Violence prevention done right

[eris]

Hospitals Are Trying To Do What Politicians Haven't: Stop Gun Violence | HuffPost

Pardon the link to Huffington Post - it's not my favorite place on the web either - but this is a good article. It's a story about a violence prevention program that doesn't involve gun control. Instead it's about providing help to victims of violence (gun or not) to help them break out of the cycle of attacks and retribution so that they can give up violence as a way of life. This is the kind of "root cause mitigation" liberal gun owners tend to support, and I thought you guys might be interested in seeing how we prefer to approach this issue: not through legislation and bans, but through positive programs that try to cut off violence at it's source.

The model is the area’s first hospital-based violence intervention program, or HVIP, and is one of about 30 accredited programs in the U.S., with a few more in development and a handful operating internationally.

HVIPs target the structural causes of violence ― many of which spring from broader racial and socioeconomic inequalities ― giving survivors tools to make lifestyle changes that can prevent them from being re-victimized or from perpetrating further violence. Research shows HVIPs have been effective at reducing violent injury and death, which can lead to substantial savings on health care and criminal justice costs.

Richardson’s program, which also serves victims of stabbings and other traumas, has seen promising results in its first year, but it doesn’t yet have enough data for a full analysis on results. Of the more than 100 patients so far enrolled, none has been re-hospitalized for violent injury, he said. Before the program’s launch, one-third of all violently injured patients they saw had been hospitalized two or more times before.

 

[Podmonkey]

There is a larger issue that isn't being addressed here.

 

[ProgSpear]

Well Effin Duh! Get an education, be responsible, and get a real job. Whoda thunk? Sorry if I sound a little cynical, but that seems to have been the conservative position for like... FOREVER! Meanwhile the proggies have been trying to destroy every stabilizing societal influence since the French Revolution. In spite of an occasional article like this showing up in one of their propaganda mouthpieces, they have ZERO interest in solving any of these problems, unless it directly enhances their quest for power.

 

[Robin]

Guns aren't violent. I have a single shot 12 gauge that is older than me. I have never used it and have lugged it around from place to place since my dad died. Still, it sits there, never given me reason to fear it. I suspect it is incapable of that.
Robin

 

[Carlos Hathcock]

Guns aren't violent. I have a single shot 12 gauge that is older than me. I have never used it and have lugged it around from place to place since my dad died. Still, it sits there, never given me reason to fear it. I suspect it is incapable of that.
Robin

Dont trust it. It can turn on you in a heartbeat.

 

[eris]

Well Effin Duh! Get an education, be responsible, and get a real job. Whoda thunk? Sorry if I sound a little cynical, but that seems to have been the conservative position for like... FOREVER! Meanwhile the proggies have been trying to destroy every stabilizing societal influence since the French Revolution. In spite of an occasional article like this showing up in one of their propaganda mouthpieces, they have ZERO interest in solving any of these problems, unless it directly enhances their quest for power.

It pretty much is the conservative position except for one small point: conservatives never seem to want to help others get educated and get their lives together. It's always something that conservatives think people need to do entirely without help, even though helping people do this ensures more positive outcomes. I'd love it if we could all come together behind programs like this, but conservative politicians seem to only be interested in punishing people for their failings rather than than helping people to overcome those failings.

 

[Catskillkid]

It pretty much is the conservative position except for one small point: conservatives never seem to want to help others get educated and get their lives together. It's always something that conservatives think people need to do entirely without help, even though helping people do this ensures more positive outcomes. I'd love it if we could all come together behind programs like this, but conservative politicians seem to only be interested in punishing people for their failings rather than than helping people to overcome those failings.

I'm very much a person who believes we should reward good behavior more so than punishing bad behavior. But all too often what we see is nothing but these folks who were are supposed to be helping slide back into drug addiction, gangs, and recidivism. There has to come a point where you stop throwing good money after bad and it takes individual will to make a permanent change. I will say though that I'd much rather see things like this than increased gun control.

 

[eris]

I'm very much a person who believes we should reward good behavior more so than punishing bad behavior. But all too often what we see is nothing but these folks who were are supposed to be helping slide back into drug addiction, gangs, and recidivism. There has to come a point where you stop throwing good money after bad and it takes individual will to make a permanent change. I will say though that I'd much rather see things like this than increased gun control.

Things like this would be a good counter to the gun control proponents. Too often they accuse pro-gun people of not wanting to do anything at all about violence in society, and too often they are exactly right in that criticism. Programs like this would be a way for pro-gun people to change terms of the debate and say "look how we are directly addressing violence without infringing on people's rights". It would be a powerful counter to the gun prohibitionists.

 

[holdover]

How many more programs do you want?

