I am a public health professional, educated at the vaunted Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Hygiene and Public Health. I like guns, and I believe the Second Amendment clearly secures the rights of individuals to own firearms.
You read that correctly. I am a public health professional.
And I like guns.
This make me a heretic in American public health, where embracing firearms and the rights of gun owners is a gross violation of orthodoxy.
As a society, our focus on guns and not gun users derives from the shock of mass killings, such as those in Newtown, CT, Aurora, CO, Virginia Tech, and Norway, which has some of the strictest gun control laws on the planet. Mass killings, however tragic, get distorted by saturation media hysterics and 24-hour political grandstanding. What gun opponents refuse to discuss is the precipitous fall in violent crime and deaths by firearms over the past 20 years, and how it coincides with an equally dramatic increase of guns in circulation in the US.
While that isn’t cause and effect, the association is certainly curious.
In 2013, the Institute of Medicine, at the behest of the Centers for Disease Control, produced a report on firearms violence that has been ignored by the mainstream media. The upshot: defensive use of firearms occurs much more frequently than is recognized, “can be an important crime deterrent,” and unauthorized possession (read: by someone other than the lawful owner) of a firearm is a crucial driver of firearms violence.
That report went away for political reasons. Translation. Nobody wanted to talk about it because it raised more questions than it answered.
The tragic mass murders in Virginia, Colorado, Norway, Connecticut, and most recently California, showcase the failure of the healthcare system, including potential abuse of prescription drugs, and families where parents either checked out or were willfully oblivious to what their children are doing. They are also outcomes of popular, feel-good movements, such as deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, colliding with communities that had no means to deal with the consequences. Adam Lanza, Anders Breivik, Seung Hui Cho, James Holmes, and Elliot Rodger all needed treatment, and, if necessary, involuntary commitment, with due process for both admission to a facility and subsequent release.
My public health approach to the problem of gun violence starts with the assumption that every gun owner is not a raving, irresponsible nut, but in fact a person of some seriousness who has a legal right to choose to own a firearm.
My next assumption is that the most egregious gun violence happens in communities that are broken, such as inner city Baltimore and St. Louis.
Again, a topic that is not to be spoken.
Gun control will not fix schools, restore neighborhoods, stabilize disintegrating (wealthy or poor) families, employ people, heal mental illness, rejuvenate local economies, or help create self respect. I support gun courts and mandatory, no-parole sentencing for people who commit gun crimes, with a massive public education campaign to back it up.
Public education works and is central to many public health issues, from highway safety to tobacco use reduction, but for some reason, when it comes to guns, the public health establishment’s histrionic reflex is not to educate but to control and confiscate. According to the FBI, in 2012 there were 8,855 firearms homicides, down 7% since 2008. By contrast, 33,516 people died on the nation’s highways in 2012, and alcohol abuse claimed 88,000 lives.
Where’s the clamor to control and confiscate cars, cellphones (deadly when used while driving), and booze?
Before buying a firearm, I took a gun safety class and got advice from experienced friends.
I choose to store my guns in accordance with commonly promoted safety guidelines. My son (10) can pick up each shotgun and ensure that both the magazine and chamber are empty. He can check the safety, point it correctly, and place it safely in a case. He also knows how to hold and hand it to an adult. In a state where guns are ubiquitous, this is an essential skill in case he is ever in the presence of child who thinks that his family’s carelessly unsecured guns are toys, not lethal weapons. Of course, he also knows to exit that room and get an adult.
Gun owners should not, however, get their hopes up that the public health community will ever take them seriously. Public health students are taught early on that guns are evil, that the people who think otherwise are an ignorant, backward, Jerry Springer watching lot and that there are some questions you don’t ask: at least not if you want to pass the class.
This says more about the public health community than it does anything else.
More about that one in a future essay. I think you’ll enjoy it.
Ironically, public health academics happily assert that there is a clear Constitutional right to privacy, even as they vilify a right that is actually expressed in the document, and they merrily condescend to its adherents, whom they regard as pathetic rubes. Here is how gun owners can thwart the push to have doctors ask about the presence of guns in a home during a routine history and physical: refuse to answer on the grounds of the much heralded penumbra-emanating right to privacy.
