Well, Tom, there was a UNC study that concluded differently and the study you cited only included players who finished playing by 1988, but I can't find the methodology that the UNC study used and the new study was done by an arm ofthe CDC,, so I am willing to concede the point about life expectancy. Of course, there would still be the concern about brain injury.

Indeed, life expectancy is not the issue, it's the possibility that an activity that entails high risk of head trauma leads to a higher risk of mental illness.

Miners have a very low life expectancy, but that's largely related to lung problems. Very physical or stressful jobs may have lower life expectancies, but that's more likely to lead to problems with heart and circulation. It's the question of whether we should perhaps at the very least check someone for brain trauma if they have a high risk of head injuries because of their lifestyle, and whether we should treat those who have it as being at greater risk of mental problems that can include being a danger to others.

I am, by the way, impressed at DF's list that managed to skirt around a completely different issue.

danivon wrote:Indeed, life expectancy is not the issue, it's the possibility that an activity that entails high risk of head trauma leads to a higher risk of mental illness.

Miners have a very low life expectancy, but that's largely related to lung problems. Very physical or stressful jobs may have lower life expectancies, but that's more likely to lead to problems with heart and circulation. It's the question of whether we should perhaps at the very least check someone for brain trauma if they have a high risk of head injuries because of their lifestyle, and whether we should treat those who have it as being at greater risk of mental problems that can include being a danger to others.

I am, by the way, impressed at DF's list that managed to skirt around a completely different issue.

Thanks.

My post was re geojanes post about a gun being at the heart of this.

Meanwhile, you imply/presume mental illness and prattle on about miners--as if that's not a tangent?

Belcher was physically capable of killing just about anyone with his bare hands. The only question is would he have done so or was the gun THE primary factor? I suggest no one can know that yet. We also don't know much about the gun: how it was obtained, when, or why it was obtained.

I tend to doubt that NFL players have a life expectancy of only 55. That seems implausible to me because it suggests, as Tom mentioned (good to see you back btw :) ) that loads of NFL players must be dying in their 30s and early 40s in order to average it out with those who live to a ripe old age. Do we really see a lot of ex players dying so young ? Maybe so, it's not the sort of news that I'd get to see over here very often, but it seems unlikely.

As for guns, you all know my position and I see little point in repeating it ad nauseum. It seems pretty clear to me that your chances of surviving a violent attack without a gun are much greater than your chances of surviving a violent attack with a gun. It also seems intuitively obvious that the act of stabbing somebody to death at close quarters or beating them to death with your bare hands requires a much greater conscious exercise of will than impulsively pulling the trigger of a firearm in a fit of rage. As such I'm confident that while many of the murders that are currently carried out using guns might still happen by other means, most would not, or at least would not end up being homicides. But people can easily convince themselves of anything and I tire of beating the same drum to no purpose.

Doctor Fate wrote:My post was re geojanes post about a gun being at the heart of this.

Meanwhile, you imply/presume mental illness and prattle on about miners--as if that's not a tangent?

I was addressing other posts, and the issues (mental illness, life expectancy) were mentioned in the FIRST POST. Hardly going off topic. I don't know that Belcher was mentally ill (and did not intent to imply that was the only explanation), but there have been several suicides by NFL players, some who have been found to have brain injuries.

Now, asking about gangs (on what basis? West Babylon is not the Bronx, you know), that's a tangent.

Sassenach wrote:It also seems intuitively obvious that the act of stabbing somebody to death at close quarters or beating them to death with your bare hands requires a much greater conscious exercise of will than impulsively pulling the trigger of a firearm in a fit of rage. As such I'm confident that while many of the murders that are currently carried out using guns might still happen by other means, most would not, or at least would not end up being homicides. But people can easily convince themselves of anything and I tire of beating the same drum to no purpose.

While this may be true in many cases, it is far less true in a domestic violence situation. This was a crime of passion and it is pure speculation to suggest Belcher would not have done this minus the gun.

Consider: he was supposed to be at a team meeting when the murder occurred. Does that seem like he was in control? He actually went home after waking elsewhere when he knew he was supposed to be at that meeting. He and his girlfriend had at least one argument the night before (about her behavior, believe it or not) and had several previous dust-ups.

