CMS proposed physician payment rule 2023

[Ferrismonk]

i am not a supporter of Cuba in any manner and do not know their gun policies, but since you posted a comment, here are some facts:

number of gun deaths skyrocketed in Cuba the last year i could find data - 2015 - to 28.

thats roughly the number of gun deaths that occur every 2 hours in the US.

eliminating base rate fallacy - Cuba has roughly 0.5 gun deaths per 100,000. the US ha 4.46 per 100,000.

*reported by a communist country.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ducttape]

Do Differences in Reporting of Live Births Affect Comparability of Infant Mortality Rates? - The Center for Community Solutions

This is just one example. My covid brain isn't up for more research today, but it is a well know fact among pediatricians and OB/GYN that America counts many infant death at a gestational ages that other countries still classify as miscarriages, so those extra deaths are not counted against those countries.

and thats why i posted the data about Life Expectancy at birth, which should not include neonatal deaths/gestational age deaths.

but also.... why is our infant mortality so much worse than other countries?

*reported by a communist country.

thats really kind of a casual fallacy.

-------------------------
now, hypothetically speaking, if you are worried about all these gestational births are affecting the life expectancy, lets compare the US to other nations at an age other than at birth, because the data does not show US in a favorable light.

lets look at, say, life expectancy at a more advanced age. lets look at 65. thats an age where infant mortality will not affect numbers, right?

guess what, the picture is still not pretty for US.

Health status - Life expectancy at 65 - OECD Data

Find, compare and share OECD data by indicator.

data.oecd.org

 

[clubdeac]

please post the specific comment you are throwing around.

i do not ever remember stating that genetics is the primary driver of cardiovascular disease.

it is a factor.

40-60%?

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circresaha.115.306566

30%?

Contribution of Gene Regulatory Networks to Heritability of Coronary Artery Disease:

www.jacc.org

if you dont want to use Cuba, there are what 44 other countries that have better life expectancy at birth. lots of data from those countries that should be more believable for you.

but if you are denying all forms of collected data, then dont bother looking. because you wont find the answers you want.

After age, obesity and cardiovascular disease are the strongest risk factors for hospitalization and death from covid. Both of these are highly modifiable risk factors. Those of you that are strongly in favor of vaccine mandates to the point of denying service, entry or even employment, should we do the same for obesity and CVD? If no then why not? As we all know both are predominantly dependent on life choices

Here ya go. There's so much misinformation here I'm not even going to waste my time disputing it. Duct's perspective on CVD:

"you can modify cardiovascular disease?"

"please also let me know the 'relatively cheap and proven treatments' for obesity and cardiovascular disease. since cardiovascular disease is (still) the number 1 killer of americans, I'm sure that all of these people dying from cardiovascular disease would be willing to pay out for this treatment."

"maybe I should remind...

what are the greatest risk factors for cardiovascular disease?

1. age
2. diabetes
3. male sex.

"how much can you change likelihood for cardiovascular disease with lifestyle changes?
50%. good, but not perfect. Harvard study."

"can you change hereditary factors related to cardiovascular disease with lifestyle changes?"

No you can't change heredity factors related to CVD but heredity factors account for maybe 10-20% of CVD. If you don't realize that you're off your rocker

 

[Ducttape]

Here ya go. There's so much misinformation here I'm not even going to waste my time disputing it. Duct's perspective on CVD:

"you can modify cardiovascular disease?"

"please also let me know the 'relatively cheap and proven treatments' for obesity and cardiovascular disease. since cardiovascular disease is (still) the number 1 killer of americans, I'm sure that all of these people dying from cardiovascular disease would be willing to pay out for this treatment."

"maybe I should remind...

what are the greatest risk factors for cardiovascular disease?

1. age
2. diabetes
3. male sex.

"how much can you change likelihood for cardiovascular disease with lifestyle changes?
50%. good, but not perfect. Harvard study."

"can you change hereditary factors related to cardiovascular disease with lifestyle changes?"

No you can't change heredity factors related to CVD but heredity factors account for maybe 10-20% of CVD. If you don't realize that you're off your rocker

your deductive reasoning is lacking. you are using a diversionary argument. in your original post, you chose to point out that we should consider denying service to obese and/or with CAD. i responded by stating that these conditions are not simple choices such as refusing a vaccine.

deciding not to get a vaccine is significantly different than deciding, on a, say, Monday morning, that a 50 year old male was going to decide that:
a. he wasnt going to have a body of a 50 year old
b. he wasnt going to be a genetic male
c. he was going instantly get rid of all of his risk factors for diabetes including weight and cholesterol.


in your retort, you failed to confirm the claim that i stated that the "main contributor of cardiovascular disease is genetic".

please try again.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

This.

Massive date from Scotland. They have universal healthcare and they checked the IQ of nearly the entire country. They followed the subjects for decades afterward. Is anyone interested in the citations?

-Childhood mental ability is a significant factor among the variables that predict age at death

-Higher childhood IQ is associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality in both men and women

It's crazy that there's such a strong correlation between IQ and the g factor and so many negative outcomes and that its mostly ignored. What a shame. Violent crime, firearm mortality, rape, on and on and on. I think it's much harder to solve problems without being honest about the causes. I guess it's more comfortable and better fits the narrative to keep making things up and throwing money at worthless programs.

