Happy Hour News
Axios-Ipsos poll: Gun violence soars as public health concern
Gun violence has surged ahead of the opioid crisis as Americans’ top public health concern, according to the latest edition of the Axios-Ipsos American Health Index.
Why it matters: A spate of recent mass shootings may have focused attention on the issue in ways that weren’t apparent in our last poll in February.
What they found: 26% of respondents said “access to guns or firearms” is the No. 1 threat to American public health, up from 17% in February.
Between the lines: Other recent polling has shown an uptick of concern about gun violence, especially in schools.
- A KFF survey found 1 in 5 U.S. adults said they’ve personally been threatened with a gun, and 1 in 6 have personally witnessed someone being shot.
- There’s been an increased push to portray gun violence as a public health issue, with experts factoring employer costs, insurance claims, mental health counseling and other variables.
- Former GOP Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist wrote earlier this month that “deaths from firearms has grown into an official public health crisis” and called for a “fresh look” at what should be done about it.
Mock Paper Scissors 
Mr. former Frist is a little late to the party pal. As they say after the body has hit the car.
That this has now become “better late than never” news, in the news, is just…can’t find a word to truly describe the current level of carnage, blood loss, trauma, pain, bigger pain, dead blown apart babies, uselessness, cruelty, suffering, parents left without their children, families torn-ripped apart- shredded, mutilated, injured for life, people left without a life, the tears of babies, the screams, the wailing, the loss of voice from screaming, the seemingly never-endingness of it all, the shame, and the child left alone crying in a low moan…with no one…
Is there such a word to begin…
LikeLiked by 4 people
The United States is in the grip of a psychosis. A significant portion of our population has become disconnected from reality and they don’t even realize it. So the daily slaughter will continue until the patient is restrained from harming others.
The most direct cure is to vote out every single god-damned Republican from all political office. Well, that dog won’t hunt and we might as well wish for rainbow-farting unicorns while we’re at it.
So how about this: a campaign to completely rethink, revise, and re-ratify the Second Amendment. It’s not as crazy as it sounds. The generations of children who’ve been victimized by this sickness will be the grassroots. and we’d need a dedicated plurality of 40% of the voting pop to put a little backbone in Congress. Could ratify by 2036, maybe sooner.
This idea isn’t bulletproof, so fire away.
LikeLiked by 4 people
The key lies in the phrase, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . .” That’s the whole purpose of the amendment. The effing carnage we see now is the result of a grotesque misreading of the amendment that produces the exact opposite of what was intended. The security of the State’s citizens, i.e. “the State,” is directly threatened by the daily carnage we see from automatic weapons freely placed in the hands of lunatics to wreak mayhem on our citizens.
God damn SCOTUS for allowing this. As I said recently, the Court itself has become a major threat to the safety and freedom of its citizens.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was a bit verbose but “triggered,” shall we say.
LikeLike
Redhand,
I know that in the Enumerated Powers Article I Section 8 Clause 15 Calling Militias
…but what I don’t know is if anywhere in the thing anyone ever defines what a militia actually is. (And of course the Originalists will gladly oblige.)
I wonder if legally defining a militia might be a way out. I mean, if an older SCOTUS could legally define a tomato as a vegetable… why couldn’t Congress define a militia as the state’s national guard and whatnot?
Rgds,
TG
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am no expert in this, but the Scalia/Alito reading of the language ignores the obvious “militia” condition. It’s incredible, really, that they pretend this language in the amendment is somehow irrelevant, and blow it off. ALL the language in a constitutional or statutory provision should be considered in construing its “meaning.”
I think “the founders” would be astounded and appalled at the situation we are in now with the Second Amendment.
A big cf. (or is it fu?) to Prufrock:
“That is not what I meant at all;
That is not it, at all.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“1 in 5 U.S. adults said they’ve personally been threatened with a gun”…
Twice for me. First, for a year in Vietnam. Second, on a meth lab raid near Mobile when I was there as a forensic chemist for the safety of the DEA agents. I was told the house was secure, but when I stepped out onto an enclosed porch, one of the agents told me to put my hands up. So, does the threat of friendly fire really count?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes, it counts. It is a threat with a gun.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gun stories you say? I have one for you. I was out weed-cutting one morning, and not all that early when I heard gunfire. Not so unusual where I live with more trees than people, but this time when I killed the engine and took off my headphones, I distinctly heard the slap of a bullet on the tree, before the bang. Now I am no combat expert, I am a civilian and always have been, but impact before bang means I am downrange and closer to their target than the gun. I am sorry if I woke them up, but shooting at me is not a neighborly thing to do. I’ve been on the backside of guns since I was a wee one, but first time ever was in front of one. It was effing scary, to be honest. My house is worn and even a heavy pistol bullet could go thru easily. Plus I don’t have body armor to wear when I cut the weeds. I believe that shooter was a renter that has left because I don’t hear much gunfire from them. Don’t get me started about the guy down the hill that likes to burn up 30 rounds at a time on full auto. It’s the old west out here in the west.
w3ski
LikeLike