This is a case of domestic violence, not a random instance of gun violence. And, he was more than capable of killing nearly anyone with his bare hands.

I don't know enough ebout the circumstances of this particular case to speculate about it. What I said was that her chances of survival if guns hadn't been present are almost certainly greater, and I don't really see any reason to retract that no matter how big and strong he was.

But honestly, there's a limited amount of utility in focusing on specific cases as a justification for public policy decisions. This is especially so in something as emotive as gun control. The fact that one man went crazy and killed his girlfried followed by himself doesn't prove anything one way or the other. The bigger picture is much more important in this debate, and the fact is that there are approximately 10000 fatal shootings a year in the US. I don't think that anything like that number of deaths would be occurring if you didn't have so many guns in circulation. I can't prove it of course, but it seems intuitively obvious to me.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:My post was re geojanes post about a gun being at the heart of this.

Meanwhile, you imply/presume mental illness and prattle on about miners--as if that's not a tangent?

I was addressing other posts, and the issues (mental illness, life expectancy) were mentioned in the FIRST POST. Hardly going off topic. I don't know that Belcher was mentally ill (and did not intent to imply that was the only explanation), but there have been several suicides by NFL players, some who have been found to have brain injuries.

Now, asking about gangs (on what basis? West Babylon is not the Bronx, you know), that's a tangent.

The NFL has a gang problem: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2007-0 ... vin-carter

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3491580

West Babylon has gangs: http://babylonvillage.going.com/article ... ng-related

Belcher was no angel (allegedly): https://www.examiner.com/article/jovan- ... or?cid=rss

Now, do I know he was in a gang? No.

However, his lifestyle is everything that is glorified in the gang/rap culture, including the gun.

freeman

Well, Tom, there was a UNC study that concluded differently and the study you cited only included players who finished playing by 1988, but I can't find the methodology that the UNC study used and the new study was done by an arm ofthe CDC

I beleive the UNC study was about NFL Linemen.
there are differences between what happens to a linebacker or back after retirement and linemen. Linemen generally become obese very soon after retirement, and their shortened life spans are due more to that problem than any other...

fate

This is a case of domestic violence, not a random instance of gun violence. And, he was more than capable of killing nearly anyone with his bare hands.

It is both a case of domestic violence. And an instance of gun violence.
And he did not use his hands to do anything but pull a trigger. That was a choice he made.

The issue of domestic violence is probably addressable to some extent because people seem willing to accept the facts when presented with them.
Gun violence will always be more difficult because to some there always seem to be so many "variables" that somehow excuse the use of the gun as anything but incidental and never integral.
When you look at the the large scale, as freeman does, the presence of hand guns in particular generates incidents that lead to injury and death. It is far easier for an impulsive person to use a hand gun than anything else...

Then change the Constitution if it such a problem.

bbauska wrote:Then change the Constitution if it such a problem.

How many people a year have to be killed in domestic situations using a gun before you see it as a problem?

Bitch, moan and complain all you like but it is a right we have and if you want it changed, you must amend our constitution. And that aint about to change real soon.

While at it how about calling for no longer allowing freedom of religion? After all, isn't religion a driving force behind so much of hatred today? Get rid of that freedom and have the government decide what we should be allowed to worship.

Freedom of speech? If we keep people from speaking their minds, we can reduce viloence for sure!

The right to assemble? Nope, keep the people at home and they can't get in trouble.

Yes, our RIGHTS need to be reviewed and altered if we can find any reasons that may make us safer, the government knows best don't they?

geojanes wrote:???? This is pure speculation, not facts.

No shit sherlock, That is the entire point of it. You are speculating as well. So why is your speculation acceptable and mine not?

geojanes wrote:Speculation, of course, but you really can't make an argument that her chances weren't better if there was no gun in the house.

Absolutely you can because I am sure there are sharp kitchen knifes in the house. If he was in the frame of mine to pull out a gun and shoot her why would he not be just as likely to pull out a sharp kitchen knife and stab her?

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Then change the Constitution if it such a problem.

How many people a year have to be killed in domestic situations using a gun before you see it as a problem?

non sequiter. I don't want to change the Constitution. My opinion on domestic violence is moot to the argument.