 

[Ferrismonk]

Massive date from Scotland. They have universal healthcare and they checked the IQ of nearly the entire country. They followed the subjects for decades afterward. Is anyone interested in the citations?

-Childhood mental ability is a significant factor among the variables that predict age at death

-Higher childhood IQ is associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality in both men and women

It's crazy that there's such a strong correlation between IQ and the g factor and so many negative outcomes and that its mostly ignored. What a shame. Violent crime, firearm mortality, rape, on and on and on. I think it's much harder to solve problems without being honest about the causes. I guess it's more comfortable and better fits the narrative to keep making things up and throwing money at worthless programs.

Seemed apt to bring in info from the other thread here.

"Marijuana can cause permanent IQ loss of as much as 8 points when people start using it at a young age. These IQ points do not come back, even after quitting marijuana."

Know the Risks of Marijuana

Marijuana use comes with real risks that can impact a person’s health and life.

www.samhsa.gov

"Long-term cannabis users showed IQ decline from childhood to midlife (mean=−5.5 IQ points), poorer learning and processing speed relative to their childhood IQ, and informant-reported memory and attention problems."

Psychiatry Online

ajp.psychiatryonline.org

 

[Pain Applicant1]

Seemed apt to bring in info from the other thread here.

"Marijuana can cause permanent IQ loss of as much as 8 points when people start using it at a young age. These IQ points do not come back, even after quitting marijuana."

Know the Risks of Marijuana

Marijuana use comes with real risks that can impact a person’s health and life.

www.samhsa.gov

"Long-term cannabis users showed IQ decline from childhood to midlife (mean=−5.5 IQ points), poorer learning and processing speed relative to their childhood IQ, and informant-reported memory and attention problems."

Psychiatry Online

ajp.psychiatryonline.org

I didn't review these articles but I agree here. The developing brain should stay as far away from all illicit substances as possible. Unless of course the benefit is worthwhile - intractable epilepsy?? Whether or not it should remain illegal is a separate issue.

Still doesn't really help address the question of IQ and crime. I think there are probably, by definition, ~50 million Americans with IQs in the 80s (Standard deviation/16%/etc.). What are these folks supposed to do in modern society to live a productive life and keep away from crime?

This group:
-Most associated with violence
-Most violent crime is committed by males from this group.
-Less impulse control/less able to delay gratification/Overwhelmed by the cognitive demands of modern society
-Can't negotiate any type of job that requires decision making

This is a serious problem in the US and affects us more than people realize. In lieu of trying to find solutions we just keep fanning the flames. I bet mainly out of fear and a desire for appeasement (working as well as it did during WW2, lol)

No place to hide? 52% fear they're in danger every day -- even at home!

Younger Americans were the most likely to feel concerned about their safety on a daily basis.

www.studyfinds.org

 

[clubdeac]

Crime went down markedly in the late 90's when we got tough on crime. That's the solution. Disincentive criminals to commit crime rather than incentive them like we've been doing. 2020 saw the largest one year jump in crime in American history. Being soft on crime begets more crime. Sure we need rehabilitation and recidivism reduction programs but we also need to prosecute criminals and stop releasing them back into the community

 

[wendalltwolf]

Crime went down markedly in the late 90's when we got tough on crime.

There’s also the interesting effect from switching to unleaded gasoline:

Proponents of the lead–crime hypothesis argue that the removal of lead additives from motor fuel, and the consequent decline in children's lead exposure, explains the fall in crime rates in the United States beginning in the 1990s.

 

[callmeanesthesia]

There’s also the interesting effect from switching to unleaded gasoline:

Proponents of the lead–crime hypothesis argue that the removal of lead additives from motor fuel, and the consequent decline in children's lead exposure, explains the fall in crime rates in the United States beginning in the 1990s.

And legalization of abortion.

Abortion and Crime, Revisited - Freakonomics

Abortion and Crime, Revisited - Freakonomics

freakonomics.com

Long transcript but they also talk about the contribution of lead, and other contributors such as more police.
So now with restricting the EPA and reversing Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court is setting up a massive increase in crime in 15-20 years.

 

[clubdeac]

And legalization of abortion.

Abortion and Crime, Revisited - Freakonomics

Abortion and Crime, Revisited - Freakonomics

freakonomics.com

Long transcript but they also talk about the contribution of lead, and other contributors such as more police.
So now with restricting the EPA and reversing Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court is setting up a massive increase in crime in 15-20 years.

People will still be able to get abortions. I honestly don’t think the ruling will have a huge effect on access to abortion. People will still be able to kill their fetuses. But I understand your point

 

[Pain Applicant1]

And legalization of abortion.

Abortion and Crime, Revisited - Freakonomics

Abortion and Crime, Revisited - Freakonomics

freakonomics.com

Long transcript but they also talk about the contribution of lead, and other contributors such as more police.
So now with restricting the EPA and reversing Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court is setting up a massive increase in crime in 15-20 years.

I remember this. Bill Bennett got in trouble for bringing it up. It came from freakonomics, one of the most interesting books I've ever read.

