INJURY PREVENTION

FIREARMS

	From: John Holmes Date: 04.08.99 05:40 GMT ((part response to another thread)) What has it come to that our colleagues in America reflexly worry about being shot for doing their job?. Do you actually have a society where friends and relatives will be carrying handguns into your departments? Thank god I live in a society which has at least a notionally rational approach to weapons control. We still have shooting incidents in Australia but it certainly hasn't got to the stage where we even think about restricting people to the ED on the basis they might be armed and shoot our staff. Do the medical and nursing professions in the States actively lobby for gun control? John L Holmes Director Emergency Medicine Mater Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland
	From: Eric Frykberg Date: 04.08.99 21:14 GMT John-- Some do and some do not, and surprisingly many actively oppose more reasonable control of access to firearms by the general public. as is true in your country and every single other industrialized democracy in the world. The Eastern Association for the /surgery of Trauma, the American Trauma Society and the american Academy of Pediatrics are among the few major American medical societies which have published strong and heavily scientifically referenced stands against the current paradoxical level of largely unrestricted access to those firearms that most contribute to the horrendous mortality of our population from firearms. The CDC's National Injury Prevention and Control Center and the Institute of Medicine have recently published major treatises on the need for more rational control of firearm access. Interestingly, such major organizations as the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and even the American College of Surgeons have specifically refused to take either any stance at all on this critical issue (AAST, AMA) or such a watered down "stance" that it accomplishes less than nothing (ACS) You explain it--I sure can't Eric Frykberg, MD Jacksonville, Fl
	From: John Holmes Date: 05.08.99 01:35 GMT Eric - Thanks for the feedback. Over here we look at the American experience with firearms with disbelief. Didn't someone once say that society was doomed when good men do nothing? We have lunatic right wing politicians advocating loosening of firearm control in Australia and we have our militias and conspiracy theorists advocating civilian armed resistance etc etc. On the whole such people are ridiculed in the media and thankfully our major medical organisations speak out strongly in favour of gun control. Having said all that I lost a good friend when a radiography (X-ray tech) student who had failed final exams shot up the X-ray staff in a hospital I was working in in Cairns North Queensland a few years ago. We always think our deep north parallels your deep south in many respects. At the end of the day, however, I guess we are fortunate in that the so-called right to bear arms is not enshrined in our constitution - though I suspect the original intent of your founding fathers has long since been distorted and manipulated by self interest groups. Cheers, John
	From: Jim Cowan Date: 05.08.99 03:10 GMT This is an example of what happens when you run a country via the "media". Remember, it was the "media" who started the Spanish-American war. A few facts that the hand wringing gun control nuts find uncomfortable; 1. Violent crime. The largest mass murder in US history was committed with a bucks worth of unleaded. 2. Safety. The most dangerous item you can own in a home is a ladder. (guns aren't even in the top 5) 3. Cause? Turning the loonies loose on the streets doesn't equal safety for the populace when your only solution is to "hide all the sharp instruments" from them. Jim Cowan Springfield, MO
	From: John Holmes Date: 05.08.99 05:14 GMT Oh dear. Well as a "hand wringing gun control nut" here's a few thoughts : 1. People with guns kill at a distance - depersonalisation makes it easier to kill 2. Guns make heroes out of cowards 3. People with guns can kill indiscriminately How tiresome it is to hear the sort of argument routinely trotted out by apologists for firearms - that guns don't kill, people do. How many cases of mass slaughter do we have to put up with before the Dr/Mr Cowans of this world will finally accept that guns make it a hell of lot easier to kill a hell of a lot more people. In Australia's tragedy at Port Arthur 2 years ago a lunatic armed with automatic rifles systematically murdered > 30 people. How many people would he have killed if he had only been armed with a knife? How brave would school student killers be without their guns? Yes Mr Cowan I'm a gun control advocate. And not just because I lost a close friend shot through the head - and there's no doubt her killer couldn't have done what he did without a firearm. I'm a gun control advocate because I value living in a society largely free from fear and where I can walk the inner city streets at night. Thank god we haven't yet in Australia developed the sort of siege mentality which seems to have Americans obsessed with fear of violence and the need for security - as witnessed by recent posts on the Open Door issue. John L Holmes Director Emergency Medicine Mater Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland
	From: Eric Frykberg Date: 05.08.99 12:05 GMT << 1. Violent crime. The largest mass murder in US history was committed with a bucks worth of unleaded. >> So? every year more than 35,000 are killed on our streets and in our homes by firearms--and more than 98% of these are innocent citizens not doing anything wrong (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, National Center for Health Statistics) No, guns are not the only cause of death from injury in our country--just the second most common << 2. Safety. The most dangerous item you can own in a home is a ladder. (guns aren't even in the top 5) >> Purely and simply mortality is higher with a gun in the home than in a home without a gun----and those killed are 43 times more likely to be household members than intruders. See Kellerman et al NEJM 1986, 1993, 1994 Oh and by the way, your reference for the above so interesting factoid? << 3. Cause? Turning the loonies loose on the streets doesn't equal safety for the populace when your only solution is to "hide all the sharp instruments" from them. >> I agree with this. Interesting how the crazy idea that 35,000 deaths each year must just be swallowed as the price of freedom--and the victims get blamed for being in the way
	From: Jeff B Date: 05.08.99 14:31 GMT << 2. Safety. The most dangerous item you can own in a home is a ladder. (guns aren't even in the top 5) >> I will assume this statement is made because there are more injuries from falling off ladders than from handguns (annually). Probably true, and I won't bother to refute that. Of course, more homes have ladders in them, and ladders are used more often than guns, and a minor slip from a ladder may result in a broken leg or sprained ankle, and let's not forget that ladders are not often kept locked up with the rungs locked in a seperate cabinet (like they should be, as most ladder rights activists proclaim. "I'm the National Ladder Association and I vote!") Churchill once said "There are three types of lies. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." Maybe I haven't been in this field long enough, but I've never called for a trauma team activate for a ladder injury. Apologies for the sarcasm....well, not really. Jeff B., NREMTP Atlanta, GA
	From: Amy Kenna Date: 05.08.99 19:33 GMT If anyone has taken the hunter safety course, you are taught many many many ways to properly handle guns, and always being sure if your target and beyond is stressed as well as being in control of your muzzle or barrel of a gun at all times and safe storage and ethical use if the guns. Which in the courses case is hunting. In my home we have 5 high powered rifels with scopes, 4 shotguns, and two handguns. the ammunition to these guns is stored underneath the compartment where the guns are stored. Both compartments require a key to unlock. And we are talking a real lock, not a lock that can be picked with a paperclip or other such things. This is how I was raised, along with unloading a gun befoe getting into a vehicle and unloading the clip also before going into a house. If we are hunting our gun cases have locks on them along with 4 hinges that have to also be opened. we do not have a gun in the bedroom dresser drawer either. We certainly have the option but we have always chose not to do this. This is responsible gun handling and storage. I also believe that if a criminal is going to use a gun in commiting a crime they will find one. whether stealing from a friend or a parent that has one in the bedroom. Amy J. Kenna, NREMT-P