As for the claim that gun rights proponents oppose the conduct of legitimate research, consider this. Many years ago, I asked a very powerful anti-gun academic the following questions: What proportion of gun crimes are committed by the lawful owner of a legally purchased firearm, and what percentage of lawful gun owners use their firearm in commission of a crime? He said that he did not know, and that he would oppose conduct of the research to answer both questions.
The answer was no surprise, and neither should my rejoinder be: molon labe.
Vik Khanna, THCB’s Editor-At-Large for Wellness, is author of Your Personal Affordable Care Act: How To Avoid Obamacare, which is available now in the Amazon Kindle Marketplace (for all Kindles and Kindle apps) and at Smashwords.com (for other e-readers). Clickhere to visit the book’s website.
Categories: Uncategorized
As a progressive health professional, I used to support civilian disarmament. After a law enforcement client suggest I do some research, I was surprised and dismayed to learn that in the 10 years after their gun bans, UK and AUS women experienced skyrocketing rates of rape. Assault and robbery also increased. Murder, always a rarity in those countries, simply went sideways, neither better nor worse. All that crime data came from the respective governments. But did those governments then say: “Well, we tried this experiment and it failed, so let the people own firearms for personal protection”? No, thus proving that gun control was about control, not public safety.
http://www.amazon.com/Four-Hundred-Years-Gun-Control-ebook/dp/B004IE9WKS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417475699&sr=8-1&keywords=400+years+of+gun+control
Except the CDC’s own data shows that states with the most gun control have the lowest gun ownership rates and the highest black homicide rates.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/states-with-stricter-gun-control-laws-are-less-safe/?singlepage=true
I know that’s a lot to digest, but I used to believe in civilian disarmament, being one of those progressive-type health professionals. But a law enforcement client suggested I do some research instead of accepting media propaganda.
So it appears that gun control, not firearms, is the true health care issue.
Carl…great post. Apparently @StevenTorrey doesn’t have any response. Not even his usual “You’re psychotic!”
Hopefully he’s at his local Wal-Mart buying an AR… 🙂
Thank you Brian.
I’m sure your facts and common sense are lost on those that want to blame an inanimate object for the actions of mentally disturbed individuals.
“GUN VIOLENCE”
“GUN VIOLENCE”
But what about all of the other violence?
What about the violent beatings of little old ladies?
What about the elderly men beaten to death by violent street gangs?
What about the eighty thousand women who suffer rape every year?
What about the one million two hundred thousand people who suffer from violent crime every year?
Did you know that close to eight hundred thousand of those rapes and murders and violent assaults that led to grievous bodily harm did not involve firearms in the possession of the criminal?
Eight
Hundred
Thousand
victims
of
violent
crime.
One in about 330 people all across the US will suffer from violent crime at the hands of a criminal not armed with a firearm EVERY YEAR.
THIS IS A HEALTH ISSUE.
There are more than eight times as many people suffering from violent crime with no firearms involved than are killed or injured by firearms every year.
Just shy of one million people
EVERY YEAR.
Did you know the FBI handles just about one million missing persons cases every year?
How many of those don’t make it back to their homes?
Or…What about the CDC study that indicates that seventy five thousand to two point five million people prevent violent crime every year simply by owning and being prepared to use a firearm?
You crow about less than one hundred thousand people who are hurt or killed *by criminal action* or *by accident* or *by their own hand* with firearms.
What about the forty seven million households that own and use firearms and may use those firearms to defend themselves or others from violent crime more than two million times a year per the CDC study?
I honestly find you and your repetitive psychotic screed to be a much more likely victim of psychosis than anyone else here. I bet your blood pressure goes up drastically when you read this. Do you grind your teeth at night?
And your ignorance of actual crime statistics is appalling.
Did you also know that the reported rape rate in Australia is fourteen times higher than that of the US overall?
Did you also know that both the UK and Australia don’t report a murder *as a murder* until someone is convicted of it?
So the killings by Jack the Ripper would never have been listed as murders in the modern age because the murderer was never *convicted*. Not caught, not accused, but convicted. And if there is some deal struck and the charge is dropped down to something less than murder? The victim simply wasn’t murdered.
It is very neat and tidy.
It shows a stunning lack of respect for the general public and for the victims and their families.