I have to agree with clubdeac on this one. I'm going to trust my own experience and instinct on this one because I personally lived though it. I'm not going to trust an outside academic guy who is trying to push a political agenda.

It's really something that's difficult to measure. It's a mentality.

NYC in the 80s and 90s was crime infested and violent and the leadership from dinkins was awful. It didn't get cleaned up until Giuliani came in with an iron fist and cleaned it up. But have no worries about it, our good friend diblasio worked very hard to bring it back to how it was back then.

Is there a correlation with conservative vs liberal leadership and NYC crime? I don't know but it's hard to say there's not.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

And legalization of abortion.

Abortion and Crime, Revisited - Freakonomics

Abortion and Crime, Revisited - Freakonomics

freakonomics.com

Long transcript but they also talk about the contribution of lead, and other contributors such as more police.
So now with restricting the EPA and reversing Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court is setting up a massive increase in crime in 15-20 years.

The lead argument. Interesting? So now that crime is going back up does that mean we reintroduced lead back into the environment. I'll have to read up on this one.

Lead, policies, over policing and at the same time under policing, invisible and micro things you can't really see or explain. It'll be interesting to see what comes next out of academia.

 

[callmeanesthesia]

The lead argument. Interesting? So now that crime is going back up does that mean we reintroduced lead back into the environment. I'll have to read up on this one.

Lead, policies, over policing and at the same time under policing, invisible and micro things you can't really see or explain. It'll be interesting to see what comes next out of academia.

Probably the rising income inequality.

 

[Ducttape]

we should all thank the heartless dedication of Clair Patterson for lead ban

back in the day, lead was found on everything, and there was a huge industry specifically designed to misinform us about lead and dangers of lead.

 

[SSdoc33]

I remember this. Bill Bennett got in trouble for bringing it up. It came from freakonomics, one of the most interesting books I've ever read.

I have to agree with clubdeac on this one. I'm going to trust my own experience and instinct on this one because I personally lived though it. I'm not going to trust an outside academic guy who is trying to push a political agenda.

It's really something that's difficult to measure. It's a mentality.

NYC in the 80s and 90s was crime infested and violent and the leadership from dinkins was awful. It didn't get cleaned up until Giuliani came in with an iron fist and cleaned it up. But have no worries about it, our good friend diblasio worked very hard to bring it back to how it was back then.

Is there a correlation with conservative vs liberal leadership and NYC crime? I don't know but it's hard to say there's not.

as usual, the real explanation is a lot more nuanced. it certainly wasn't ALL rudy. rudy was actually a reasonably good mayor until he turned in the complete train wreck of a person he is now. he deserves "some" credit. certainly not all the credit

How New York Became Safe: The Full Story

Just 20 years ago, New York City was racked with crime: murders, burglaries, drug deals, car thefts, thefts from cars. Read the whole story here.

www.city-journal.org

 

[Pain Applicant1]

Probably the rising income inequality.

Possible, I guess. Lots of poor people in my rural town. Far poorer with far fewer resources than their fellow urban citizens. Hard to believe, but some people in rural America still don't have running water. I don't have that fear of violence when I was a city kid.

There are also lots of poverty-stricken people around the world who make our poor look rich. I rarely experienced a threat of violence around them. In fact, the friendliest most generous people I've met in my life have been in the poor rural parts of Central America, where the kids run around with no shoes because they can't afford them.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

as usual, the real explanation is a lot more nuanced. it certainly wasn't ALL rudy. rudy was actually a reasonably good mayor until he turned in the complete train wreck of a person he is now. he deserves "some" credit. certainly not all the credit

How New York Became Safe: The Full Story

Just 20 years ago, New York City was racked with crime: murders, burglaries, drug deals, car thefts, thefts from cars. Read the whole story here.

www.city-journal.org

Nothing is 100% but I'll give my personal experience more credit than the academic author who was born and raised in the mid-west and spends his days looking at data.

I know the mentality firsthand because I used to hang out with the kids who were committing the crimes that you were hearing about. There's something to be said for that and an outsider will never be able to fully understand it. Not yesterday not today.

Academic guys are almost forced to be left-leaning on this issue so I'll take what they say with a grain of salt.

 

[callmeanesthesia]

Possible, I guess. Lots of poor people in my rural town. Far poorer with far fewer resources than their fellow urban citizens. Hard to believe, but some people in rural America still don't have running water. I don't have that fear of violence when I was a city kid.

There are also lots of poverty-stricken people around the world who make our poor look rich. I rarely experienced a threat of violence around them. In fact, the friendliest most generous people I've met in my life have been in the poor rural parts of Central America, where the kids run around with no shoes because they can't afford them.

Not exactly the poverty but the way extreme wealth is on display for the extremely poor to see throughout their daily lives in the city. It’s not as in-your-face in rural areas. (Although thanks to the wonders of social media, everyone everywhere can now feel poor and ugly all the time). Also easier to have an element of tribalism in a very small town where everyone knows everyone - potential victims aren’t nameless and faceless.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

Not exactly the poverty but the way extreme wealth is on display for the extremely poor to see throughout their daily lives in the city. It’s not as in-your-face in rural areas. (Although thanks to the wonders of social media, everyone everywhere can now feel poor and ugly all the time). Also easier to have an element of tribalism in a very small town where everyone knows everyone - potential victims aren’t nameless and faceless.