	From: Eric Frykberg Date: 06.08.99 02:43 GMT Amy-- This is often a line of reasoning one hears in the firearm debate, and it has definite merit--the guns you are talking about are not at all the ones targeted by the bulk of gun control measures being advocated or legislated, because they are not the ones that have anywhere near the contribution to violent death and injury in this country, mainly becuase the owners of these weapons are largely hunters and sportsmen who have learned like you responsible handling and storage and safe use. Learning the safe use of firearms is the most important way to cut down on injury and death from these weapons, and this is the basic premise of even the NRA's excellent safety programs. So--an obvious corollary of logic--why should ANY group then not agree that a condition of gun ownership must be a required demonstration, by written and practical testing, of their safe use, otherwise no go? And--any reckless or violent use of these weapons automatically should mean having the use of the weapon taken away. Firearms are the second most dangerous product on the Americna marketplace (after motor vehicles in terms of total deaths) but the least regulated, and the only product that is meant to kill--and for handguns, face it--the only product meant to kill other human beings when used as directed, having no other use! Therefore, why should we not at least have the same level of control of its harmful effects as motor vehicles, with mandatory licensing and registration and required demonstration of safe use? The logic here is unassailable, but always gets anwered by changing the subject to God-given rights, etc, as if that excuses the 35,000+ deaths each year. And the opposition to this rational approach is a glaring inconsistency in the logic of the stance taken by those against resonable control of firearm access to the public. You cannot on the one hand advocate increasing law and order, and gun safety learning, and then on the other hand oppose any measures that prevent both! Look at the phenomenal decrease in motor vehicle deaths over the past 30 years by implementing measures to restrict and control their use, and the phenomenal increase in firearm deaths over this same period during which no concerted effort has been made to reduce deaths--and those tried are actively opposed! The facts are unassailable-- ERF
	From: Charles Krin Date: 06.08.99 11:15 GMT <<Maybe I haven't been in this field long enough, but I've never alled for a trauma team activate for a ladder injury. >> I have...50 something black male helping paint a house- fell about 5 foot off of a scaffold, fractured femur first identified by the paramedics. By the time the intern (me) was allowed to start on the H&P, bilateral "rice crispies" were found under the skin...and there were a couple of embarrassed upper level residents. Got to put in my first chest tube on that patient as a reward for identifying the impending tension pneumothoracies... << How many people would he have killed if he had only been armed with a knife? How brave would school student killers be without their guns? - So true! - Ever hear of a drive-by knifing, or a schoolyard knifing massacre? ERF >> No, but there have been a number of "drive over" attempted school yard massacres...does this mean that all of us need to give up our cars? And aren't cars (in particular drunk/impaired drivers) one of the sources for high mortality among the truly innocent? This is even more reason for us to turn all of our deadly vehicles in. What, you say that the cars are not at fault? Well, in drug deals, the vehicles are held to be civilly liable and can be impounded, along with any cash and goods inside them...(abet on shaky 4th Amendment grounds)...so why not do the same with an impaired driver...or for that matter, all drivers. After all, almost everyone drives impaired at some point in time...from medications, alcohol, lack of sleep, whatever...Take the cars away now, before they hurt someone. (Yes, I realize that I am arguing from a standpoint of "reductio ad absurdum..." but that's what some of you folks are doing about guns...) Hey, let's take some personal responsibility for our own actions, and insist that the law makers and law keepers enforce responsibility on those who would break the law. I'm working on a longer piece, but have to dig some of the more interesting references out...like the article from one of the trauma journals that purported to reference an incident in Southern California where a drive by shootist made three successive head shots with a .357 Magnum revolver... Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP Member, PGBFH
	From: Thomas Horan Date: 06.08.99 13:21 GMT no doubt about it guns are safe and scaffolds dangerous <<so why not do the same with an impaired driver >> At first I thought you were joking but now that I realize you were being sarcastic - I would just feel sorry for you were it not for the seriousness of your error in reason and humanity. Tom Horan
	From: Eric Frykberg Date: 06.08.99 18:43 GMT << ? This is even more reason for us to turn all of our deadly vehicles in. What, you say that the cars are not at fault? Well, in drug deals, the vehicles are held to be civilly liable and >> Charles-- You make a perfect point--autos are very dangerous--and thus we require written and practical evidence of our knowledge of their safe use, and licensure and registration, before being allowed to use them. If we are reckless or negligent in their use (i.e. vehicular homicide) then, precisely, the car is taken away from us. So, I agree with your obvious point that we should at least bring firearms, the second most deadly product on the American market, to the level of control of motor vehicles--and also recognizing that the purpose of a gun, unlike a car, is nothing other than to kill. Something so potentially dangerous must require licensure and registration after proving the owner's knowledge of safe use. But something tells me, Charles, that despite the inconsistency with your own logic above, you oppose these measures? Safe use, I assume, is nothing more than rhetoric to you? Proper enforcement of the law, especially against those criminals who would improperly use guns, is certainly also necessary--but of course we must realize that that by itself will not make much of a dent in the horrendous numbers of firearm deaths in this country, since 80% + have nothing to do with criminal activity (FBI Uniform Crime Reports--every year since 1983) ERF
	From: Charles Krin Date: 07.08.99 04:00 GMT << At first I thought you were joking but now that I realize you were being sarcastic - I would just feel sorry for you were it not for the seriousness of your error in reason and humanity. >> Tom, I've already replied to Eric on some of the other stuff. The point I was trying to make is that objects in and of themselves cannot by definition be "evil." Even a Swastika, the symbol, almost an embodiment, of one of the worst times of evil to befall the civilized world in this or any other century is not evil...just look at various Chinese and American Indian uses of the swastika that far predate the adoption by the Nationalist Socialist Party of Germany of the "crooked cross." My point remains that there is much that can be done under our current laws to curb both the misuse of firearms and motor vehicles without further tinkering with our society. This will remain true no matter what your opinion about my mores and morals. << Proper enforcement of the law, especially against those criminals who would improperly use guns, is certainly also necessary--but of course we must ealize that that by itself will not make much of a dent in the horrendous umbers of firearm deaths in this country, since 80% + have nothing to do with criminal activity (FBI Uniform Crime Reports--every year since 1983) ERF >> Eric, in the wee small hours of this morning, I re read one of your posts: you are arguing from a point that fire arms in general and hand guns in particular are "malum in se" (evil in and of themselves). I won't argue with you or even try to convince you otherwise...your stint in the Navy should have showed you the difference. We have previously compared notes on military service, so your attempted ad hominem falls flat- I have said or implied nothing endorsing the unsafe use of either motor vehicles or firearms. Someone else indicated that they felt that guns were evil in and of themselves because of a death in the family due to a gun...To you I give my most sincere condolences, just as I gave them to the families of two other patients today who were/did die. It's always tough for any of one who survives to understand why someone close to them died, no matter what the cause. For any one who is interested: We already have laws and taxes in place that regulate the firearms industry and shooting sports much heavier than the automobile industry...and the majority of those taxes go towards making the remains of the great outdoors available to everybody. To purchase any firearm these days, a person must submit to the equivalent of a National Agency Check for a Secret Clearance...and basically prove that they are innocent. The President recently trumpeted that "400,000 gun sales" had been denied, not mentioning that less than 24 dozen convictions have resulted from these incidents. Despite this dismal record of mis feasance, mal feasance and non feasance in office ranging from the President to the individual US Attorneys, the FBI and the ATF, it remains a Federal Felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison for each offense, for a restricted person (including not only felons whose civil rights have not been restored but also persons convicted of certain misdemeanor offenses) to do things such as simply handling a firearm, attempting to purchase a firearm, or attempting to purchase firearm ammunition. Slam dunk convictions, you'd think, as "the thing speaks for itself" if the case gets any where near a court. I say again: these laws currently in place are NOT being enforced! In those areas (think of Boston, and Kansas City) where local agencies have obtained the cooperation of the Federal Attorneys, and have made sure that repeat felons get the Federal raps they deserve, violence of all sorts has gone down markedly. I've not seen anything like that cooperation here in Louisiana. My driver's license is recognized in every state and territory in the Union, all of the Canadian Provinces, and all of the states of Mexico. My permit to carry is not, even though I have completed the Peace Officers Standards and Training Council's prescribed course, and am a sworn deputy sheriff with full powers of arrest. Like you, I've also received a fair amount of firearms training in the military-what more do I have to do to prove that I can handle firearms safely? I have no problem with establishing a certain standard of training, outside of the interesting idea that if records are kept of who has training, then someone has a list of folks to visit...in the middle of the