Wow! Great post Jim.
I can’t wait to hear a response to your closing question from all the brainiac anti-gunners.
I’m bothered by one thing. You support “gun court..” Do you realize that I could murder someone with a knife or baseball bat and not get the same prison sentence as I would if I used a gun? This is not rational. Valuing one lost life less than another. Our country is currently trying to pull itself out of mandatory life sentences for some criminals because the form of cocaine in their possesion had baking soda added. Party guy gets caught with a gram of cocaine, he gets 18 months, but if it has baking soda in it, it’s a life sentence?
Thus your attempt at appearing reasonable and rational has led you into supporting politically motivated solutions that have devalued one life over another. I thought you did just fine up to that point. Why not “prescription drug courts” where medical professionals who administer the wrong medicine get mandatory and stiff sentences for their failure to abide by reasonable precautions? 106,000 people were estimated to be caused by the administration of the wrong drug by medical professionals in one years study.
Why, physicians can’t seem to stop ACCIDENTALLY killing people, how can they carry one gram of authority when it comes to preventing death by causes not related to their profession, especially when that number is far exceeded by their own.
Bobby needs to review:
http://www.gleamingedge.com/mirrors/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html
and understand there are those amongst us who are willing to protect the others. Some of us are sheepdogs. most of you are sheep. Some of you are wolves. You decide where you want to be and the level of involvement you want. Go blithely along with your ear buds plugged in, blissfully unaware and unprepared. Some of us will watch out for you.
You list a number of things that you consider to be gun control.
Are you aware that all of them have been tried, both in the US and in other nations, and not a single one has resulted in reduced rates of relevant crimes? And in most cases haven’t resulted in reduced rates of firearms related crimes.
Actually, reality tells us that significantly over 99.99% of gun owners are sane and do not commit crimes.
You might actually want to look at some of the criminology research on criminals, it is not true that any person is equally likely to commit a crime. And also the research on the characteristics of murder victims compared to the characteristics of murderers.
1) It’s not possible to get rid of all guns.
2) No nation has reduced its overall rates of relevant crimes by any gun control laws
3) Getting rid of guns will not get rid of violence
4) The top mass murders in the US did not involve guns
As others have noted, the rates of iatrogenic illness and death outweighs the rates of injury and death due to firearms. If criminals are a health care crisis, medical personnel are a much greater health care crisis.
Y’all should take care of your own house before you start worrying about others, especially when the harm caused by medical practitioners is much higher than even harm caused by criminals
Maybe you should take a look at motor vehicles, with or without the involvement of alcohol. Or other, non-motor vehicle, accidents.
Your fixation on guns is worrying.
It is sad that you can’t distinguish between criminals and other citizens. Perhaps you believe that you are only a step away from snapping and killing people, but you shouldn’t project that on to everyone else.
I, too, am a public health professional (regional emergency response coordinator). I have been a life long member of the NRA and fully support the lawful ownership and use of firearms, including for self defense if so needed. I am a hunter education instructor, range safety officer, master hunter, and concealed carry licencee. My immediate staff agree with me but we are an island amongst the indoctrinated others. But I would risk my life to protect any of them and am equipped and trained to do so.
With 81,000 gun non-fatal gun injuries, 10,000 gun homicides, 20,000 suicides–those numbers add up to a crisis in health care. And like so many health care issues there are preventive measures available. Hint: NO GUNS–NO GUN VIOLENCE.
Even by your usual psychotic standards–your response is PSYCHOTIC! Trust me, shoot someone and that someone will require medical intervention of some sort. That there are yearly some 81,000 gun wounds, 10,000 deaths, 20,000 suicides–well–Excedrin you are simply blathering for the sake of blathering. A gunshot wound requires medical intervention…
@StevenTorrey: “Gun control simply means that people have to register their weapons with the State..;”
Unlike some other national systems of government, ours is actually predicated on creating a detente’ between the people and the government, between the state and federal governments, and between the branches of the federal level with the intent to make it difficult for anyone to control the others without their consent. Registration and the other suggestions you continued to make are the sort of things that generate apprehension and possibly political or other conflict should they be initiated while probably doing very little in exchange, if the Canadian and Australian models are considered.