These are all interesting points you bring up.
-Does income inequality have more of an adverse impact on people than if everyone is equally poor?
-Does the discrepancy in wealth improve the QOL for everyone?
-Why is there a discrepancy in wealth to begin with? Is it due to unfair social structures? Is there a direct correlation between IQ and wealth? (the answer is yes but shhhh don't tell anyone)
-Do urban landscapes incite people to violence more so than rural ones and if so, why? Is it urban landscapes or again related to IQ?
-Does tribalism/smaller communities lead to decreased crime?
-Does social media result in lower self-esteem?

Each of these things would be interesting to discuss at length. I'm interested in furthering the conversation if anyone else is.

 

[Ducttape]

I remember this. Bill Bennett got in trouble for bringing it up. It came from freakonomics, one of the most interesting books I've ever read.

I have to agree with clubdeac on this one. I'm going to trust my own experience and instinct on this one because I personally lived though it. I'm not going to trust an outside academic guy who is trying to push a political agenda.

It's really something that's difficult to measure. It's a mentality.

NYC in the 80s and 90s was crime infested and violent and the leadership from dinkins was awful. It didn't get cleaned up until Giuliani came in with an iron fist and cleaned it up. But have no worries about it, our good friend diblasio worked very hard to bring it back to how it was back then.

Is there a correlation with conservative vs liberal leadership and NYC crime? I don't know but it's hard to say there's not.

actually.....

How much credit does Giuliani deserve for fighting crime?

SUMMARY: Rudy Giuliani touts his crime-fighting record from his days as mayor of New York, but many experts don't think

www.politifact.com

But Giuliani's big claims come with big caveats. While the statistics he cites are accurate, independent experts and studies of the phenomenon suggest Giuliani exaggerates his role. Consider:

• Violent crime in New York began falling three years before Giuliani took office in 1994, U.S. Justice Department records show. Property crime began falling four years before. The decline accelerated during his administration, but the "turnaround" he claims credit for started before him.

• New York was no anomaly, but was part of a trend that saw crime fall sharply nationwide in the 1990s, particularly in big cities. The city with the best record for reducing violent crime during this period? San Francisco.

• Independent studies generally have failed to link the tactics of the Giuliani administration with the large decrease in crime rates.

Rather, many criminologists believe the decline in New York, as in Chicago, San Diego, Miami and elsewhere, was the result of a complex mix of social and demographic changes, including a break in the crack cocaine epidemic, an improving economy, and increased prison terms for proven lawbreakers.

Better policing tactics and policies were likely part of it,

 

[SSdoc33]

Nothing is 100% but I'll give my personal experience more credit than the academic author who was born and raised in the mid-west and spends his days looking at data.

I know the mentality firsthand because I used to hang out with the kids who were committing the crimes that you were hearing about. There's something to be said for that and an outsider will never be able to fully understand it. Not yesterday not today.

Academic guys are almost forced to be left-leaning on this issue so I'll take what they say with a grain of salt.

ah, yes. anecdotal evidence. when then the data doesnt match your personal experience, then it must be wrong.

BTW, gun violence on a per capita basis is generally believed to be equal or higher in your "safe, rural" communities than it is in cities. you are clearly experiencing a selection bias. you see what affects you, but the only way to see how a community is affected is to analyze the data

Gun Violence is not an "Urban" Problem - JohnJayREC.nyc — John Jay College's Research and Evaluation Center

by Jeffrey A. Butts JohnJayREC DataBits 2018-01 (revised Jan 2020) Policy debates about gun violence focus on cities. Every year, when federal law enforcement authorities release the latest compilation of U.S. violent crime statistics, news media across the country publish stories ranking cities...

johnjayrec.nyc

 

[Ducttape]

These are all interesting points you bring up.
-Does income inequality have more of an adverse impact on people than if everyone is equally poor?
-Does the discrepancy in wealth improve the QOL for everyone?
-Why is there a discrepancy in wealth to begin with? Is it due to unfair social structures? Is there a direct correlation between IQ and wealth? (the answer is yes but shhhh don't tell anyone)
-Do urban landscapes incite people to violence more so than rural ones and if so, why? Is it urban landscapes or again related to IQ?
-Does tribalism/smaller communities lead to decreased crime?
-Does social media result in lower self-esteem?

Each of these things would be interesting to discuss at length. I'm interested in furthering the conversation if anyone else is.

- there is no income inequality if everyone is poor.

- income inequality is probably part and parcel to human experience. capitalism will generate increasing inequality. the degree is the problem, not the existence of inequality. we will not get to income equality.. until we get a utopian society more like Star Trek Next Generation where replicators that can create anything, or nuclear holocaust reduces us to existence living....

-rural areas are not immune to crime. the interesting point in this article appears that thefts and burglaries are more common than in urban areas, and robberies and assaults more common in urban. also, suicide rates are much higher in rural areas.

https://www.ruralhealth.us/NRHA/media/Emerge_NRHA/Advocacy/Policy%20documents/2017-NRHA-policy-paper-Rural-Community-Violence.pdf

-IQ does not specifically correlate with wealth. it does according to this study correlate with income, but with increasing income comes increasing debt so wealth overall by this study is unchanged.