night...when no one else is looking. Pardon my near paranoia, but the Feds DO NOT have a good track record of keeping their word...just look at most of the American Indian reservations in the country.... The number of firearms deaths has dropped (reference your figures above- I'll have to check, but if 80% are not criminally related, I'll be surprised. Here in Northeast Louisiana, deliberate use of firearms by felons out weigh "accidental" injuries and deaths by a fairly large factor) despite the increase in the number of weapons and the increase in population with firearms available to them. In particular, both deliberate and "accidental" deaths and injuries have decreased somewhat in states with "Shall Issue" Concealed carry laws...and the folks at Handguns International hate that...which is why the national headlines don't trumpet the deaths anymore. For example: Nationwide, there has been *ONE* publicized case of a person with a permit to carry (in Texas) who has been involved in a "road rage" incident. Since the passage of the "shoot the carjacker" law here in Louisiana, there has been *ONE* incident where it was invoked...and prior to the passage, there was at least one publicized case of carjacking a month...and none since then. Eric, what about your own state of Florida? Last I looked, crimes against persons had dropped every year since the passage of the Shall Issue laws, except for one little blip involving out of town tourists in the first year or so after passage-this blip resulted in many Florida rental car companies changing the way that they identified cars...and in Florida being the first state to become a "shall issue" state for folks coming in for vacation as well. What happened to the predictions of massive problems with "gun toting grandmas?" "Shall Issue" states generally require at least some form of "Shooter's Education" prior to allowing the folks to carry, and many of those courses (curtesy of the National Rifle Association's Instructors Programs) involve substantially more than the minimum required by the jurisdictions. Here in Louisiana, for folks born after 1 November 1969, successful completion of a Hunter's Safety Course is needed prior to obtaining a hunting license as well (I've taken and helped teach the course-it's not as easy as you might think....) A driver's license? A ten question multiple choice test that my 8 year old should be able to pass...and some form of other identification saying you are you ... maybe a road test, maybe not...Now go back to compare renting a car (where all I need is a "valid" driver's license and a matching credit card with a couple of hundred dollars available credit)....and no background check...to purchasing a firearm. (Also remember that the folks who bombed the World Trade Center several years ago would have been a whole lot harder to catch if one of them had not gone back to get his deposit from the rental truck back, claiming that the truck had been stolen.) Recent JAMA articles indicate that a third fewer kids are involved in violence in schools, and a third fewer are carrying weapons to school compared to just 5 years ago...and also point out that it costs some US$ 17,000 to treat each gunshot wound. Last I looked, a large percentage of the victims were NOT innocent bystanders (if they are, why are you guys so worried about their assailants coming into your ED's trying to finish the job?). IIRC, from the Academy a number of years ago, a violent felon will commit between 3 and 5 violent crimes against persons and up to a dozen other crimes in a year. It only takes about US$ 40,000 to incarcerate one of these guys for a year, for a net savings of $30,000 to $50,000 per year. Reference your "schoolyard knifings," those suicidal weirdoes in Littleton committed at least 5 and possible as many as 40 different state and federal felonies based on current laws...including some that would be impossible to prevent even with the most draconian solutions proposed WITHOUT parental involvement...and anything more than cursory parental involvement should have alleviated the problem in the first place. The chap in Atlanta? What was that about his late wife and mother in law? Bludgeoned to death, like his last wife and children... Finally, three points: First, there are more things that you can do with a motor vehicle than with a firearm. However, some of the things that firearms do well (like hunting) are now needed because Mankind has managed to replace all of the other predators at the top of the food chain. Without the pressure of hunting here in the Central South, it's estimated that it would take less than three years for the dear population to boom and then crash from starvation, being hit. Without the taxes paid by hunters and hobby shooters, two-thirds of the tax support for wildlife resources would be lost. At what point do you have the right to insist that I give up a hobby that brings me pleasure and has, in 20 years so far, harmed no human (unlike at least one of our respected Solons with his car in roughly the same time period...). Second, under the heading of the "most good for the most people," the government has no obligation to protect an individual facing harm, but the right to self defense has been enshrined in Common Law at least since the Magna Carta. How do you propose the 90 year old widow secure her safety from the two legged predators in her neighborhood? How do you propose the 25 year old woman with two little children and an abusive spouse handle him as he takes an ax to the door...despite a judicial restraining order...and when the police are 10 minutes away? At what point do we accept that we as individuals might become fodder in the mill of society because we have given up our individual rights to self defense and self determination? You choose as you may, As for me and mine.... Third, at what point do you expect me to believe that the current crop of law enforcers would be allowed to be any better at preventing the bad guys from obtaining real machine guns and assault rifles as easy as they get drugs now, instead of some of the crap they have now? I expect that as the demand for illicit weapons grows, like the drug trade, those folks willing to break the law will continue to be better armed than the police. Individually, the LEO's are decent people....and most of the ones that I know are at least as dedicated to their jobs as you and I are to ours. On a larger scale, we cannot afford the kind of restrictions on our society that it would take to do the job you seem to be wanting done. I'll borrow Niven's Fourth Law again: "Freedom times Security equals some constant. The more Security you want, the less freedom you get." You want to push to decriminalize petty drug usage to free up places in jail to put some more of these guys that really are a menace to society, you will get my full support- put the small time users and user pushers into therapy and community service where they belong, reduce the profits from drugs by providing certified and taxed supplies to consenting adults (and requiring a bond for users to show that they can afford to take care of their own medical bills...), and then hit the folks hard who show that they do not want to be part of society. Do that for a year in a large segment of the nation, and show where there was no significant decrease in the number of firearms related injuries and deaths, and then come back and you'll get some more support from several of the diverse groups out there. ck
	From: Robert F. Smith Date: 07.08.99 06:19 GMT Amy, I echo Rick's statements re: the guns. Those of us who deal with the effects of pervasive firearm violence are not being burdened by the actions of well trained hunters. The bane of our live and those of our patients is the proliferation of cheap and deadly handguns or other weapons designed solely to kill other humans. Krin, If firearms were subjected to the same scrutiny and regulation as motor vehicles I think many of us who are concerned with the public health burden of firearms would be thrilled. Perhaps you would be willing to become an advocate for such a responsible change in policy. Robert F. Smith, M.D.,MPH Department of Trauma Cook County Hospital
	From: Jeff B Date: 07.08.99 06:33 GMT I agree whole-heartedly. In my brief five years in emergency medicine (mostly in EMS, though one was as a tech in Level II), I have seen ONE GSW from a weapon designed for hunting. ONE. And that was minor, comparatively (as though any GSW can be minor) with mostly muscle damage to the leg...# 7 shotgun shell....seems the patient was mistaken for a pheasant. OTOH, have seen many life ending injuries from 9mm, .38 cal, etc., because these weapons are used for one purpose. For those who disagree, why is it that gang members/psychopathic killers/etc. do not carry .22 single shot rifles? Answer? It works well for a squirrel, but not for humans. Cordially, Jeff B. Paramedic
	From: Charles Krin Date: 07.08.99 12:06 GMT << If firearms were subjected to the same scrutiny and regulation as motor vehicles I think many of us who are concerned with the public health burden of firearms would be thrilled. Perhaps you would be willing to become an advocate for such a responsible change in policy. Robert F. Smith, M.D.,MPH >> They are...look at what someone in your own state and city has to do to own one. Legally-Illinois in general, and Chicago in particular have some of the toughest laws in the country (after only Washington, DC, and New York). People who are inclined to disobey the current laws are NOT going to change under any of the proposed draconian solutions. Laws that would allow the police the liberty to apply those draconian solutions effectively enough to change those folks (short of them being arrested after an incident) would violate at least the Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments (you'd practically have to put an armed trooper into each household). Interestingly enough, this would also provide the kind of security needed to answer my questions about what to do about those folks who need to defend themselves from two legged predators, but at what cost, both to society and to freedom? ck
