Why Do Victims Suddenly Aquire Field-Expert Status?

[Warfish]

Today's example, Gabby Giffords on Gun Control. She was shot. She is not an expert on guns, civil rights or any other related or appropriate topic, best as I know.

But this is a common thing. Sept. 11th Family Members became subject matter experts on Terrorism. Shooting victims become subject matter experts on guns. Sandy victims become subject matter experts on climate and climate change.

Why is this? How does being the victim of something make one an instant expert on that thing?

Gabby Giffords, with respect, is about the last person I'd want to hear on the issue of Gun Control, her bias and lack of expert knowledge is obvious. I want to see gun experts, sociologists, economists, therapists/psycologists and others who can explain, via science and fact, the differences between various gun types and ammo types, why society needs/doesn't need guns socialogicy, how gun crimes are raleated to poverty and socioeconomic issues, and the myriad factors involved in the mental state of those who commit gun crimes.

Last I checked, Gabby Giffords is none of those things. She was an unknown politician in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Am I wrong on this?

[JetPotato]

You're not wrong, but it's what viewers want of today's media. Expert testimony is boring. Emotion drives ratings, not facts. Why would this be any different than any other aspect of modern day reporting?

[cr726]

Was she introduced as a expert? Victim yes, expert no. Her testimony should be used as an example of no one can be totally prepared for a line nut job with a gun.

[BushyTheBeaver]

Like when they interview a rape victim about rape?

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by BushyTheBeaver

Like when they interview a rape victim about rape?

This isn't remotely similar.

Being shot certainly gives you insight on being shot. It doesn't make you an expwrt on guns or gun policy.

[Jetworks]

Originally Posted by BushyTheBeaver

Like when they interview a rape victim about rape?

Exactly, an expert of experience. While the victim may not be well-versed in the psychology of rapists or the incidence rates amongst ____, they have valuable, real-world knowledge and, yes, expertise. Now I'm not saying that applies to all situations as they are put forth, but there is something to be said for life experience.

To use your example Fish, I suppose there would be something to be said for Giffords sharing her perspective as a victim of gun violence, or even criminal victimology in general. She could have perseverated on the subject of gun control since her shooting, giving her some strong insights into gun control as well, who knows? But to simply dismiss one's argument due to a lack of credentials is ignorant, imho.

Note that known of what I said implies I am supporting Ms. Giffords views. This could all be a big bully-pulpit moment for her, I just wanted to put forth an alternate interpretation of the general premise.

[Bonhomme Richard]

It's easier to pass new laws and implement sweeping regulations when you appeal to the emotions of the simple-minded public.

The really vile thing here is how victims are exploited by lawmakers for political gain. We saw it with Cindy Sheehan, we are seeing it with Giffords and the parents of the kids who were murdered in Newtown.

[chiefst2000]

Its because there are no "unbiased" experts to testify one way or the other. This is a subjective/common sense issue. The people that hate guns and want them wiped out of existence believe that passing laws to outlaw certain types of weapons is a good start. It has nothing to do with mass shootings or protecting anyone from anything. A liberal democrat I work with sent me an email with some stats to convince me that guns were evil:

Interesting facts
For every self-defense homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were
1.3 accidental deaths,
4.6 criminal homicides,
and 37 firearm suicides.

My interpretation:

Interesting statistics. Since we know there are around 11,000 homicides by gun each year that means that 2000 of those are by people defending themselves against criminals. That’s a lot of criminals off the streets.

The number of self defense homicides equals the number of accidental deaths? That’s amazing. Imagine when you added up all the self defense situations that didn’t result in a homicide. Then factor in for the stupidity of the people that leave their guns in the open and unlocked that result in those accidental deaths. Seems like a great argument for owning a gun and storing it safely.

[long island leprechaun]

Sometimes it happens that someone is drawn into a subject due to personal experience and does indeed become quite expert. Not sure why we can only rely on the "credentialed" for our information. Besides, this is a political issue more than it is an issue of "expertise." Given that, we're all experts, as this site attests to every day....

[Jetworks]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

Sometimes it happens that someone is drawn into a subject due to personal experience and does indeed become quite expert. Not sure why we can only rely on the "credentialed" for our information. Besides, this is a political issue more than it is an issue of "expertise." Given that, we're all experts, as this site attests to every day....

Perfectly stated, thank you.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

Not sure why we can only rely on the "credentialed" for our information. Besides, this is a political issue more than it is an issue of "expertise."