A Wealth of Smarts Does Not Guarantee Actual Wealth

A new analysis of data from a long-term study shows that you don't have to be smart to be wealthy

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Pain Applicant1]

actually.....

How much credit does Giuliani deserve for fighting crime?

SUMMARY: Rudy Giuliani touts his crime-fighting record from his days as mayor of New York, but many experts don't think

www.politifact.com

I refer you back to my post #118. I'm a stubborn one.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

ah, yes. anecdotal evidence. when then the data doesnt match your personal experience, then it must be wrong.

BTW, gun violence on a per capita basis is generally believed to be equal or higher in your "safe, rural" communities than it is in cities. you are clearly experiencing a selection bias. you see what affects you, but the only way to see how a community is affected is to analyze the data

Gun Violence is not an "Urban" Problem - JohnJayREC.nyc — John Jay College's Research and Evaluation Center

by Jeffrey A. Butts JohnJayREC DataBits 2018-01 (revised Jan 2020) Policy debates about gun violence focus on cities. Every year, when federal law enforcement authorities release the latest compilation of U.S. violent crime statistics, news media across the country publish stories ranking cities...

johnjayrec.nyc

Data, shmata. It all can be argued back and forth. Even from your article:

"While other cities experienced major declines, none was as steep as New York’s. Most of the criminologists’ explanations for it—the economy, changing drug-use patterns, demographic changes—have not withstood scrutiny."

Data is important but so are anecdotes. Take of it what you will.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

- there is no income inequality if everyone is poor.

- income inequality is probably part and parcel to human experience. capitalism will generate increasing inequality. the degree is the problem, not the existence of inequality. we will not get to income equality.. until we get a utopian society more like Star Trek Next Generation where replicators that can create anything, or nuclear holocaust reduces us to existence living....

-rural areas are not immune to crime. the interesting point in this article appears that thefts and burglaries are more common than in urban areas, and robberies and assaults more common in urban. also, suicide rates are much higher in rural areas.

https://www.ruralhealth.us/NRHA/media/Emerge_NRHA/Advocacy/Policy%20documents/2017-NRHA-policy-paper-Rural-Community-Violence.pdf

-IQ does not specifically correlate with wealth. it does according to this study correlate with income, but with increasing income comes increasing debt so wealth overall by this study is unchanged.

A Wealth of Smarts Does Not Guarantee Actual Wealth

A new analysis of data from a long-term study shows that you don't have to be smart to be wealthy

www.scientificamerican.com

Income would be the better term, that's right but you understand the context of what I'm trying to say either way.

IQ not only correlates with income but many other things as well. This has nothing to do with anyone on an individual level or if any individual is a good or bad person but it does have a big impact on society.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

BTW, gun violence on a per capita basis is generally believed to be equal or higher in your "safe, rural" communities than it is in cities. you are clearly experiencing a selection bias. you see what affects you, but the only way to see how a community is affected is to analyze the data

Gun Violence is not an "Urban" Problem - JohnJayREC.nyc — John Jay College's Research and Evaluation Center

by Jeffrey A. Butts JohnJayREC DataBits 2018-01 (revised Jan 2020) Policy debates about gun violence focus on cities. Every year, when federal law enforcement authorities release the latest compilation of U.S. violent crime statistics, news media across the country publish stories ranking cities...

johnjayrec.nyc

I wouldn't necessarily argue that it's the rural nature of my community resulting in it being safe.

I'm curious if we broke gun violence or violence in general down to certain demographics, and removed whatever those demographics may be from the data, and then removed suicides from the equation how things would look crime-wise. Would we be comparable to other nations? If that's the case, then being honest about whatever these variables may be would be a good first step in helping to address the problem.

 

[Doctodd]

anecdotally.....my family is in law enforcement here in Miami. She complains about all the new crime due to migration of people from liberal states and how they expect to be let go after committing a crime in Miami, but they get a rude awakening.

 

[Ducttape]

Income would be the better term, that's right but you understand the context of what I'm trying to say either way.

IQ not only correlates with income but many other things as well. This has nothing to do with anyone on an individual level or if any individual is a good or bad person but it does have a big impact on society.

yes, and that article also implies it was not Guiliani - at least not him alone - that made NYC safer.

I wouldn't necessarily argue that it's the rural nature of my community resulting in it being safe.

I'm curious if we broke gun violence or violence in general down to certain demographics, and removed whatever those demographics may be from the data, and then removed suicides from the equation how things would look crime-wise. Would we be comparable to other nations? If that's the case, then being honest about whatever these variables may be would be a good first step in helping to address the problem.

um....
if you broke violence down by demographics then removed demographics, wouldnt you get, well, 1?
(violence rates) / (demographics) / (demographics) = Violence

okay, im being facetious.

i could not find any specific data that parsed out gun vs non gun crime deaths. however, the US may be average with regards to violence:

i did find this work from 1997:

09.16.97 - Crime is not the problem, lethal violence is, say UC Berkeley researchers

its a book where they present data suggesting the US is average when it comes to the number of crimes and criminals. the problem in the US is the lethality of which these crimes occur.

one of the main drivers in lethality - guns and their ubiquitousness.


furthermore, taking some liberties and making assumptions, i looked at CDC numbers - 7.5 total homicides per 100,000 and 5.9 gun homicides per 100,000, which would be roughly 1.6 non gun homicides per 100,000.

still higher than europe (France 1.28, Sweden 1.09, Germany 0.71, England and Wales 1.14) but in the ballpark

 

[clubdeac]

In regards to the crime problem I think Clint summed it up pretty well "The problem is not guns. It's hearts without God, homes without discipline, schools without prayer, and courtrooms without justice."