	From: Eric Frykberg Date: 07.08.99 14:26 GMT << The number of firearms deaths has dropped (reference your figures above- I'll have to check, but if 80% are not criminally related, I >> Once again, Charles--FBI Uniform Crime Reports--comes out once each year, as well as the Vital Statistics Report of the NCHS of the CDC about 50% of all firearm deaths are suicides,(right there the biggest chunk--of course no crime at all) 44% homicides (over 70% involving people who know each other--domestic disputes, love triangles, etc) and 4%-5% unintentional Yes the number of firearm deaths has dropped from its high in 1993 of over 39,000 to now something over 35,000 (beginning right after the Brady Bill went into effect, interestingly)--but we are still 10% higher than in 1985 and the curve since 1960 is still climbing cinsistently higher--by definition an epidemic. That curve is marked by a number of sawtooths, ups and downs, so beware of assuming a trend--altho ket's hope the downswing continues << Tom, I've already replied to Eric on some of the other stuff. The point I was trying to make is that objects in and of themselves cannot by definition be "evil." >> Oh, really??? Then, Charles, why would you support, as your last post makes clear, outlawing drugs? A bag of cocaine is of no harm to anyone--it takes a person using it to cause harm--right? Drugs, don't kill people, people kill people! Don't outlaw that inanimate substance --punish the person who does the injecting! Please reconcile this for us? A three year old is lighting matches--what do you do? Punish the 3 year old? Begin an education process to teach him not to do that--reasonable, but of course that takes time to take effect--what do you do in the meantime to prevent the house from being burned down? You take away the matches! Now, matches are inanimate--they can by themselves cause no harm! Matches don't burn houses down, people do! It takes a person to light one, right? But Charles--you know that you will take away the matches--because without them, lives will not be lost nearly as surely as if that person had matches. In fact, the national statistics make clear, as do several studies (try Tale of Two Cities, NEJM 1988 out of Univ Washington), that equivalent populations without guns do not have a fraction of the homicide or suicide rate as do populations with guns--so your argument above is false--the gun itself is a clear vector of the disease--not the only one, to be sure, but clearly a contributor in and of itself, that must be restricted for the safety of society just like cocaine and matches are by folks like you ---again, another example of quite inconsistent thinking and flawed reasoning. << People who are inclined to disobey the current laws are NOT going to change under any of the proposed draconian solutions. Laws that would allow the police the liberty to apply those draconian solutions effectively enough to change those folks (short of them being arrested after an incident) would violate at least the Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments (you'd practically have to put an armed trooper into each household). Interestingly enough, this would also provide the kind of security needed to answer my questions about what to do about those folks who need to defend themselves from two legged predators, but at what cost, both to society and to freedom? >> Charles-- Wrong! In 1994 a new measure was instituted in Indianapolis--using the very approach you advocate--in which the police began a campaign of using existing laws on the books to stop vehicles in high crime neighborhoods(by strictly enforcing laws involving broken taillights, failing to yield right of way or using turn signals, etc) and using that stop to legally search for weapons in plain sight. It was phenomenally successful, leading to a 50% reduction in homicides in that city just within 6 months--by doing nothing other, Charles, than taking away the guns! Of course you must advocate this, it is just what you advocate--reducing crime by going after the potential criminals! And guess what--the foundation of democracy has not crumbled in Indianapolis--there has been no loss of freedom or safety for the general population! How do you explain that? The success of that program led to it being adopted over the next 2 years in Baltimore, Kansas City, and New York, among others--and in every case, a significant and rapid decline in homicides in every city--and what a coincidence--right after this program went into effect (and the Brady Bill happened at the same time) across the country's major cities, violent crime figures acrooss the country dropped--as you pointed out--by taking away the guns from those who should not have them! The law worked! It has not "punished" the poor innocent citizenry by leaving them open to these wanton criminals--the overall homicide rate went down! In other words, without the gun, these criminals did not find other ways to kill--without the gun, the killing did not happen at all! (This last is nothing new--it is well known from several studies that this is the case) This is a real life refutation of your oh so high sounding conjectures above--please explain these facts to us? ERF
	From: Charles Krin Date: 07.08.99 17:17 << about 50% of all firearm deaths are suicides,(right there the biggest chunk--of course no crime at all)>> And if someone is committed to suicide? Will eliminating all firearms eliminate this form of death? How many "one vehicle accidents" occuring late at night should also be in this category? ck
	From: Robert F. Smith Date: 07.08.99 17:59 GMT Charles, Firearms are specifically except from regulation by Federal Consumer Safety agencies. The clothes your kids are wearing are not exempt from regulation because it is felt to be important that they not accidentally catch fire and burn to a crisp in 2 seconds. Your toaster is not exempt so you don't buy one that electrocutes you. I think guns are more dangerous than toasters and clothes. Do you? Individuals are not required to report sales of firearms to other individuals. Thus it is impossible to track a particular weapon used in a crime to a particular owner. Cars sales are required to be reported. The CDC is now forbidden to participate or fund health research involving firearms. On pain of death. I think over 35,000 Americans dying each year and representing one of the leading causes of lost years of future life in our country is a legitimate public health emergency. Do you? R. Smith, M.D.
	From: Eric Frykberg Date: 07.08.99 18:59 << And if someone is committed to suicide? Will eliminating all firearms eliminate this form of death? How many "one vehicle accidents" occuring late at night should also be in this category? >> The answer to this question is well established--yes! The rate of suicide in populations without guns is far lower than in very similar populations with guns--i.e. without the gun, other forms of suicide are not used and the suicide largely does not happen--again see the Univ Washington study entitled A Tale of Two Cities, comparing two very similar cities, Seattle and Vancouver, in which the only difference lies in the virtual inability of those in Vancouver to own or use handgun Suicide in 12-24 year olds in Vancouver are 10-fold lower than in Seattle--this is only one of many studies documenting this point Charles, you really should become acquainted with the facts before spouting off your media-fed sound bites that are so easily refutable And use facts, rather than conjectures to support your points, which you have yet to do even once For the 2nd part of your question--62% of all suicides in the U.S. are from firearms--I quoted you that about 49%-50% of all firearm deaths are suicides--so of course the one-car MVC would NOT fall into this category! ERF
	From: Charles Krin Date: 07.08.99 20:45 <<A bag of cocaine is of no harm to anyone--it takes a person using it to cause harm--right? Drugs, don't kill people, people kill people! Don't outlaw that inanimate substance --punish the person who does the injecting! Please reconcile this for us?>> Rick, that kilogram of cocaine, a few milligrams at a time, will go a long way to alleviating suffering while a surgeon is repairing faces and mucus membranes by providing an anesthetic and nearly bloodless field. Converted to "crack" and passed out a few milligrams at a time to kids, it's a tragedy. Beyond the conversion to cocaine base, is there any difference in the material itself, or just in the use? << A three year old is lighting matches--what do you do? Punish the 3 year old? Begin an education process to teach him not to do that--reasonable, but of course that takes time to take effect--what do you do in the meantime to prevent the house from being burned down? You take away the matches! Now, matches are inanimate--they can by themselves cause no harm! Matches don't burn houses down, people do! It takes a person to light one, right? But Charles--you know that you will take away the matches--because without them, lives will not be lost nearly as surely as if that person had matches>> And how did we go from the rights and responsibilities of presumably reasonable adults with no legal disabilities to the care and feeding of a three year old? I've already agreed that folks with legal disabilities should not be allowed weapons- they've proved that they cannot fit into the requirements of society....that they are not responsible adults. <<try Tale of Two Cities, NEJM 1988 out of Univ Washington>> Rick, I'm in the process of digging that one out again. IIRC, there have been some methodological arguments on the population breakdowns, and once you correct for the numbers of crime related actions in the inner city portion, much of the difference drops out. <<For the 2nd part of your question--62% of all suicides in the U.S. are from firearms--I quoted you that about 49%-50% of all firearm deaths are suicides--so of course the one-car MVC would NOT fall into this category! - ERF >> Rick, There have been a few instances that I've been involved in (at least peripherally) where it turned out that the deceased was under significant stress...enough to raise the question of just exactly why "he fell asleep at the wheel." In general, Medical Examiners, Coroners and Police Investigators hesitate to call a suicide in this kind of circumstance if there is no note...and it gets written up in the statistics as an "accident." <<Firearms are specifically except from regulation by Federal Consumer Safety agencies. The clothes your kids are wearing are not exempt from regulation because it is felt to be important that they not accidentally catch fire and burn to a crisp in 2 seconds. Your toaster is not exempt so you don't buy one that electrocutes you. I think guns are more dangerous than toasters and clothes. Do you?