Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: The AMA opposes any law that bars doctors from having conversations about gun safety, do you agree? [View all]friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)51. Do you have functional hands? Then you have "convenient means of depriving others...
...of their genuine rights". You ARE aware that murder and assault existed long before
guns ever did, correct? And then there's this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/03/arts/did-knives-forks-cut-murders-counting-backward-historians-resurrect-crime.html
Did Knives and Forks Cut Murders?; Counting Backward, Historians Resurrect Crime Statistics And Find the Middle Ages More Violent Than Now
By ALEXANDER STILLE
Published: May 3, 2003
In 1939, at one of civilization's lowest points, a little-known Swiss sociologist, Norbert Elias, published a book called ''Über den Prozess der Zivilisation'' (''On the Civilizing Process'') with a strange and unlikely thesis: that the gradual introduction of courtly manners -- from eating with a knife and fork and using a handkerchief to not spitting or urinating in public -- had played a major part in transforming a violent medieval society into a more peaceful modern one.
Hitler invaded Poland that year, and Elias's book was consigned to obscurity. It was not published in the United States until 1978 (with the title ''The History of Manners''). But since then his seemingly eccentric thesis has been revived, and Elias has posthumously become the theoretical guru of a field that did not exist in 1939: the history of crime. It was then that pioneering historians began to do what most historians had thought impossible: create crime statistics for eras that did not systematically keep crime data.
''The Elias theory got revived through the statistical approach to history,'' said Elizabeth Cohen, a historian at York University in Toronto who has written extensively on crime in Renaissance Italy.
Although there were no national statistics centuries ago, some historians discovered that the archives of some English counties were intact back to the 13th century. So in the 1970's they began diligently counting indictments and comparing them with estimated population levels to get a rough idea of medieval and early modern crime rates. Historians in Continental Europe followed suit and came up with findings that yielded the same surprising result: that murder was much more common in the Middle Ages than it is now and that it dropped precipitately in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Something very important changed in Western behavior and attitudes, and it stood much prevailing social theory on its head. ''It was very surprising because social theory told us that the opposite was supposed to happen: that crime was supposed to go up as family and community bonds in rural society broke up and industrialization and urbanization took hold,'' said Eric H. Monkkonen, a professor of history at the University of California at Los Angeles and the author of several works on the history of criminality. ''The notion that crime and cities go together made emotional sense, particularly in America, where at least recently crime is higher in cities.''
By ALEXANDER STILLE
Published: May 3, 2003
In 1939, at one of civilization's lowest points, a little-known Swiss sociologist, Norbert Elias, published a book called ''Über den Prozess der Zivilisation'' (''On the Civilizing Process'') with a strange and unlikely thesis: that the gradual introduction of courtly manners -- from eating with a knife and fork and using a handkerchief to not spitting or urinating in public -- had played a major part in transforming a violent medieval society into a more peaceful modern one.
Hitler invaded Poland that year, and Elias's book was consigned to obscurity. It was not published in the United States until 1978 (with the title ''The History of Manners''). But since then his seemingly eccentric thesis has been revived, and Elias has posthumously become the theoretical guru of a field that did not exist in 1939: the history of crime. It was then that pioneering historians began to do what most historians had thought impossible: create crime statistics for eras that did not systematically keep crime data.
''The Elias theory got revived through the statistical approach to history,'' said Elizabeth Cohen, a historian at York University in Toronto who has written extensively on crime in Renaissance Italy.
Although there were no national statistics centuries ago, some historians discovered that the archives of some English counties were intact back to the 13th century. So in the 1970's they began diligently counting indictments and comparing them with estimated population levels to get a rough idea of medieval and early modern crime rates. Historians in Continental Europe followed suit and came up with findings that yielded the same surprising result: that murder was much more common in the Middle Ages than it is now and that it dropped precipitately in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Something very important changed in Western behavior and attitudes, and it stood much prevailing social theory on its head. ''It was very surprising because social theory told us that the opposite was supposed to happen: that crime was supposed to go up as family and community bonds in rural society broke up and industrialization and urbanization took hold,'' said Eric H. Monkkonen, a professor of history at the University of California at Los Angeles and the author of several works on the history of criminality. ''The notion that crime and cities go together made emotional sense, particularly in America, where at least recently crime is higher in cities.''
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
161 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

The AMA opposes any law that bars doctors from having conversations about gun safety, do you agree? [View all]
CreekDog
Mar 2014
OP
I think doctors should not have any bans on any conversations with their patients.
lostincalifornia
Mar 2014
#1
I think the AAP's position on that amounts to the same position that the far right
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2014
#138
Safe storage is hardly 'gun control', when you suggest the individual do it.
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2014
#142
Some pediatricians have told anti-vaxxer parents that they will have to find another provider
Tanuki
Mar 2014
#19
A reality being imposed upon all of society to perpetuate the myth of a pretend "right."
Loudly
Mar 2014
#73
If you're going to spread untruths, and expect not to be called on it, do it somewhere else.
beevul
Mar 2014
#92
Do you have functional hands? Then you have "convenient means of depriving others...
friendly_iconoclast
Mar 2014
#51
Yet we have fewer murders today than back when it was "up close and personal"
friendly_iconoclast
Mar 2014
#112
No doubt the situation would have been better if dad hadn't had a gun
friendly_iconoclast
Mar 2014
#119
but you talk about gun safety all the time and you don't have the medical background to talk
CreekDog
Mar 2014
#5
so you're saying if someone gets shot by a gun, they shouldn't go to the hospital
CreekDog
Mar 2014
#45
No, it's that once someone is shot, the gun safety aspects become irrelevant.
Lizzie Poppet
Mar 2014
#71
speaking of your background, I'd like to ask whether you're a liberal or conservative
CreekDog
Mar 2014
#72
you said you take each issue on its merits, but you don't actually post on other issues
CreekDog
Mar 2014
#76
I'm just trying to understand you, you're saying that you're liberal and you post liberal things
CreekDog
Mar 2014
#89
They're merely the latest self-appointed zampolit/witchfinder/inquisitor...
friendly_iconoclast
Mar 2014
#118
I realize that you're deeply offended when you're asked on DU what your political position is
CreekDog
Mar 2014
#56
Remember, they *have* to post here- the other group gets far less traffic
friendly_iconoclast
Mar 2014
#64
What I oppose is a Government mandate that Doctors report the content of those conversations
SkatmanRoth
Mar 2014
#46
I don't think there should be any law barring doctors from asking about lifestyle,
uncommonlink
Mar 2014
#50
I can't imagine how the need to wear eye and ear protection when shooting would even come up
Jgarrick
Mar 2014
#81
If they can ban this subject, they can ban abortion discussion by the same mechanism.
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2014
#93
no, how about you acknowledge the rules and stop trying to negotiate new ones?
CreekDog
Mar 2014
#155
The AMA should oppose doctors who deny services to patients who don't want to talk about guns
aikoaiko
Mar 2014
#123
So, whose job should it have been to talk to the parents of this dead 2 year old?
3catwoman3
Mar 2014
#154