We have a heart problem. Until you fix that nothing will change. Unfortunately we can't even agree anymore on what's good and virtuous. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence have been replaced by equity, diversity, moral relativism, nonconformity, sexual expression and sexual identity etc. These have become the pillars and most important values in society

 

[Doctodd]

it's probably true......there were more guns per capita at schools back in the day. Everyone had a rifle rack with a rifle.

 

[Agast]

No one else will appreciate this, but there’s a great scene in Saved! where Mandy Moore’s good girl Christian character hits another girl with a Bible while screeching “I am FILLED with the love of God!”

That’s what some of you remind me of…

 

[Pain Applicant1]

yes, and that article also implies it was not Guiliani - at least not him alone - that made NYC safer.

um....
if you broke violence down by demographics then removed demographics, wouldnt you get, well, 1?
(violence rates) / (demographics) / (demographics) = Violence

okay, im being facetious.

i could not find any specific data that parsed out gun vs non gun crime deaths. however, the US may be average with regards to violence:

i did find this work from 1997:

09.16.97 - Crime is not the problem, lethal violence is, say UC Berkeley researchers

its a book where they present data suggesting the US is average when it comes to the number of crimes and criminals. the problem in the US is the lethality of which these crimes occur.

one of the main drivers in lethality - guns and their ubiquitousness.


furthermore, taking some liberties and making assumptions, i looked at CDC numbers - 7.5 total homicides per 100,000 and 5.9 gun homicides per 100,000, which would be roughly 1.6 non gun homicides per 100,000.

still higher than europe (France 1.28, Sweden 1.09, Germany 0.71, England and Wales 1.14) but in the ballpark

I mean specific variables I'm tiptoeing around, not all variables. It can become uncomfortable to go into more detail.

 

[Doctodd]

No one else will appreciate this, but there’s a great scene in Saved! where Mandy Moore’s good girl Christian character hits another girl with a Bible while screeching “I am FILLED with the love of God!”

That’s what some of you remind me of…

it's uncool to shame people for their religious beliefs, or belief in religion in general. In the real life movie im reminded of where there is no hitting with a Bible..... they just get shot.

 

[SSdoc33]

"god" should have no influence on policy #1, because there is that little thing called separation of church and state and #2 b/c there is no god.

you dont need religion as a basis for mores or laws or morality. if we go down that road, we become afghanistan

 

[Ferrismonk]

"god" should have no influence on policy #1, because there is that little thing called separation of church and state and #2 b/c there is no god.

you dont need religion as a basis for mores or laws or morality. if we go down that road, we become afghanistan

I know we disagree here, but our mores/laws/morality come from our society's Christian roots. Obviously there is a difference between religions and interpretation thereof. However, without religion, you get the Soviet Union or modern China.

 

[SSdoc33]

I know we disagree here, but our mores/laws/morality come from our society's Christian roots. Obviously there is a difference between religions and interpretation thereof. However, without religion, you get the Soviet Union or modern China.

facepalm.

what does "our society" mean? and you may want to state "Judeo-christian" roots. just because the pilgrims happened to be a brand a cristianity does not mean that our entire culture should necessary follow those laws / ethics. now, i agree that there is a lot of gray area, but religion should never be used as a rationale for political discourse / policy

so..... what if im a buddhist? i have to obey your christian laws and values? i may want to have premarital sex. i may want to use birth control. i may not want to celebrate xmas. i may want to "gasp" avoid pork and alcohol.

soviet union / china is one end of the spectrum. saudi arabia is another.

we are a secular society and should strive to maintain that.

 

[Ducttape]

there is a lot of misinformation as to some of the variables. race is one that is commented on, a lot, particularly after black lives matter.


however -

stats show that the majority of homicides are interracial (black on black, white on white).

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/rhovo1215.pdf

black death rates are much higher than white, particularly black males, but this is because black males are killing each other.

In the majority of violent victimizations, white victims’ offenders were white and black victims’ offenders were black During 2012-15, U.S. residents experienced 5.8 million violent victimizations per year (table 1). About 3.7 million of these violent victimizations were committed against white victims.3 Among white victims, a higher percentage of victimizations were committed by white offenders (57%) than offenders of any other race. White victims perceived the offender to be black in 15% of violent victimizations and Hispanic in 11%.4 Of the 850,720 victimizations committed against black victims, a higher percentage involved black offenders (63%) than offenders of any other race. Black victims perceived the offender to be white in 11% of violent victimizations and Hispanic in nearly 7%.

there are a lot of misleading memes about intraracial deaths (ie black murderer white victim or white murderer black victim). these attempt to exploit the fear that blacks are killing whites.

the data suggests that the rate of black on white deaths is similar to the rate of white on black deaths. but these memes try to exploit and deceive.