>> Robert, I've never questioned that guns are more dangerous than toasters or clothes, at least in careless or malign hands. Then again, despite the use of Ground Fault Interrupters and other safety factors promoted by the CPSC, we still occasionally see someone trying to fish a piece of toast out with a metal fork...or a kid will back up to an open gas heater in a worn out flannel gown... << Individuals are not required to report sales of firearms to other individuals. Thus it is impossible to track a particular weapon used in a crime to a particular owner. Cars sales are required to be reported.>> Cars are required to be reported so that taxes can be levied on the sale, (that's actually what the license tag is legally an indication that you've paid your taxes.) It is possible for serial numbers to be traced on a fair number of transactions that occur legally-the ATF requires all registered dealers to prove who they've sold to, and what the serial numbers were-most legal weapons have started with a registered gun dealer. Private transactions, including passing on heirloom weapons and exchanges between individuals, do not require more than good faith on the part of the seller at this time, and if it were as easy to register the transfer of a firearm as it is to register the transfer of a motor vehicle, you might find more private sellers willing to put up with the paper work. Unlawful transactions of either firearms or motor vehicles remain unregistered in any case. <<The CDC is now forbidden to participate or fund health research involving firearms. On pain of death.>> On the pain of death or the pain of loss of financing? << I think over 35,000 Americans dying each year and representing one of the leading causes of lost years of future life in our country is a legitimate public health emergency. Do you? >> Agreed. Now we just need to discuss what changes you are willing to accept in your lifestyle and what changes you are desirous of shoving down someone else's throat. Ladies and Gentlemen, while we all perform triage at some times of our professional lives, the last time I looked, "the good of the many outweighing the good of the one" was not a part of our civil code...but, in some ways, the antithesis of it. Do we not have room left in our society to allow for acceptance of personal risk and responsibility? Do you really think that it will be possible to take all of the risk out of life...to allow everybody to die in bed at home of old age? Are you willing to take the responsibility of living someone else's life? This is basically what you are asking to do. Think about it from that point of view for a while. ck
	From: Jim Cowan Date: 08.08.99 02:52 GMT <<Wrong! In 1994 a new measure was instituted in Indianapolis--using the very approach you advocate--in which the police began a campaign of using existing laws on the books to stop vehicles in high crime neighborhoods(by strictly enforcing laws involving broken taillights, failing to yield right of way or using turn signals, etc) and using that stop to legally search for weapons in plain sight. It was phenomenally successful, leading to a 50% reduction in homicides in that city just within 6 months--by doing nothing other, Charles, than taking away the guns!>> Interesting how you jump to these assumptions. I would look to the same situation and say it succeeded because the police enforced existing laws. This is all the NRA or any of us have ever asked for <<The rate of suicide in populations without guns is far lower than in very similar populations with guns--i.e. without the gun, other forms of suicide are not used and the suicide largely does not happen>> This is absolutely amazing...you are now claiming banning guns will stop suicides? Is there no end to the depths you handwringing gun control nuts will sink? You appear to have an irrational fear of guns that is so pervasive you are incapable of rationale dialog on the subject. <<The CDC is now forbidden to participate or fund health research involving firearms. On pain of death.>> Thats because the handwringers on their staff produced a study that was shown to be "questionable"...they then refused to release the data used for the study and the people who pay the bills at the CDC took exception to that. Jim Cowan Springfield, MO
	From: Eric Frykberg Date: 08.08.99 03:44 GMT << This is absolutely amazing...you are now claiming banning guns will stop suicides? Is there no end to the depths you handwringing gun control nuts will sink? >> Jim-- You need to read the posts more clearly--I claimed NO SUCH THING! First. I never advocated in any way "banning guns"! Doesn't it tell you something when you have to misquote in order to advance your stance? I said--and check it if you like--that populations without guns have a hugely lower suicide (and, in fact, homicide and overall death) rate than populations with access to guns, all else being equal, or similar. This is not me saying this--as was also clear in my post, I was relating the results of a number of population-based studies which show this--and not a single one has ever yet shown this NOT to be true--the Tale of Two Cities study in the NEJM in 1988 is one particularly high-powered study I cited which shows this. So Jim--don't argue with me--argue with the science--interestingly, this is something you too don't seem able to do--not yet a single reference to support any of your conjectures and media-based sound bites, nor to refute the studies I have cited--does not that also tell us all something? You obviously don't agree with this--fine--then show us your data that supports you, rather than castigating the messenger, which is a pretty desperate ploy indicating you have nothing else. << Interesting how you jump to these assumptions. I would look to the same situation and say it succeeded because the police enforced existing laws. This is all the NRA or any of us have ever asked for. >> Jim-- I agree with this--but how do you relate merely stopping the car by itself for a broken taillight would drop the homicide rate? Obviously, the guns that were found and confiscated had to play a role, given that in these cities guns accounted for over 70% of all homicides--the guns get taken away, and voila! The homicides go away! This is a great example of how better law enforcement works--but it works by removing guns that should not be there! (The people stopped largely did not get arrested--guns were only confiscated) Thus showing the gun itself does make a difference over and above the person who pulls the trigger. << Thats because the handwringers on their staff produced a study that was shown to be "questionable"...they then refused to release the data used for the study and the people w >> Jim-- It is particularly galling and inconsistent of you to in one breath ask for a "rational dialog" on this subject, then in the next start name calling(which not one of your posts has been free of)--it amazes me that a grown adult should use such adolescent tactics--what are you so insecure about? Could it be you can not live up to a real debate? You certainly haven't up till now--again, not a single reference to support anything--just a lot of negative bashing of everything said without logic or reason. Let's start out with a simple question to you--and let's all see if you ever answer it--Exactly what study from the CDC was found to be "questionable"? and in a free society, since when does some "question" about the merits of a study EVER then mean that that author can never again research a topic? Does that sound like scientific freedom of inquiry or free speech? Please name one scientific journal that would demand that an author of a study with questionable conclusions, which is good enough to be published after peer review,,must never again be allowed to research? This clearly smacks of people who are very afraid--irrationally so--of even seeing --oh my God!--data--when that data does not conform to their preconceived view of the world. If the data is wrong--or the results "questionable"--then just ignore it--discount it! As we do every day with innumerable studies in the literature. Why do you favor censoring the mere attempt to gather data? And finally--name us all one study in the medical literature which does not have any "questionable" facts, analysis or conclusions--just one perfect study! I'd love to hear from you this answer! ERF