Im one of the few here who think education should be provided by the government .K through high school has been provided by the government , and paid for by the people. military defense is paid for by the people. If the government were to cut back its spending a bit . It wouldn't cost us jack shit.

 

[ProgSpear]

It pretty much is the conservative position except for one small point: conservatives never seem to want to help others get educated and get their lives together. It's always something that conservatives think people need to do entirely without help, even though helping people do this ensures more positive outcomes. I'd love it if we could all come together behind programs like this, but conservative politicians seem to only be interested in punishing people for their failings rather than than helping people to overcome those failings.

Not buying it. Traditional conservatives, most of whom had a religious bent that doesn't fit with current progressive propaganda, in prior years before their marginalization promoted and invested in private charity. That historical reality doesn't fit with the progressive cant that only government is qualified, objective, and technocratic enough to handle any sphere of benevolence however, because life is so complex, and only government has the expertise to deal with it, and conservatives are knuckle-dragging yahoos that cannot be trusted with owning guns, let alone to be trusted with voting or directing where their own hard earned money should go.

And then you completely ignored my assertion that the progressive agenda has been to destroy any stabilizing societal influence that might weaken their accretion of power.

 

[eris]

Not buying it. Traditional conservatives, most of whom had a religious bent that doesn't fit with current progressive propaganda, in prior years before their marginalization promoted and invested in private charity. That historical reality doesn't fit with the progressive cant that only government is qualified, objective, and technocratic enough to handle any sphere of benevolence however, because life is so complex, and only government has the expertise to deal with it, and conservatives are knuckle-dragging yahoos that cannot be trusted with owning guns, let alone to be trusted with voting or directing where their own hard earned money should go.

You're fighting a straw man. Progressives do not think that only government can solve problems. Look at all the progressive charities and NGOs: Natural Resources Defense Council, ACLU, Doctors Without Borders, American Heart Association, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, National Alliance on Mental Illness. These are all non-governmental organizations working to improve peoples lives. The idea that progressives (or even plain old liberals) think government is the only answer is just a falsehood that many conservatives have come to believe because their leaders repeat it over and over like a mantra.

And then you completely ignored my assertion that the progressive agenda has been to destroy any stabilizing societal influence that might weaken their accretion of power.

I ignored it because that's another lie. What stabilizing societal influences are you talking about, anyway? The "progressive agenda" is about ending bigotry, oppression of minorities, and the accumulation of power by the super rich, so I sure hope you aren't saying those things are "stabilizing societal influences".

 

[Darth]

It pretty much is the conservative position except for one small point: conservatives never seem to want to help others get educated and get their lives together. It's always something that conservatives think people need to do entirely without help, even though helping people do this ensures more positive outcomes. I'd love it if we could all come together behind programs like this, but conservative politicians seem to only be interested in punishing people for their failings rather than than helping people to overcome those failings.

You appear to be confusing "help" with "government."

I'll give a freezing soul the shirt off of my back.

I will.

I.

By my own choice.

 

[eris]

You appear to be confusing "help" with "government."

I'll give a freezing soul the shirt off of my back.

I will.

I.

By my own choice.

Do you actually choose to do so, though? It's very easy to say that you are willing to help, but how many of us actually follow through on that and do something to help? There are plenty of NGOs working to reduce violence - just google "violence prevention charity" and you'll find tons of them, most of them small, regional programs.

I'll admit that I do not give to any of these groups, myself, so if you don't either, then know that I'm not saying anything bad about you. I think I could do better though, and I think that we ought to do anything we can to promote these kinds of programs that help people directly, regardless of whether they are government funded or privately funded.

I don't believe gun control will help reduce violence, but at the same time I recognize that doing nothing at all won't help either, so when I hear about intervention programs like the one in the original post I am heartened. It sounds like Dr. Richardson has funding for his studies, and that's good news to me - I don't know where his money comes from, but I'm glad to see someone studying violence prevention seemingly without it being a veneer over a gun control agenda.

 

[ProgSpear]

You're fighting a straw man. Progressives do not think that only government can solve problems. Look at all the progressive charities and NGOs: Natural Resources Defense Council, ACLU, Doctors Without Borders, American Heart Association, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, National Alliance on Mental Illness. These are all non-governmental organizations working to improve peoples lives. The idea that progressives (or even plain old liberals) think government is the only answer is just a falsehood that many conservatives have come to believe because their leaders repeat it over and over like a mantra.



I ignored it because that's another lie. What stabilizing societal influences are you talking about, anyway? The "progressive agenda" is about ending bigotry, oppression of minorities, and the accumulation of power by the super rich, so I sure hope you aren't saying those things are "stabilizing societal influences".