Fact check: Misleading bar graph presents distorted interpretation of black and white murder rates

Shared on Facebook and Instagram, posts include a bar graph showing “murder of blacks and whites in the US, 2013” broken down by the races of the perpetrators. While the graph itself is accurate, the way it is presented is misleading.

www.reuters.com

and when it comes to deaths by police, yes many more whites are killed by police, but the rates of deaths of blacks by police is twice that of whites, and in a smaller population size.

 

[Ducttape]

I know we disagree here, but our mores/laws/morality come from our society's Christian roots. Obviously there is a difference between religions and interpretation thereof. However, without religion, you get the Soviet Union or modern China.

the founders specifically made the Constitution to make government apart from religious doctrine.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Thomas Jefferson: “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”


i will agree that stheir Judeo-Christian beliefs may have influenced their choices, but they recognized that all religious ideology should be respected and that their particular religious ethics should not be forced on to others. unfortunately, an increasing proportion of our population disagrees with this.

 

[mid|ine]

I know we disagree here, but our mores/laws/morality come from our society's Christian roots. Obviously there is a difference between religions and interpretation thereof. However, without religion, you get the Soviet Union or modern China.

Soviet Union + Religion (Russian Orthodox Christians) = Russia + Genocide + Oligarchy

 

[Agast]

Soviet Union + Religion (Russian Orthodox Christians) = Russia + Genocide + Oligarchy

Some people see that as a plus because it gets rid of that pesky diversity we’re pushing right now

 

[lobelsteve]

Some people see that as a plus because it gets rid of that pesky diversity we’re pushing right now

Genocide sounds rough. I volunteer to be an oligarch. How's the pay?

 

[Pain Applicant1]

and when it comes to deaths by police, yes many more whites are killed by police, but the rates of deaths of blacks by police is twice that of whites, and in a smaller population size.

but percentage-wise blacks commit more violent crimes than whites and when you look closely at the data with respect to violent crimes committed, the killings at the hands of police are actually more for whites percentage-wise.

Either way, I don't think it's a racial issue as much as an IQ issue. IQ correlates more with who will commit what crime than race. Whether or not one race is over or underrepresented in that IQ range is beside the point. That 80-90 range seems to be correlated with high crime regardless of race. People below that level are whatever and people above 90 seem to do better in modern-day society.

Aside from IQ, characteristics like aggressiveness, impulsivity, and criminality are also genetic - as is pretty much everything else. Environmental factors probably still need to set these genes into action.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

I know we disagree here, but our mores/laws/morality come from our society's Christian roots. Obviously there is a difference between religions and interpretation thereof. However, without religion, you get the Soviet Union or modern China.

I don't think it's that straightforward.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity? Buddhism? Numbers-wise, there are probably more people in China that believe in some type of divine supernatural whatever than in the US.

What about France? The French Revolution had a policy of Dechristianization.

The founding founders in the US followed more Deism than Christianity and Deism rejects many Christian beliefs. Thomas Jefferson was even accused of being an infidel and an atheist.

Have you ever seen the painting Pans, Youths, and Nymphs? It's pagan and is hung in James Madison's house in Montpelier.

The US is based on western values, which include Christianity but also has many other influences.

 

[Ferrismonk]

I apologize, perhaps I wasn't being clear what I meant. Christianity, being the primary moral compass for Europe for 1700 years, is the primary source for the development of modern western values. Yes, the United States did not want the government to establish a national religion (for good reasons I might add), but the basis of right/wrong, good/bad came from a pervasive general Christian culture.

Ducttape, It's worth noting that the 1st Amendment phrase you quoted was designed to keep the government out of religion, not religion out of government. People should be free to exercise their religion free from government intervention.

People also tend to conflate the religious voting their values with some type of religious takeover of government. The political hot-button issues of the day that are often painted as religious vs secular are in fact often not religious at all. Laws regarding abortion, gay marriage, trans-genderism, death penalty, illegal immigration, etc may of course be influenced by religious thought, but they are also influenced by secular thought. These aren't strictly religious issues.

I haven't seen any laws forcing people to worship Jesus or follow Mohammad. I haven't seen any attempts for force people to tithe or go to church services on certain days. I've seen no compulsory religious education.

 

[clubdeac]

Ferrismonk is 100% correct. Duct and ssdoc couldn’t be more wrong in regards to what the constitution says about religion, the understanding of the establishment clause and the strong Judeo-Christian roots of our country. Although the founding fathers held various interpretations of the Bible, Thomas Jefferson being one of them; they all looked to the Bible as a guide to the governance of our nation. John Adams said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” In fact the “Separation of church and state” is actually nowhere in the constitution

 

[Ducttape]

i agree one is allowed to vote whatever their religion requires.

but how does a government employee espouse their religious beliefs at work without potentially interfering on the beliefs of others?

i also agree that the hot-button issues are not completely religious. most, such as abortion, are power based meant to maintain a certain power structure.

