Monday, January 17, 2011

Interview with a vampire

Well, actually, just a local pastor interviewing a local atheist.

And a weak one at that ;)

End-of-life care and religious faith

I don't think that religion can "simply" be boiled down to fear of death. There are lots of other, more positive and humanistic, aspects to religion that complicate such a reduction, which I've pointed out before. At the same time, I find it not-at-all-surprising to find two very recent medical studies examining how people of faith handle their imminent demise when diagnosed with advanced cancer.

In both studies, it is observed that people who report strong faith do more to prolong their lives in the form of "end-of-life care" (EOL) via ventilators and other artificial preservation techniques. The same thing holds true in the dearth of living will directives amongst religious patients. They rarely fill out a form asking the doctors not to resuscitate them. A strong correlation is found even after adjusting for all the obvious factors.

Is it fair to say that these people are more afraid of death, or should I just take this as evidence that they believe God will save them, somehow? Honest question here...

References:

Religious Coping and Use of Intensive Life-Prolonging Care Near Death in Patients With Advanced Cancer
JAMA. 2009;301(11):1140-1147.doi:10.1001/jama.2009.341

Supportive Care and Quality of Life: Religiousness and Spiritual Support Among Advanced Cancer Patients and Associations With End-of-Life Treatment Preferences and Quality of Life
JCO Feb 10, 2007:555-560

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Avoid placing blame and focus on fixing the underlying issue

The news media thinks I give a rat's posterior about what a former half-term governor from one of the nation's least populous states has to say about the shooting and who is to "blame" for it. I am not. If there is any question that your own words or actions could incite others to violence -- even though, in this particular case, I don't think they did -- perhaps you should take that as an indication that you should think before you speak. Or, barring that, given the relative difficulties involved, at least speak least often.

Instead of caring about whose words do or do not incite violence, I care much more about the weapons of violence that are used to cause mass carnage. Do you realize how many shootings since 2004 have caused multiple fatalities and involved an assault weapon? I have two loaded shotguns within reach of my bed for home defense. Consider that before labeling me the new epithet: hoplophobe.

The shooting in Tuscon makes me have to reiterate a question I've posed before -- isn't there some reasonable middle ground between allowing assault weapons to be sold to criminals and banning all guns outright? This nutball was able to walk in and buy a weapon that holds 31 bullets. What person with an IQ above room temperature thinks that is reasonable? The VT killer, Seung-Hui Cho, was able to buy them despite being labelled mentally ill and a danger to himself and others. Before 2004, handguns could not hold more than 10 bullets. This is far more than any reasonable person would ever need to use in hunting or self-defense.

"Wait," you say, "surely you're exaggerating. Criminals can't legally obtain assault weapons in the US!" Bullshit. Walk into a gun show in 33 states and you don't even need an ID. Just cash money. The ATF followed thousands of weapons used by criminals and they found gun shows to be the second-leading way that weapons are obtained by those who couldn't get them otherwise.

One of the favorite right-wing myths out there is that if everyone is always packing a firearm, there will be no deadly rampages by crazed gunmen. They seem to believe that if there is common knowledge that everyone is armed, two things will conspire: one will be more averse to use their weapon given the knowledge of quick retaliation, and citizens can effectively end a shooting rampage before the body counts go up. As with many right-wing fantasies (e.g., "trickle down" wealth, Laffer curve...) the logic here is not only lacking in empirical support, but it is contradicted by research studies that examine the evidence surrounding "right to carry" (RTC) laws in states and their effect on crime:
Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from the array of models is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted. For every other crime category, there is little or no indication of any consistent RTC impact on crime.
This is something that gun nuts can't get around or over -- the statistics involving gun violence are staggering. They can scream about the Second Amendment all day but they can't even whisper when it comes to dealing with the numbers. I have often pointed out to gun nuts that while there were 134 "justifiable homicides" with a handgun in 1999, there were 866 (6.5 times that many) accidental fatal shootings, 314 deaths where intent was unclear, 12,102 murders and 17,424 suicides in 1998. There were 336 deaths of children by accidental shootings in 1998. This basically shows you that the idea that you'll likely need to defend yourself with lethal force is a poor excuse for carrying a gun. It is 3 times likelier a child will be killed by your gun, 6.5 times likelier that someone will be accidentally killed with your gun, 120 times likelier someone will be murdered with it and 170 times likelier someone will use it to commit suicide.

The hopeful idea that citizens who are armed can end a shooting rampage early and thus reduce the harm done is mortally wounded by the reality of recent events:
Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."
That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person -- a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.
So there was in fact a man carrying a pistol nearby when the shooting started in Tuscon last week. And that man very nearly killed someone other than the shooter. A recent 20/20 investigated this same concept in looking at whether colleges should allow students to carry weapons on campus.

Police and the military are given months and years of formal training on how to prevent wrongful death shootings. Even with all this training, the employment of lethal force by police is sometimes unjustified and "friendly fire" still kills many in our military. Simply put, when gunshots ring out, the last thing we need is even more chaos and confusion when everyone has guns and no one is sure who to shoot. In addition, even the best-trained civilian who has complete composure under fire may be mistaken or miss the intended target, hitting an innocent bystander.

Many who go on shooting rampages are either mentally ill and/or intend to die in the carnage, and so the knowledge that others are armed would have no discernible effect on them.

So what's my "final solution"? Reasonable gun laws. Ban extended capacity magazines. No one but gun nuts and madmen want more than 10 bullets in a handgun. Close the gun show and private sale loopholes that allow criminals and the insane to buy any kinds of guns (including assault weapons) perfectly legally. Anyone who wants to argue with me on this topic feel free to present valid rational points...