“With 310 million weapons in America–representing some 47 million households–plus or minus–society does not know, cannot predict who the next psycho-shooter is”
The frustrating part is the fact–in almost all of these cases–the inability for these future shooters and bombers to build and maintain functioning relationships and their atypical behavior is usually noticed a long time prior to the actual incidents. The issue isn’t randomness because these people aren’t random, they are asocial or antisocial and people around them notice that sort of thing…
…they just don’t report it or the reports are not handled in such a way as to prevent the crime most of the time.
Also…
“That the owner may descend to alcohol addiction, meth addiction, suicidal depression, jealousy, blind rage, or lunacy–The NRA gun nut psychotic screed wants to posit a notion that all gun owners are sane–when reality tells us something different.”
The reality–if permit owners are considered–is that permit holders are–as a rule–less likely to engage in lunacy or even shooting incidents. One problem, of course, is that the attitudes of people like you and the ideas people like you espouse create a feeling of defensiveness which “privatizes” the ownership and carry of firearms to the point only intimates tend to notice if someone is drifting into psychological and mental problems. So, after a fashion, it’s a perverse outcome of trying to demonize gun owners.
“And the very fact of 310 million guns–creates a reality where every church, every school, every plaza, every mall, every street corner requires an armed guard to prevent the randomness from misuse of that weapon…”
Actually, no it doesn’t. That’s one potential “solution” but it depends on the assumption that the armed guards/police have some advantage over normal people in sanity or lack of criminality which is a canard. The other solution, assuming psychosis and criminality are rare or less common, is you only need 1 or more healthy people with guns at that location.
“Bloomberg, Malloy, Obama, etc–speak to those innocent victims of gun violence–who had an equal right to peaceable assembly without fear of being gunned down.”
Actually, most of these guys–when they speak in public–are surrounded by an armed entourage themselves which–if one of the “peaceful assemblage” decided to present a threat, would probably cap their ass in a second rendering any “right” to be free of the fear of being gun downed moot. Additionally, that “right” to be without fear really depends on both the person–who may not have a reasonable understanding of where their fear ends and other rights begin–as well as a need to enforce or try to enforce that right, sometimes via force.
“nd the psychotic screed of the NRA gun nut psychos reduces itself to the notion that America should accept the murder of 20 children between age 6 and 7 with a Bushmaster AR15 as 2nd Amendment collateral damage. Joe the Plumber’s cynical assertion–”The death of those children does not trump the 2nd Amendment”–speaks to how sick and disgusting these NRA gun nut psychos are.”
No, those kids weren’t collateral damage. They were the victims of an asocial or antisocial killer who was able to plan, prepare, and practice the execution of a horrific crime. The kids are only “collateral” if you imagine some other form of attack on them which wasn’t in effect and is mostly only in the minds of people who can’t understand that some people are evil and it’s our responsibility to identify them and try to ameliorate their potential harm on others.
Your focus on one of the tools Adam Lanza used ignores the fact he used several others. One is a car. You don’t normally carry long arms in public without someone noticing. The car also allowed him to choose the venue of his attack and apply a second tool–an understanding of local and Federal laws–that allowed him to select a target with a very low probability of someone interrupting him before the police arrived.
Also, while I don’t generally apply credibility to no-name people, the death of those children is not a political problem and shouldn’t result in some paradigm shift in US national politics. What it should do is result in an increased focus on identifying, reporting, and controlling people who are asocial and antisocial and unable to form healthy relationships with other people (which happens to describe most of the shooters and bombers who commit mass killings).
That–identifying, reporting, and controlling asocial and antisocial people–is probably a much better application of public health resources and is likely to have a greater effect on reducing non-black firearm and bomb deaths than anything else. For African-Americans, I’m not sure what effect it would be if most firearm deaths and injuries are gang-related.
@StevenTorrey: “Per capita or percentage becomes meaningless. Death by gunfire is the leading cause of death–the # 1 cause– in the Black Community for males between age 15-35. That statistic comes from the CDC.”
Let’s assume you’re correct. Given that African-Americans are the least likely to admit to owning guns (http://www.gallup.com/poll/160223/men-married-southerners-likely-gun-owners.aspx) and–assuming–there is a significant difference between the causes of death for black people and for others, then the primary factor for the different outcomes isn’t likely to be guns. Instead, the most likely factor will be something correlated with being Black–biological, cultural, or social–more than what’s common between them and other Americans (which includes gun rights).