	From: Pedro Oscar Rezende Cunha Date: 08.08.99 05:20 GMT Well, we all know that fire arms wounds and cars(and others land vehicles) accidents are the major cause of deaths in trauma. We also agree that since both are able to kill/hurt people, they should be used under certains rules. We seem to disagree when talking about the right to own a fire arm or a car. The very principle of a fire arm is to hurt and kill (maybe you don't agree, but think why every single day fire arms are becoming more powerfull). Of course they can be used to hunt, as a sport and so on, but it's not the main use of them. The principle of a car is to take you around faster. Of course it can be used to harm and kill, but it's not the main use of them. So, you want to have an object that the main objective is hurt and kill? Ok, so you must understand that owning such thing is not for everyone. So, you want to have something that will take you around faster? Ok,so you ALSO must understand that owning such thing is not for everyone. What's the difference between both situations ? The difference is that who owns a car does not own it to promote violence. Who owns a gun does , even if your goal to to protect yourself from crimminals. I am not talking about banning fire arms, i am just asking for people to stop and think that such thing can't be owned as it was a fire work.I think that if youy want to have a gun, you should prove that you can use it safely. If we have to take drive lessons and make a tests { sight, psico and driving)to be a driver,i think that is fair to ask for lessons about owning a gun and tests to use it, not talking about the need of a non-crimminal past. Since most ( 80% +) of the deaths related to fire arms wounds are not related to crimes, just making it harder to own a gun will slow down the the deaths caused by fire arms . Pedro Cunha medical Student, Brazil
	From: Jim Cowan Date: 08.08.99 15:54 GMT The fact of the matter is, it's illegal for a felon to own a handgun. It's illegal to carry them in cars within easy access of the driver, it's illegal to sell or transfer them without proper permits and it's illegal to brandish them in a threatening manner. The fact also is, that we do not enforce these laws. Felons carry guns all the time..most of the crime involving firearms is committed by persons with lengthy criminal records who have no legal right to own or carry a firearm, yet they do so. Washington DC is the murder capital of the US and handguns are virtually banned totally....yet they are used daily in crimes by people who are then released on bail or parole. We don't need any more legislation that only effects people like me or other legal gun owners...we need to crack down on the criminal element. <<(The people stopped largely did not get arrested--guns were only confiscated) Thus showing the gun itself does make a difference over and above the person who pulls the trigger ERF>> You do understand that the police cannot confiscate a gun unless it's being carried illegally....therefore, why were the people were not arrested if the guns were confiscated? <<So Jim--don't argue with me--argue with the science--interestingly, this is something you too don't seem able to do--not yet a single reference to support any of your conjectures and media-based sound bites - ERF>> The evidence (which is available from dozens of different sources including the common almanac) shows that guns are not a leading cause of accidental death. They rank somewhere below poison gas and vapors and medical treatment. Handguns were 0.1 per 100,000 and all firearms were 0.4. Now how do you argue with that? Jim Cowan MO, Springfield
	From: Jim Cowan Date: 08.08.99 16:26 GMT <<Exactly what study from the CDC was found to be "questionable"?>> On March 6, 1996, three physicians and noted criminologist Don B. Kates were given an opportunity to testify before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Testimony focused on the CDC/NCIPC's use of "suspect data, skewed study populations, dubious research models, and result-oriented research". The panel was also informed that NCIPC researchers violated accepted scientific practice by refusing to release and make available to other researchers their original data for further critical analysis -- an indispensable part of genuine peer review. In a letter to Senator Arlen Specter, Dr. William Waters of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research protested the "overt political activism of the NCIPC staff and their federally-funded researchers.... [T]here seems to be a tacit assumption -- perhaps even foundational concept -- among many public health researchers that firearm prohibition/control provides a ready solution to many of society's ills. We believe that this view is expressed in the NCIPC's approach to the problem of violence, since the research performed is fantastically narrow in scope, excludes most of what is known about violence in human societies from consideration or study, and is often performed using abysmally poor methodology." When supporters of NCIPC's findings and funding are challenged, Dr. Waters observed, they take refuge in tautology: "There seems to be a tendency on the part of those defending the NCIPC to simply reiterate figures depicting the problem of firearms violence/injury as justification for the agency's existence." Concerned about the political corruption of public health research and possible violations of the public trust, DIPR representatives sought to educate key members of Congress and the Senate; others took the case directly to the public via local and syndicated radio and television shows, including National Empowerment Television (NET). A critical breakthrough occurred when Dr. Timothy Wheeler, president of the California-based Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, appeared on the CBS program This Morning to debate Dr. Jerome Kassirer, editor-in-chief of NEJM. Dr. Kassirer had defended the supposed objectivity of the CDC-supported gun studies in a previous NEJM editorial. Dr. Kassirer's defense of the CDC provided an opportunity for Dr. Wheeler to display, on camera, a copy of the anti-gun issue of the Injury Prevention Network Newsletter cited above. The cover of that issue, which bore the title "Women, Guns and Domestic Violence," displayed an illustration of a menacing handgun blasting away at the defenseless female symbol. Wheeler was also able to share some of the "neutral" recommendations offered within that tax-funded newsletter. Here is a sampling from the publication: Put gun control on the agenda of your civic or professional organization. Release a statement to the media or explain in your organization's newsletter why gun control is a women's (or nurses' or pediatricians') issue. Ask TV and print media to name the gun manufacturer in every story it runs involving gun violence. Organize a picket at gun manufacturing sites, perhaps with posters showing pictures of victims of gun violence.... Work for campaign finance reform to weaken the gun lobby's political clout. Boycott publications that accept advertising from the gun lobby or manufacturers.... Get media attention for your events. Encourage your local police department to adopt a policy prohibiting officers from recommending that citizens buy guns for protection. Federally subsidized CDC researchers also became directly involved in anti-gun rights agitation. For example, NCIPC-funded researchers and staff served as faculty at the Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan (HELP) "strategy conferences," held in Chicago in 1993 and 1995. Those meetings assembled "like-minded individuals who represent organizations [that seek to] use a public health model to work toward changing society's attitude so that it becomes socially unacceptable for private citizens to have guns." Dr. Katherine Christoffel, one of the founders of these conferences, is known for her anti-firearms activism. Dr. Christoffel has stated, "Guns are a virus that must be eradicated. We need to immunize ourselves against them." Taking the pathological perspective on guns to its most ridiculous extreme, Christoffel has declared: "Get rid of the cigarettes, get rid of the secondhand smoke, and you get rid of lung disease. It's the same with guns. Get rid of the guns, get rid of the bullets, and you get rid of deaths." Another conference on firearms violence held in 1992 at the University of Iowa was underwritten in part by CDC/NCIPC funds which had previously been allocated to the study of rural injuries and farm occupational hazards. Significantly, the only non-academic faculty member invited to the 1992 conference was Sarah Brady of Handgun Control, Inc. A similar event, "National Violence Prevention Conference -- Bridging Science and Program," was held at the University of Iowa in 1995; the CDC/NCIPC co-hosted the event with the University of Iowa Injury Prevention Research Center, and NCIPC Director Mark L. Rosenberg offered the event's inaugural speech. These are just a few of the reason the CDC's funding was cut and congressional efforts made to keep the CDC in the business of science and disease prevention and out of social activism and anti-gun hysteria. Jim Cowan Springfield, MO
	From: Robert F. Smith Date: 08.08.99 16:45 <<As has been stated before Robert...you have no constitution right to own a car. Jim Cowan>> Legal Issues - Second amendment : “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” As the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court said in an interview in Parade magazine, “this amendment protects the formation of citizen militias and was not intended to ensure the absolute right of anyone to keep any type of firearm“ He argued that while we should not prohibit the legitimate uses of guns for protection or recreation, guns should be regulated in much the same way as cars if we are to minimize firearm injuries and death. Legal Issues - Courts The Supreme Court has addressed the issue of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms three times: U.S. v. Miller,1939 -only federal laws that interfere with state militias would be invalid Presser v. Illinois in 1886, state laws are unaffected by the Second Amendment. Quilici b. Village of Morton Grove, 1972 upheld the right of a local municipality to restrict gun ownership Litigation - No federal court has ever invalidated any gun control law as a violation of the Second Amendment.
