|
|
|
Firearms & Gun Control
Below is the full text of
a debate on firearms and gun control that raged on the trauma-list
for 3 weeks in August 1999. All the messages are quoted verbatim
apart from a few spelling corrections. Some messages have been
concatenated and some message quoting added or removed to making
reading easier.
It's long,
but provides a unique insight into the gun control issue. After
the main debate, closing statements are presented
by the main protagonists.
References quoted in the text are
available in the firearms section
of our injury prevention pages.
 |
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.
| | |