Mind boggling if you are serious.

Tell me, if one made the same claim on ANY issue liberals take seriously, for example.....abortion/start of life. Or Climate Change. Or :fill in almost anything:

Are you saying you'd be as supporting of a guy whose mom once had an abortion being called to testify on abortion rights, because after all, why should we only rely on "credentialed" scientists, when we have this guy (who lost his brother to abortion) to testify? After all, it's a political issue too, right?

I am literally almost speachless that you, of all people, would take such a tact. Imagaine, climate change testimony made by a guy who had his house knocked down by a tornado, but who posesses only a high school diploma and works as a truck driver.

Given that, we're all experts, as this site attests to every day....

There is a huge difference between the steam release of this forum community, and who is called to testify before congress.

[24]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Today's example, Gabby Giffords on Gun Control. She was shot. She is not an expert on guns, civil rights or any other related or appropriate topic, best as I know.

But this is a common thing. Sept. 11th Family Members became subject matter experts on Terrorism. Shooting victims become subject matter experts on guns. Sandy victims become subject matter experts on climate and climate change.

Why is this? How does being the victim of something make one an instant expert on that thing?

Gabby Giffords, with respect, is about the last person I'd want to hear on the issue of Gun Control, her bias and lack of expert knowledge is obvious. I want to see gun experts, sociologists, economists, therapists/psycologists and others who can explain, via science and fact, the differences between various gun types and ammo types, why society needs/doesn't need guns socialogicy, how gun crimes are raleated to poverty and socioeconomic issues, and the myriad factors involved in the mental state of those who commit gun crimes.

Last I checked, Gabby Giffords is none of those things. She was an unknown politician in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Am I wrong on this?

+1

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Mind boggling if you are serious.

Tell me, if one made the same claim on ANY issue liberals take seriously, for example.....abortion/start of life. Or Climate Change. Or :fill in almost anything:

Are you saying you'd be as supporting of a guy whose mom once had an abortion being called to testify on abortion rights, because after all, why should we only rely on "credentialed" scientists, when we have this guy (who lost his brother to abortion) to testify? After all, it's a political issue too, right?

I am literally almost speachless that you, of all people, would take such a tact. Imagaine, climate change testimony made by a guy who had his house knocked down by a tornado, but who posesses only a high school diploma and works as a truck driver.



There is a huge difference between the steam release of this forum community, and who is called to testify before congress.

Each issue deserves a separate response. There is a vast difference in the technical requirements to debate gun control vs. climate change. As to the rest, every issue you name is largely determined based on personal opinion and postures that are unmoved by "scientific" evidence. Geez, abortion is only considered scientifically by a segment of the people debating it. Most tend to do it on religious or moral grounds that are nothing more than personal opinion once again.

Re congressional testimony, I'm equally surprised that you of all people would pull that dead rabbit out of a hat. The testimony of "experts" or whatever is only as good as those who hear it and pass judgment on it. So we're back to square one... politicians with no special expertise and a whole lot of bias listening to information that they for the most part ignore unless it supports their agenda. Are you really that naïve?

And the "steam" here is very very similar to what we hear every day on the radio, TV, or read in the paper. One guy's absolute fact is the next guy's absolute misstatement.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

Sometimes it happens that someone is drawn into a subject due to personal experience and does indeed become quite expert.

Exactly.

e.g.: My child gets leukemia. I study leukemia because it affects me personally.


Then


People rage on the internet because I am not a doctor or a radiologist and have no right to express and opinion on leukemia treatment.

[isired]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Today's example, Gabby Giffords on Gun Control. She was shot. She is not an expert on guns, civil rights or any other related or appropriate topic, best as I know.

But this is a common thing. Sept. 11th Family Members became subject matter experts on Terrorism. Shooting victims become subject matter experts on guns. Sandy victims become subject matter experts on climate and climate change.

Why is this? How does being the victim of something make one an instant expert on that thing?

Gabby Giffords, with respect, is about the last person I'd want to hear on the issue of Gun Control, her bias and lack of expert knowledge is obvious. I want to see gun experts, sociologists, economists, therapists/psycologists and others who can explain, via science and fact, the differences between various gun types and ammo types, why society needs/doesn't need guns socialogicy, how gun crimes are raleated to poverty and socioeconomic issues, and the myriad factors involved in the mental state of those who commit gun crimes.