The failure to focus on these factors, primarily due to a desire to avoid the aura of racism and an unwillingness or inability to separate black culture from black racial identity and black phenotype, is probably the greatest disservice we have towards black victims of crime.
And the psychotic screed of the NRA gun nut psychos reduces itself to the notion that America should accept the murder of 20 children between age 6 and 7 with a Bushmaster AR15 as 2nd Amendment collateral damage. Joe the Plumber’s cynical assertion–“The death of those children does not trump the 2nd Amendment”–speaks to how sick and disgusting these NRA gun nut psychos are.
Gun control simply means that people have to register their weapons with the State; people have to pass a background check on criminal behavior or psychiatric history, a limit to magazine size; prohibits certain types of ‘assault weapons’ like the Bushmaster AR 15, M16, AK47, Uzi, etc. The NRA contribution is to encourage training in the use of that weapon, security of that weapon, and a lobby for gun owners and manufacturers. With 310 million weapons in America–representing some 47 million households–plus or minus–society does not know, cannot predict who the next psycho-shooter is. The reality of randomness becomes a sad reality for lots of people–and not just the inner city. Nancy Lanza had every right to own those weapons, passed a background check, registered her weapons with the state–not for a moment did she think that her weapons would be used for demonic purposes; the NRA gun nut psychotic screed ignores this reality of gun ownership. That the owner may descend to alcohol addiction, meth addiction, suicidal depression, jealousy, blind rage, or lunacy–The NRA gun nut psychotic screed wants to posit a notion that all gun owners are sane–when reality tells us something different. And the very fact of 310 million guns–creates a reality where every church, every school, every plaza, every mall, every street corner requires an armed guard to prevent the randomness from misuse of that weapon… A madness of logic. Bloomberg, Malloy, Obama, etc–speak to those innocent victims of gun violence–who had an equal right to peaceable assembly without fear of being gunned down.
The truth of the matter–Excedrin is just another lunatic with a computer; the verbiage is something like diarrhea of the brain and mouth… an unending psychotic screed…
And those arbitrarily labeling and dehumanizing “Open Carry Harries” are defending nothing but their own overt bigotry on all levels.
Which means you.
More cogent and honest than anything you or anyone you misquote has to say on the matter, that’s for damn sure.
@Bobby — A whole helluva lot more poignant, not to mention 100% factual which is in fact wholly unlike you and your lot, than literally anything you’ve had to say here thus far.
81,000 gun shot wounds requiring ‘medical intervention’ sounds like a health care crisis. Never mind how many of those require life-time medical attention after the wound, never mind those with permanent physical damage… (Talking to you Excedrin is akin to talking to Hitler–manipulating language and reality to suit your own demonic purpose.)
@Steve — The statistics “gun deaths”, which don’t exist because guns do not cause death and there is absolutely zero empirical evidence of this published anywhere, doesn’t make it a healthcare issue just because YOU say so. What’s worse is that literally YOUR only (non)argument is that YOU say it is.
It is NOT a healthcare issue. It never was. It is never going to be. It IS a Constitutional issue, which MAKES it a LEGAL issue, and from that stems an issue of guns for self-defense.
Except that it’s absolutely not a “Straw Man” argument to automatically assume that gun control advocates are in fact “gun haters” — because that is exactly the only thing they are and that they themselves have conclusively proven themselves to be.
Our “own good” ONLY flows from the “stamp-our-feet” protection of our rights in the first place.
ALL morality is subjective, a clear lesson taught by history that YOU seem to conveniently ignore.
Oh, and one more thing: we are NOT a democracy. We are a Republic. Go back to civics class — and PASS it this time.
You conveniently forget the cold, concrete fact that according to the Australian Institute of Criminology AND the Australia Bureau of Statistics have both already concluded that gun control had absolutely zero effect in either crime nor suicide.
There were in fact also at least FIVE more massacres after 1996. Four of them arsons, which killed more than a dozen people apiece. Don’t forget the Monash University shooting in 2010, either.