Wow! The Kool-Aid runs strong in you. I would suggest you read some actual history, rather than what is passed off as history by "educators" today. Try reading some Ayn Rand, or George Orwell, the Federalist Papers, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Solzhenitsyn and perhaps some documentation regarding the Fabian society and their goals. By the way, which of the super rich are you referring to? Bill Gates? Elon Musk? Mark Zuckerberg? Jeff Bezos? George Soros? Hillary & Bill Clinton?

I believe you completely missed my point.

 

[Uzi]

Sure why not? I'm not on board paying for tyron's therapy sessions though.

 

[Darth]

Do you actually choose to do so, though? It's very easy to say that you are willing to help, but how many of us actually follow through on that and do something to help? There are plenty of NGOs working to reduce violence - just google "violence prevention charity" and you'll find tons of them, most of them small, regional programs.

I'll admit that I do not give to any of these groups, myself, so if you don't either, then know that I'm not saying anything bad about you. I think I could do better though, and I think that we ought to do anything we can to promote these kinds of programs that help people directly, regardless of whether they are government funded or privately funded.

I don't believe gun control will help reduce violence, but at the same time I recognize that doing nothing at all won't help either, so when I hear about intervention programs like the one in the original post I am heartened. It sounds like Dr. Richardson has funding for his studies, and that's good news to me - I don't know where his money comes from, but I'm glad to see someone studying violence prevention seemingly without it being a veneer over a gun control agenda.

I actually do, but I understand your point.

"I know you say you will, but will you actually donate/help?"

The answer is: I will decide.

Me. I might never donate one cent. And that is my right to do so.

Forcing people to do things against their will (see:taxes) is immoral.

 

[eris]

Wow! The Kool-Aid runs strong in you. I would suggest you read some actual history, rather than what is passed off as history by "educators" today. Try reading some Ayn Rand, or George Orwell, the Federalist Papers, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Solzhenitsyn and perhaps some documentation regarding the Fabian society and their goals.

Rand, Orwell, and Jefferson I've read. Rand was a decent novelist (I quite enjoyed The Fountainhead), but I think her philosophy of "egoism" is just selfishness gussied up to look pretty.Federalist Papers is on the shelf beside me, but I've only read bits here and there when looking up specific things.

You still haven't said anything specific about how progressives are destroying society. Come on, just give me one example.

By the way, which of the super rich are you referring to? Bill Gates? Elon Musk? Mark Zuckerberg? Jeff Bezos? George Soros? Hillary & Bill Clinton?

Them, the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Timothy Geitner ... the list goes on. They all seem to do some good and some bad, but to the man they wield more power than I'm comfortable with and they skew our laws in favor of the rich at the expense of the poor. Take the recent tax cut, for example. Permanent tax cuts for the rich, but only temporary tax cuts for the poor, and the government debt gets a huge increase, to boot. That was fiscally irresponsible and weakens our nation, but hey, rich people got richer, so it's OK with the ruling elites.

 

[eris]

Forcing people to do things against their will (see:taxes) is immoral.

I agree, but at the same time I've been forced to pay taxes all my life to support things I disagree with: the Iraq War (Bush 2, not Bush 1), the invasion of Panama (Bush 1), CIA torture programs, over spending on the military in general, tax exemptions for big businesses to set up shop (like New York is giving to Amazon right now), subsidies for the oil industry.

Would you say that it's immoral to make me pay taxes for those things? If so, then OK, you have a reasonable and consistent position.

The thing is, I don't mind paying taxes if I think doing so will benefit society.

 

[ProgSpear]

You still haven't said anything specific about how progressives are destroying society. Come on, just give me one example.

OK, one. Little Sisters of the Poor. Deliberate targeting of a religious order on political grounds in violation of the First Amendment.

 

[eris]

OK, one. Little Sisters of the Poor. Deliberate targeting of a religious order on political grounds in violation of the First Amendment.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are referring to. Is the government going after them? I thought they mostly operated in India, anyway, so what does our government need with them?

 

[ProgSpear]

The Little Sisters of the Poor at the Supreme Court | National Review

 

[eris]

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are referring to. Is the government going after them? I thought they mostly operated in India, anyway, so what does our government need with them?

Oh wait, I was thinking of Mother Theresa's organization. The LSP are the ones who sued the government because they objected to the requirements of the health insurance law that said they must certify in writing that they did not want to provide contraception coverage.

I'm sorry, but that wasn't religious discrimination in any way. In fact, the law specifically gave them the option of not paying for contraceptive coverage. All they had to do was file a form saying they didn't want to do it. But they claimed that filing the form itself was a form of religious discrimination. Is form filing now a sin that their religion prohibits it?