	From: Jim Cowan Date: 08.08.99 16:48 GMT Let's not forget one important concept. There is a body of evidence that firearms prevent more crime and injury than they cause. Studies have shown that literally millions of incidents occur annually in which impending rape or assault was avoided by the mere presence of a firearm. If we carry this out to the implications involved, it begs the question, will banning legal firearms save lives or place many citizens at the mercy of the criminal element. I think this is the "hinge" point of the issue. If we are going to deal with the science, let's deal with all of it.....exactly what are the implications of firearm ownership...do they help or hurt, and should they continue to be a constitutionally protected right? The most comprehensive study ever done on this issue was the Kleck study in which data was examined from every county in the United States. I would also add that unlike the CDC studies, this data is available for independent review. Florida State University Dr Gary Kleck, using surveys and other data, has determined that armed citizens defend their lives or property with firearms against criminals approximately 1 million times a year. In 98 percent of these instances, the citizen merely brandishes the weapon or fires a warning shot. Only in 2 percent of the cases do citizens actually shoot their assailants. In defending themselves with their firearms, armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year, three times the number killed by the police. A nationwide study by Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 percent, over five times as high. Those are the simple, verifiable facts gentlemen. You may not like living in a violent society but you do, you may not like guns, but they exist as a constitutional right. If you wish to change that, you will need to do better than another HCI hysteria campaign, and you really need to be certain you are going to make things better, not worse. Your concerns as trauma surgeons involve those 2,000 to 3,000 cited above while the rest of us, the potential victims, want to keep the 98% avoidance factor. Jim Cowan Springfield, MO
	From: Jim Cowan Date: 08.08.99 17:09 <<Of course, there is nothing in the constitution that says anythign about >>maintaining an air defense force either. There weren't very many cars around (read: Zero) when the Constitution was drafted. Jeff B., NREMTP >> So ban the Air Force...you won't have any resistance from constitutional scholars at all. Guns however, are afforded a level of constitutional protection. With whats going on right now, the gun control advocates feel they are on a moral crusade against a benighted, barbaric citizenry. This is demonstrated not only by the ineffectualness of gun control in preventing crime, and by the fact that it focuses on restricting the behavior of the law-abiding rather than apprehending and punishing the guilty, but also by the execration that gun control proponents heap on gun owners and their evil instrumentality. As criminologist and constitutional lawyer Don B. Kates, Jr. and former HCI contributor Dr. Patricia Harris have pointed out, "[s]tudies consistently show that, on the average, gun owners are better educated and have more prestigious jobs than non-owners.... Later studies show that gun owners are less likely than non-owners to approve of police brutality, violence against dissenters, etc." We must understand that the antipathy many liberals have for gun owners arises in good measure from their statist utopianism. This habit of mind has nowhere been better explored than in The Republic. There, Plato argues that the perfectly just society is one in which an unarmed people exhibit virtue by minding their own business in the performance of their assigned functions, while the government of philosopher-kings, above the law and protected by armed guardians unquestioning in their loyalty to the state, engineers, implements, and fine-tunes the creation of that society, aided and abetted by myths that both hide and justify their totalitarian manipulation. The liberal elite believe that they are philosopher-kings. They believe that the people simply cannot be trusted; that they are incapable of just and fair self-government; that left to their own devices, their society will be racist, sexist, homophobic, and inequitable -- and the liberal elite know how to fix things. They are going to help us live the good and just life, even if they have to lie to us and force us to do it. And they detest those who stand in their way. The private ownership of firearms is a rebuke to this utopian zeal. To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state. It is to reserve final judgment about whether the state is encroaching on freedom and liberty, to stand ready to defend that freedom with more than mere words, and to stand outside the state's totalitarian reach. Jim Cowan
	From: Eric Frykberg Date: 08.08.99 17:17 GMT <<You do understand that the police cannot confiscate a gun unless it's being carried illegally....therefore, why were the people were not arrested if the guns were confiscated? >> Ask the police drpts of Kansas City, New York, Indianapolis, Baltimore, etc << Washington DC is the murder capital of the US and handguns are virtually banned totally....yet they are used daily in crimes by people who are then released on bail or parole. >> To once again get beyond the sound bites-- In the first year after the strict handgun bans were instituted in both Wash D.C. and New York City, the homicide rate in both cities plummeted by 25%--then rose back up to thier previous levels--interesting that you and others using this statistic never mention or try to reconcile this fact. After that first year, virtually all guns used in violent crimes were no longer from NYC or D.C. (in other words, the law was effective) but from outside those cities--most commonly from right across the border in Virginia, and second most commonly from Florida--the perfect argument for uniform federal laws restricting access to handguns, which would keep down this border-crossing phenomenon and, as happened in the cities, homicides as well. << Quote: i.e. without the gun, other forms of suicide are not used and the suicide largely does not happen-- Unquote: >> Jim-- What this means is that since the total suicide rate went down, those due to guns did not go on to try suicide by other means, which is the classic argument against resticting guns--that those using them for suicides will find another means--had nothing to do with those using other means to begin with--the numbers speak for themselves, and you continue assailing them without any data of your own! We are all still waiting for your data.... << The evidence (which is available from dozens of different sources including the common almanac) shows that guns are not a leading cause of accident >> Another classic dodge, again showing you are parroting others (specifically this dodge comes out of Wayne LaPierre's book Guns Crime and Freedom) rather than thinking for yourself. Firearms are the second leading cause of death by injury in this country--pure and simple and indisputable--after motor vehicles--in 1997, something just over 35,000 deaths from firearrms, and about 42,000 from motor vehicles. No other single agent accounts for more deaths--again, very simple and well documented--I gave you my source--the National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, Md, Fingerhut and Warner,Injury Chart Book, Health United States 1996-1997--while once again you gave NO specific source--just the handy "a number of sources"--another classic dodge promoting the Big Lie. No almanac says anything different, including the 1998 World alamanac I have open on my lap right now--check it! You are comparing apples and oranges in a classic misrepresentation. No one said a thing about "accidental"(meaning unintentional) deaths--Those figures above are for TOTAL firearm deaths in this country--not unintentional which accounts for only 4% of those--so naturally by slyly injecting the outmoded and misconstrued word "accidental" (which no authority anymore uses, as it misrepresents "injury" which is largely not accidental), you make a false and misleading point. Total firearm deaths (which are mostly intentional--suicides and homicides) must be compared with TOTAL motor vehicle deaths(which are mostly unintentional) to be accurate and compare proper entities, and they in fact they are the second highest cause of death by injury. I refer you also to the 1998 Institute of Medicine document Reducing the Burden of Injury which also emphasizes this point and also points to the many authoritative references documenting this. The numbers are very clear--no other cause of injury death (NOT just accidental death) comes near to 35,000--if you disagree, please tell us what that is, and show us your SPECIFIC source, as I have and we will both write to that massive conspiracy against freedom, the Institute of Medicine, and tell them they made a mistake--Jim Cowan says so! Another point--those are national figures--in 20 states, including Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Maryland, firearms are now the leading cause of death by injury (Florida Dept of Health, Tallahassee, and NCHS), having surpassed motor vehicles in 1994 for the first time in our history! It is no coincidence that those states with the least restriction on access to firearms have the highest deaths from firearms (and again most of those deaths are not of evil criminals lurking in dark alleys--they are of innocent citizens like you and me and have nothing to do with criminal activity) It is evident you continue to refuse to reconcile your stance with the wealth of data available--you are obviously very emotionally wedded to your stance, and have lost all ability to be objective and honest--so go ahead and continue to spout your slogans and name-calling--at least the bulk of us on this list now realize from whence you are coming.... << These are just a few of the reason the CDC's funding was