Also, according to your own government’s latest Facts and Figures, violent crime still has NOT fallen back to pre-1996 levels, either, almost 20 years later. Firearms theft has also INCREASED by over 50%, with more than half of the targeted homes in the thefts being in compliance with storage laws.
MOST Australians — save for you, naturally — readily do deny that their country is safer today, and that is because it simply is not.
@Holt — Not really, being that he in fact IS a left-wing politician. It’s funny that you bring up the NY Times, too, because they have THIS to ay about “assault weapons” (which don’t even exist by the way):
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
In other words, it’s a dead end. Just like ALL gun control is. So uh, NO, Australia should NEVER have banned guns at all and the U.S. WON’T. Not again on a national level anyway.
The only sure way to obviate the need to apply a Second Amendment solution against a tyrannical government, is for the people to possess the means to do it. May we always have it, that we never need it.
Fear the government that fears your guns.
Without reading all 300+ posts, I will assume that nobody has made the following points.
Regarding the quality of what passes for gun “research” in the medical/public health community, I would refer you to this old (1995) but still valid article: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/58tenn.pdf
This article is not free, but some of you may be able to get a copy through your school library. A critique of the epidemiologic study of firearms and homicide, published in Journal of Homicide Studies, in 1997. Here is a link to the citation: http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/1/2/169.refs
I also didn’t see much in the way of data presented, so here is some for your reading pleasure.
There are about 300,000,000 guns in circulation, and most of them cannot be traced to their current owners. Assuming ~10,000 gun related homicides a year, we see that about 0.003% of guns are used in homicide, and, assuming 20,000 gun-related suicides, that about 0.0067% are involved in suicide.
We can also estimate the percent of gun owners involved in each event. A reasonable estimate of the number of gun owners is 50,000,000, including all the law-abiding non-criminals, the criminals, and the seriously mentally ill. Making all the same assumptions as above, we see that about 0.02% will be involved in a homicide. Of course, we already know that seriously mentally ill account for a small proportion of homicides, while inner-city youth who already cannot legally own a gun account for a very large (half? more than half?) proportion of homicides, although they make up a very small proportion of the population. It follows, although the exact data are not readily available, that the percent of non-mentally ill non-criminal gun owners involved in homicide is extremely low.
The situation for suicide is a bit different, as the mentally ill are over represented in that population.
“Even by the standards of the usual NRA gun nut psycho stupidity and thoughtlessness…”
Your overt bigotry indicates that you cannot have a rational discussion on this topic.
Jack,
Nice article, and I agree with it.
Good article.
Think what you want but there are simply way more deaths from medical errors yet you want to blame an inanimate object. Now who’s “stupid and thoughtless?” smh
You best hope those doctors are paying attention when they treat those 81,000 gun wounds. Even by the standards of the usual NRA gun nut psycho stupidity and thoughtlessness–your comment was extremely stupid and thoughtless.
StevenTorrey said: “The statistics of gun deaths–8,855 homicides, 20,000 suicides, 81,000 gun injuries makes gun violence a health care issue–not a Constitutional issue, not a legal issue, not even an issue of guns for self-defense. It becomes a health care issue.”
There are way, way, way more deaths due to “medical errors” than guns, Now who do we know that’s involved with ‘medicine?” Doctors? Right! So doctors should stick to addressing medical errors. They’ve got way more to work on than deaths due to guns.
Too many people die each year from car accidents and that’s a public health issue, so let’s ban all forms of transportation. That’s liberal logic. LOL
Govt knows better than you and because anyone makes a mistake, Govt will punish everyone by revocation of your privileges and rights,
How long before we have no rights and privileges left? Just eat, sleep, work, and repeat with no recreation, freedom, etc because life is too dangerous?
Brilliant!
@StevenTorrey
Communities do not make choices. Individuals make choices. Some individuals choose, against the ‘choice’ of their community, to be criminals, and engage in criminal behavior.
No matter what you might choose to do, others will choose to own guns and to commit crimes.
Crime isn’t a health care issue.
@StevenTorrey: “And the Black community can only address that by making an existential choice not to own those guns… ”
Umm…
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160223/men-married-southerners-likely-gun-owners.aspx
At least according to Gallup, 3/4 or more of non-whites don’t own guns. They are already complying with your idea except…
“60% of gun homicides afflicts the Black community; the Black community has to address that question.”