Last I checked, Gabby Giffords is none of those things. She was an unknown politician in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Am I wrong on this?

Agree. I do think sometimes people throw themselves into an issue once they have experience, and become some sort of an expert, but the bias is always there, and would really stop anyone from being level-headed on the issue.

I think it's a product of our 'spin' generation, we're so over-saturated with media/info that we're all PR experts. People see Gabby Giffords (or Sarah Brady or Carolyn McCarthy) and the words "gun control" just pops into their heads, it makes sense to them, so no need to delve further into the topic. They become the statement.

[isired]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

Exactly.

e.g.: My child gets leukemia. I study leukemia because it affects me personally.


Then


People rage on the internet because I am not a doctor or a radiologist and have no right to express and opinion on leukemia treatment.

That certainly happens, and I might seek your advice re: treatment, your experience, etc., but I don't think I'd want you deciding policy/law based on your extremely emotional experience.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by isired

That certainly happens, and I might seek your advice re: treatment, your experience, etc., but I don't think I'd want you deciding policy/law based on your extremely emotional experience.

Yes.

This is exactly why I am against Mother's Against Drunk Driving so much. F*cking liberal puckes,


Screw you.


Just because your kid was dumb enough to get killed by a drunk driver doesn't give you the right to enact laws where law enforcement officers are allowed to check the blood alcohol content of law abiding pick up truck drivers. I can drive and drink and not plow into traffic. I have done it plenty of times.

Just because SOME people can't handle their alcohol is NOOOO reason for the nanny state to take away MY GOD GIVEN rights to drink Busch Light and drive.

Grow a pair, liberal weenies!!!

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Today's example, Gabby Giffords on Gun Control. She was shot. She is not an expert on guns, civil rights or any other related or appropriate topic, best as I know.

But this is a common thing. Sept. 11th Family Members became subject matter experts on Terrorism. Shooting victims become subject matter experts on guns. Sandy victims become subject matter experts on climate and climate change.

Why is this? How does being the victim of something make one an instant expert on that thing?

Gabby Giffords, with respect, is about the last person I'd want to hear on the issue of Gun Control, her bias and lack of expert knowledge is obvious. I want to see gun experts, sociologists, economists, therapists/psycologists and others who can explain, via science and fact, the differences between various gun types and ammo types, why society needs/doesn't need guns socialogicy, how gun crimes are raleated to poverty and socioeconomic issues, and the myriad factors involved in the mental state of those who commit gun crimes.

Last I checked, Gabby Giffords is none of those things. She was an unknown politician in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Am I wrong on this?

You are not wrong but you are assuming that only "experts" testify at such things.

Much like victim impact statements her experience adds to the complete picture. May seem overkill, but if some folks are for some form of gun control, there needs to be a base reason why.

Much like puttin' and obese kid up there to talk about nutrition I suppose.

Knowing you a little, I think you will find fault that emotion may trump logic dues to such testimony. Certainly something to be said for that, but if she merely shares her experience and doesn't testify about gun facts, etc. it seems OK to me.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Today's example, Gabby Giffords on Gun Control. She was shot. She is not an expert on guns, civil rights or any other related or appropriate topic, best as I know.

Based on what? What credentials specifically does a person need to possess in order to be labeled as a "gun control expert" in your mind?

Giffords is a gun owner and a US Congresswoman. I don't see any evidence to suggest she is not knowledgeable on the topic. It seems to me that you are jumping to conclusions based on nothing but your own unverified assumptions.

[isired]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

Yes.

This is exactly why I am against Mother's Against Drunk Driving so much. F*cking liberal puckes,


Screw you.


Just because your kid was dumb enough to get killed by a drunk driver doesn't give you the right to enact laws where law enforcement officers are allowed to check the blood alcohol content of law abiding pick up truck drivers. I can drive and drink and not plow into traffic. I have done it plenty of times.

Just because SOME people can't handle their alcohol is NOOOO reason for the nanny state to take away MY GOD GIVEN rights to drink Busch Light and drive.

Grow a pair, liberal weenies!!!

I guess you have to look at items individually - I'd say MADD was good, because at the time it was founded, there was basically NO discussion and no enforcement. That's not the case for every issue though, fer sure.

By the same token, I'm not saying someone affected by (guns, drunk drivers, leukemia) should be silent. They can certainly be vocal, and try to persuade. I think the audience should consider the source and the intent. And I think they may be too close to draft policy and law.