cut and congressional efforts made to keep the CDC in the business of science and disease prevention and out of social activism and anti-gun hysteria. >> Thank you--now once again Jim I will ask the questions you have yet to answer--name a single published study out of the CDC or NCIPC which was found to be "questionable"--you idi not do that, Then please justify why an organization must be censored from collecting data merely because you feel its conclusions are biased? Why do you not collect your own data to refute it, like science has worked now for centuries? Since when is information of any kind so bad we can not even be exposed to it? And--you also still failed to name a single study in the medical literature which is perfect and without "question" as to its data, analysis or conclusions. You would have fit in very well in the Inquisition, the last time I know of where data gathering was censored just because a self-appointed group of judges did not like what it showed. No, come to think of it--Hitler also did that with his book burning << Let's not forget one important concept. There is a body of evidence that firearms prevent more crime and injury than they cause >> Jim-- Once again I will not let you get away with this shoddiness--please cite for us the study! This may work at your local American Legion crewshop, but not here--tell us what these studies are! You of course (I will do it for you, since obvioulsy you do not know) refer to Gary Kleck's study out of Florida State University, which was a telephone survey of almost 5000 gun owners (i.e. a biased group to begin with) indicating a number of instances in which the gun was reported to be used defensively in what was extrapolated to be some 2 million instances nationally. What you fail to reconcile this with, however, is that the much more scientifically accurate National Crime Victimization Survey of the US gov't found this to be only in the range of 62,000 cases in a year nationwide--several orders of magnitude off the mark (see the book Cease Fire, excerpted in Rolling Stone Magazine March 10, 1994) Also, using your own reasoning with the CDC--this study was criticized for its flawed methodology by the Nat'l Research Council of the Nat'l Academy of Sciences (obviously another left wing conspiracy!)--so according to your argiment, that should mean that Florida State University and Kleck should now be censored from ever resaearching this topic again--it is clearly "questionable" is it not? I will also bet you never even read this study, have you? A Harris poll of Wisconsin citizens in 1992 showed over 80% in favor of stricter control of gun access to citizens, and guess what--38% of gun owners themselves also answered this way! No poll, state or national has ever showed anything different! The american population appears to also disagree with you! ERF
	From: Eric Frykberg Date: 08.08.99 18:11 GMT << The Supreme Court has addressed the issue of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms three times: U.S. v. Miller,1939 -only federal laws that interfere with state militias would be invalid Presser v. Illinois in 1886, state laws are unaffected by the Second Amendment. Quilici b. Village of Morton Grove, 1972 upheld the right of a local municipality to restrict gun ownership >> Robert-- No--you left out the last Supreme Court 2nd Amendment case--U.S. v. Lewis, upholding the challenged constitutionality of the 1968 Gun Control Act But your poiints are all right on--every court decision ever rendered on the 2nd amendment has upheld the constitutionality of proper restricitoin of access of the public to firearms. Thus, since only the courts can interpret what the Constitution says, it is clear the Constitution does not allow unrestricted ownership, use, sale or manufacture of firearms. That of course is why firearm advocates NEVER bring these laws to court--isn't that strange, if they decry their illegality? Just another in a long line of inconsistencies and flawed reasoning ERF
	From: James S. Cowan Date: 08.08.99 19:14 GMT I am puzzled. You seem to have access to information none of the current researchers on firearms and homicides do. Which "handgun ban" are you talking about? The Sullivan act took place in New York in 1911. I am unable to find any decrease and subsequent increase related to any legislation. Can you please clarify this? Which years dropped and which years increased based upon what legislation? To address your point on weapons migrating across borders let me cite a study specifically addressing this point. The report "A Statistical Comparison of Homicide Rates in the Prairie Provinces and Three American Border States" was released in October, 1994. It was concluded that the regulation of possession of personal arms by private citizens has little or no effect on homicide rates. There is a common misconception in Canada that there are no gun controls in the United States. Federal law, except for the recently passed Brady Bill and control of interstate and international trade in firearms, remains constrained by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. However, several states have enacted their own gun control laws, and there is a plethora of local ordinances in those states which permit them. The gun laws of New York, and especially of New York City are stringent by Canadian standards, and Canadian firearms legislation appears to have been influenced by the older New York statutes, of which the keystone, the Sullivan Law barring the carrying of deadly weapons, dates from 1911. A permit is required to purchase a handgun anywhere in New York State, and applicants undergo a rigorous screening process which may take up to six months. In New York City, permits are also needed to purchase long guns for which the waiting period is 30 days. In spite of the restrictions, the state homicide rate is, on average, five times higher than in Canada. In New York City it is ten times the Canadian rate. There is no provable explanation for this anomaly, but it is reasonable to suppose that the presence of organized crime, a flourishing narcotics trade, racial tension, extreme poverty and a collapsing public education system are all contributing factors. In the District of Columbia, the sale of handguns is prohibited, permits are required to purchase rifles and shotguns, all firearms must be registered and owners must have possession permits. No other jurisdiction in the free world has a more rigid system, yet the homicide rate by 1991 had reached an astonishing 80 per 100,000 citizens - probably the highest for any jurisdiction in an industrialized nation. In the United States, the degree of control of firearms is directly proportional to the amount of violence in a particular jurisdiction. Thus Illinois, (especially Chicago) and Michigan are quite restrictive, whereas several western states with relatively peaceful societies are effectively "wide open". Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and Idaho are mostly rural and are economically, socially and demographically very similar to western Canada. They were chosen for a comparative evaluation partly for that reason and partly for their minimal legislation relating to firearms. All four states require permits to carry concealed weapons. North Dakota bars machine guns and fully automatic rifles and Montana permits possession of machine guns only on the owner's premises. Minnesota has a seven day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun, and permits are required to carry them even if not concealed. The age of responsibility for unsupervised use of a rifle or shotgun is 14 years in Montana and 15 in the other states. Beyond that, the only controls are practical, local ordinances with respect to being armed at a public gathering, discharging a firearm within town limits and so on. Control of long guns was introduced in Canada in 1978. Because Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the three most westerly American states have small populations, relatively small changes in the number of homicides cause very erratic variations in the rate per 100,000. In Minnesota, with a population of more than 4 million, annual variations are minimal. It was observed that homicide rates are decreasing in all jurisdictions except Minnesota. A dramatic decrease in Idaho reflects high rates (5.4 per 100,000) in 1978 and 1979, and a very low rate (1.8) in 1991. However, even if these three erratic values are rejected, the trend remains sharply downward. Of the individual jurisdictions, Montana had the most homicides per capita over the fifteen year period with an average of 3.8 per 100,000 citizens. Manitoba was second highest at 3.6, followed by Idaho at 3.4, Saskatchewan and Alberta, each at 3.1, Canada at 2.7, Minnesota at 2.4 and North Dakota at only 1.3. The consistently low rate for North Dakota is approximately the same as in Japan, where there is virtually no private ownership of firearms. Among the four states and the three provinces studied, North Dakota is the most rural. It has a slowly declining and presumably aging population, few of the extractive industries that attract unattached young men to Montana and Alberta, and no large cities. The majority of North Dakotans have firearms in their homes. To nullify the erratic effects of sampling from small populations, the four American states were treated as one single entity, and the three prairie provinces as another. It was observed that, since the introduction of gun control in Canada, there have been, on average, more murders per capita per year in the prairie provinces (3.2/100,000) than in the four northern tier western states, which had an average of 2.7 per 100,000 - the same as the average for all of Canada during the same period. The rate for the four states combined has been slowly rising. The trend for the prairie provinces and for Canada has been falling. The foregoing illustrates the absence of a simple cause and effect relationship between crime rates and restrictions on possession of firearms on the civilian population.