Ferrismonk is 100% correct. Duct and ssdoc couldn’t be more wrong in regards to what the constitution says about religion, the understanding of the establishment clause and the strong Judeo-Christian roots of our country. Although the founding fathers held various interpretations of the Bible, Thomas Jefferson being one of them; they all looked to the Bible as a guide to the governance of our nation. John Adams said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” In fact the “Separation of church and state” is actually nowhere in the constitution

you might want to read his whole statement for context.

here it is:

But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays [229] in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

i highlighted the line before yours. he was not talking about religion in government. he was talking about the people as a whole being moral and ethical, and he was not talking about Christian morals or ethics and never espoused any interest in making a specific religion the national religion.

apparently, most scholars believed he was a Deist who hold the belief that while there is a Creator, but he is a non-interventionalist God.

here is a more nuanced commentary about Christianity and the Founding Fathers.

The Founding Fathers, Deism, and Christianity | Christianity, Enlightenment & Religion

For some time the question of the religious faith of the Founding Fathers has generated a culture war in the United States. Scholars trained in research universities have generally argued that the majority of the Founders were religious rationalists or Unitarians. Pastors and other writers who

www.britannica.com

 

[Pain Applicant1]

Christianity, being the primary moral compass for Europe for 1700 years, is the primary source for the development of modern western values. Yes, the United States did not want the government to establish a national religion (for good reasons I might add), but the basis of right/wrong, good/bad came from a pervasive general Christian culture.

Ferrismonk is 100% correct. Duct and ssdoc couldn’t be more wrong in regards to what the constitution says about religion, the understanding of the establishment clause and the strong Judeo-Christian roots of our country. Although the founding fathers held various interpretations of the Bible, Thomas Jefferson being one of them; they all looked to the Bible as a guide to the governance of our nation. John Adams said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” In fact the “Separation of church and state” is actually nowhere in the constitution

I'm not religious and don't personally believe in religion but there's no doubt that Christianity helped America become the great nation that it is.

My worthless and oversimplified view on the process:
Ancient Egypt and Babylon helped lead to Judaism which led to the offshoot of Christianity. The pagan Roman Empire, a mixed culture of Ancient Rome itself, Ancient Greece, and the Germanic tribes, adopts Christianity. Christianity spreads through Europe. Power and faith in Europe become too concentrated in the hands of too few and people become angered by the church and monarchy. This helps lead to the Age of Enlightenment. Combine this with Christianity and out pops America.

There are lots of pieces of each incorporated into our daily lives.

 

[Ducttape]

yes, but that has to do with the social environment.

Christianity did not "out pops America". there is a separation your statement lacks. yes, the United States was formed in the environment of Christianity, but remember that the American Experiment was a direct rebuttal to the power of the English Monarchy. the United States was not a religious revolt, but a political economic one.


Thomas Jefferson was a significant separator of religion and politics.

Founders Online: 82. A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, 18 June 1779

82. A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, 18 June 1779

founders.archives.gov

We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

he was a proponent of John Locke:

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/right-conscience-locke-jefferson

In 1689, English philosopher John Locke authored his Letter Concerning Toleration, calling for the guarantee of civil rights to all citizens, regardless of religion. Locke’s attitudes toward toleration are of profound importance due to the influence they would have on the Founders, most notably Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson, in arguments regarding the freedom of religion, would often take to quoting Locke that “neither pagan nor Mahometan nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.”

he was of course a proponent of religious freedom:

While Locke’s argument for toleration stemmed from the denial of legal rights to non‐Christians by government, Jefferson instead asserts that right to choose one’s religion, the right of conscience, is a natural right that the state has no power to abridge. Jefferson even disliked the word “toleration,” preferring instead “religious freedom,” a phrase that to this day echoes throughout political discussions. 7 “Toleration” implied that a person’s right to practice their religion existed only at the pleasure of the government. “Religious freedom,” on the other hand, recognized that the right of conscience was not in the government’s power to limit in the first place. The “legitimate powers of government” can only limit injurious acts, and Jefferson pithily reminds us that belief injures no one.

While Locke, largely in response to the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes, argued that government suppression of minority religions made countries worse by stoking violence and conflict (rather than promoting order and stability as Hobbes argued), Jefferson argued that suppression of religion made individuals worse off as well. Of an individual barred from practicing their religion, Jefferson says, “Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite. But it will never make him a truer man.” 8 Jefferson was furious at Virginia laws that restricted the practice of certain types of religion, such as those requiring belief in the Trinity and baptism, 9 referring to such laws as “religious slavery.”

this article from Libertarianism.org states that Jefferson owned a Quran, and may have used Sharia Law as part of his law practice.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

yes, but that has to do with the social environment.

Christianity did not "out pops America". there is a separation your statement lacks. yes, the United States was formed in the environment of Christianity, but remember that the American Experiment was a direct rebuttal to the power of the English Monarchy. the United States was not a religious revolt, but a political economic one.


Thomas Jefferson was a significant separator of religion and politics.

Founders Online: 82. A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, 18 June 1779

82. A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, 18 June 1779

founders.archives.gov

he was a proponent of John Locke:

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/right-conscience-locke-jefferson

he was of course a proponent of religious freedom:


this article from Libertarianism.org states that Jefferson owned a Quran, and may have used Sharia Law as part of his law practice.

I think you and I are possibly saying the same thing. Freedom of religion, yes, but this happened in the context of Christianity and of western values. Could America have been birthed elsewhere without them? I guess it's possible but it didn't happen.