If we want to classify semi auto rifles in the same class, sure. We can even go back to the Assault Rifle ban if we need to. I just don't see it stopping mass shootings, but that's my opinion.

As far as AR-15's specifically go, they aren't what I would consider to be the best weapon to kill people. At short range and with the shorter barrels most of the civilian ones have, the bullet isn't close to being as effective as a handgun. A Glock 22 has a 15+1 round capacity in a .40 caliber. Carrying 2 of them, firing one empty and then the other (not at the same time), assuming you are remotely able to aim, would net you far more DRT people than a 30 round .223 rifle. Tuck one under your arm, swap clips, release the slide catch, repeat for the second, and you are ready to go. Heck, even a pump or semi auto shotgun with the limiter tube removed and using buckshot is likely to get you more dead people.