So, in other words, the problem might be black people’s culture or it might be what happens when criminals have guns and most people do not. However, that would challenge…
“But as so often–the solution is NO GUNS.”
“Have gun / will bully…. The gun deludes people into thinking they are automatically ‘good guys with a gun’ when that assertion needs to challenged. No one can guarantee that their weapon will not be used for purposes of the demonic.”
Actually, overall, civilians with permitted weapons who carry generally use those guns less than other people. Which sort of questions your assertion of “have gun/will bully”. The exception, of course, is often police officers who have both a gun, a uniform, and a belief in their own authority.
I understand your desire to reduce the costs of violence, but I’m thinking you may need to look closer at the relative power in these situations–in terms of tools (guns) and authority (police and minority)–as well as individual and population behavior, especially that with regards to cultural effects.
Not to try and paraphrase an old aphorism about guns and politeness, but when multiple people are armed, trying to be a bully ends up being a very, very costly exercise and it’s much more likely that such people–at the very least, among armed peers–become quite polite and cooperative with each other.
@StevenTorrey: “The 81,396 comes from the CDC… I’ve heard this nonsense about more deaths from other causes… Which is true… But the discussion is about gun injuries or gun deaths; the question is whether this constitutes a ‘public health issue’, the question is what kinds of steps can society take to prevent this from happening. I know you don’t want emotionalism–but when I see that a Black 8 year old child is killed because a black thug shot blindly through a door for gang revenge… Then gun ownership becomes a public health issue. And guess what the answer is–NO GUNS…”
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/Collaboration/universities/artisan-small-arms.pdf
Turns out Africa has a problem. In some regions, their blacksmiths who used to turn out farming implements are creating copies of AK’s and making zip guns.
http://www.mexicosdrugwar.com/weapons-trafficking/
Also, while a significant quantity of Mexican guns–which are generally banned outside of special permits–may come south from the US, many–especially the harder hitting stuff–comes in from elsewhere.
How in the world can you realistically expect to eliminate all guns in the United States while 1) maintaining access to modern manufacturing processes 2) without completely securing the border against illegal trafficking of guns (while drugs can’t even be stopped) and 3) removing millions of guns already in civilian hands without creating a much greater health problem than already exists?
So, from a public health perspective, removing gun possession from the equation is likely to end up costing more than 80,000 deaths. Additionally, the transition doesn’t address the underlying demand for guns nor the criminal activity and culture which exists in many areas and–while facilitated by imbalances of firearm possession–do not depend on firearms for their threat.
Any public health policy with regards to firearms ownership must take into account the costs in terms of lives and cooperation with other policies–including compliance with policies regarding immunizations which has the potential of killing millions–when trying to prescribe or proscribe gun policies in the US. Additionally, a realistic public health policy should at least offer tacit recognition that criminal culture and elements of other US subcultures amenable to criminal activity are likely to engage in some level of learning and offset the (potential) loss of firearms in an adaptive, casualty producing manner.
For example:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/whatever-happened-to-londons-knifecrime-epidemic-9251165.html
Knife crime in a “gun free” country…
SteveTorrey:
How about this statistic that came from the CDC. The defensive uses of firearms in the united states if over three million. This statistic is coming from a study that the NRA actually attempted to halt. They filed a lawsuit because such studies are not allowed due to a law congress passed. Well guess what, after their attempts to halt the study and Obama signed an executive order to fund the study, the study came up with three million defensive uses.
I see it now. Laying on my proctologist table, as he does his thing, and asking me if I have guns at home. That’s government intrusion.
Per capita or percentage becomes meaningless. Death by gunfire is the leading cause of death–the # 1 cause– in the Black Community for males between age 15-35. That statistic comes from the CDC. The NRA gun nut psychos like to make up statistics–reality. There are more like 108,000 uses of guns for self-defense-=-not the 2.5 million the NRA gun nut psychos like to flaunt. The FBI says there are 258 justifiable–self-defense–homicides. The gun is the INSTRUMENT; the shooter is the AGENT– a basic course in philosophy.
@MyTwoCents: “Fix the problem, tool bans do not reduce crime!”
I don’t know. The ban of teaching black people to read during the Antebellum peri