 

[Darth]

I agree, but at the same time I've been forced to pay taxes all my life to support things I disagree with: the Iraq War (Bush 2, not Bush 1), the invasion of Panama (Bush 1), CIA torture programs, over spending on the military in general, tax exemptions for big businesses to set up shop (like New York is giving to Amazon right now), subsidies for the oil industry.

Would you say that it's immoral to make me pay taxes for those things? If so, then OK, you have a reasonable and consistent position.

The thing is, I don't mind paying taxes if I think doing so will benefit society.

I'm not sure you understand.

I'm against nearly every cent the government takes out of my wallet, and honestly I'm disappointed in your stance/view on me.

You chose those examples as a "got ya" for a conservative.

I'm not a conservative.

 

[ProgSpear]

from the article, and your assertion that there is no religious discrimination is specious.

What Are the Stakes?

This case is about far more than free contraceptives for employees at religious nonprofits. At its heart, it’s about the place of religious conscience in American life. If a group of Catholic nuns can be dragooned into facilitating the sexual revolution because bureaucratic rulemaking trumps essential civil liberties, then religious freedom as a distinct American freedom is nearly extinguished.

At its heart, it’s about the place of religious conscience in American life.

For all the Obama administration’s rhetoric about “women’s health,” the contraceptive mandate was deemed so unimportant that it wasn’t even included in the text of the Obamacare statute itself. It was a regulatory add-on, a bureaucratic addition that can be revoked by the next administration just as easily as it was enacted. In other words, the Obama administration is challenging the exercise of one of America’s foundational liberties to protect a “right” (the right to free abortifacients and other contraceptives) that did not exist five years ago and may not exist next year.

If the Sisters win, by contrast, it will largely preserve the status quo — where RFRA acts as a last line of defense for religious liberties once taken for granted. For all the Left’s apocalyptic rhetoric about the case, the Sisters are not trying to break new ground but rather to preserve the old — the same ground carved out for the faithful by the Founding Fathers.

 

[eris]

I'm not sure you understand.

I'm against nearly every cent the government takes out of my wallet, and honestly I'm disappointed.

You chose those examples as a "got ya" for a conservative.

I'm not a conservative.

All right then.

 

[Darth]

All right then.

Not all of us are bad.

 

[ProgSpear]

And I agree with @Darth on this one, he is not a conservative.

But the concept that .GOV can extract ever increasing tribute because of what they consider to be "for the greater good" is anathema to me, and that is where we truly agree.

 

[eris]

from the article, and your assertion that there is no religious discrimination is specious.

What Are the Stakes?

This case is about far more than free contraceptives for employees at religious nonprofits. At its heart, it’s about the place of religious conscience in American life. If a group of Catholic nuns can be dragooned into facilitating the sexual revolution because bureaucratic rulemaking trumps essential civil liberties, then religious freedom as a distinct American freedom is nearly extinguished.

At its heart, it’s about the place of religious conscience in American life.

For all the Obama administration’s rhetoric about “women’s health,” the contraceptive mandate was deemed so unimportant that it wasn’t even included in the text of the Obamacare statute itself. It was a regulatory add-on, a bureaucratic addition that can be revoked by the next administration just as easily as it was enacted. In other words, the Obama administration is challenging the exercise of one of America’s foundational liberties to protect a “right” (the right to free abortifacients and other contraceptives) that did not exist five years ago and may not exist next year.

If the Sisters win, by contrast, it will largely preserve the status quo — where RFRA acts as a last line of defense for religious liberties once taken for granted. For all the Left’s apocalyptic rhetoric about the case, the Sisters are not trying to break new ground but rather to preserve the old — the same ground carved out for the faithful by the Founding Fathers.

I say there is no religious discrimination because there is no attempt to either compel or prevent religious behavior. Except, of course, that the Little Sisters of the Poor want to compel adherence to Catholic doctrine by it's employees, potentially a reasonable requirement, but they never argued that angle. The fact remains that they were not being asked to provide contraception, they were explicitly provided the option of not paying for it, and they decided that it wasn't good enough and they needed to prevent even a third party from providing it. They aren't the ones being persecuted - if anything they were attempting to persecute their employees.

 

[ProgSpear]

OK, dammit, I'm done. If you cannot even read the article, or did, and still try to misrepresent the arguments presented therein, fine. I will never convince you that a heartfelt moral obligation in accordance with the First Amendment has any standing in the face of "public pressure" You win. Satisfied? Just remember your stance when the Second Amendment is nullified by "public pressure".

 

[Jmac00]

Guns aren't violent. I have a single shot 12 gauge that is older than me. I have never used it and have lugged it around from place to place since my dad died. Still, it sits there, never given me reason to fear it. I suspect it is incapable of that.
Robin

Decepticons ~~~ be wary