The AMA, Firearms, and Intellectual Dishonesty

[jazzhound]

Here's a piece pulled from the Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws website:

Conclusion

"The AMA has lent its name, logo, prestige, and funding to the production of "educational" information for its members and their patients (the booklet includes a tear-out sheet to give to them) which is scientifically unsound, politically biased, and intellectually dishonest. It is an embarrassment to have a professional association which declares itself dedicated to science produce a publication that falls so short of basic academic tenets of honesty and fairness. The authors of the Physician Firearm Safety Guide clearly believe that their point of view would not be persuasive if they presented the evidence in an even-handed manner and allowed their readers to evaluate the evidence on their own. AMA members might consider whether they approve of their dues being spent to produce propaganda that so insults their intelligence."

http://www.dsgl.org/Articles/woolley.htm

[JDPriestly]

1. I suppose that a medical student who spends Saturday nights

in the emergency room at the LA County Hospital has a different view of gun rights than say, someone who lives on a farm in Wyoming. That's the problem with gun laws in the US.

Two things create nightmares for students in emergency rooms across the country: what cocaine and guns can do to young brains. I imagine that it is very sad to see a really young, really promising human life lying in front of you, lost forever.

But then, on the other hand, I've heard that there is a plague of wild turkeys in Iowa that needs to be brought under control.

The doctors' view is different from the hunters'. Each has the right to express his or her opinion. We need to hear both.

[Scuba]

2. You're missing the point...

...the point being that the article is intentionally misleading.

[GreenStormCloud]

3. You are combining both illegal and legal gun ownership and use.

When the doctor sees an attempted robber in the ER with a couple of bullets in him, he only sees a patient. When he saw a convenience store clerk shot by that same robber the week before, he only saw a patient. That is as it should be. But society has a right to see a huge difference between an innocent victim getting shot or that same victim defending themselves by shooting the perp. Sadly, many in society don't see a difference in the two.

[JDPriestly]

8. I'm not talking about the legal rights and wrongs.

You have a point on that level. I'm talking about the emotions of the doctors.

They really don't care, as you point out, whether a gun is legal or illegal, whether the owner does or does not have a license. They also don't care whether a drunk driver has a license. They see the damages bullets and recklessly driven cars do. And when they form opinions about guns and drunk drivers, they are influenced by their personal experience.

If someone close to you is the innocent victim of a reckless driver or a reckless shooter, you have a different attitude about reckless driving or guns than someone who enjoys shooting pheasants on hunting trips with his dad. Both experiences deserve consideration when making laws.

[TPaine7]

16. Doctors should be more rational than that.

And when they form opinions about guns and drunk drivers, they are influenced by their personal experience.

Of course not all doctors are irrational. There is a well known group of doctors who support gun rights. Their name escapes me.

Regarding the other doctors, I have a question. If they have enough reasoning power to form (bad) opinions about "drunk" or "reckless" drivers--as opposed to say, cars--why don't they have enough reasoning power to form (bad) opinions about felons in possession and careless gun owners, as opposed to guns?

The answer is in my sig line.

I would ask you too, why you get it right in the first half of your last sentence--"the innocent victim of a reckless driver or a reckless shooter"--and then revert to a false equivalency--"you have a different attitude about reckless driving or guns"? You grasp the truth, and then it slips like sand through your fingers.

Guns also have utility as demonstrated by human experience. Cars transport people; guns--at least guns in the hands of honest, competent people--save lives. Both are necessary.

[JDPriestly]

17. I don't know if this is still the case,

but appellate court decisions in New York State stated that the only purpose for guns is to kill.

I'm not opposed to guns. I just understand why many doctors don't like them.

Remember, it's not just bad guys who put guns to their only purpose and kill, it's also wonderful people who simply make mistakes or who lose control just once, just for a short time.

And then, of course there are the gun accidents involving children with, on occasion, innocent children killing innocent children, causing injury to or loss of innocent life.

So, it is understandable that doctors might not like guns. Doctors fight to save the lives of the victims of guns -- whether used by criminals or non-criminals. And remember, you don't have to be a criminal to kill another person, perhaps someone you love, with a gun.

[GreenStormCloud]

18. Wonderful people who lose control is a myth.

If "wonderful people" can't be trusted with guns, why do you trust them with kitchen butcher knifes?

[JDPriestly]

19. There are lots of accidents involving knives, but knives have purposes

as for instance for cooking and eating other than killing or harming or threatening killing or harming.

Good heavens. I'm not saying wonderful people can't be trusted with guns. I am not opposed to guns.

Guns don't just shoot people. They can also be used for hunting and for sport although their purpose in hunting is to kill an animal and in sport to simulate killing.

But I understand why a lot of doctors might want strict gun laws. After all, driving cars is strictly regulated, and all modern cars have to have certain safety features such as seat belts. Further, we have speed limits on our highways and streets.

Wise people keep knives away from children.

Fire can also kill. But fire, like a knife has a purpose other than killing. We try to keep children away from matches also.

I've known people who dance or play with fire and knives -- but at their own peril.

[GreenStormCloud]

23. It is a matter of trust of people.

If a "wonderful person" can't be trusted with one dangerous tool, why should that same person be trusted with a different dangerous tool? The original purpose of the tool is irrelevant. It is the will of the person that matters.

Wonderful people suddenly snapping in a moment of anger is a myth. People who do that have a history of violence, altough it may be a hidden history.

[JDPriestly]

28. Wonderful people do snap in a moment of anger.

As in moments of anger in divorces. It happens. Think about it.

[GreenStormCloud]

29. Snap into a murderous rage? Nope.

People who are prone to such outbursst of anger will release them at lower thresholds. They will have a history of violence.

Read The Gift of Fear

[JDPriestly]

36. Spousal abuse is often the only apparent history of violence,

and the perpetrator's family and friends shield the violent person from prosecution or even having to admit to his or her violent conduct.

[Callisto32]

52. Spousal abuse is a hell of a history, though.

You ever been around for a spat of spousal abuse? I have, a number of times. I'd say that swings away from the point you are trying to make. A person who only beats upon those he purports to love? I put him in a category of dirtbag aggressors even lower than your common thug. I'd say a person has to be much more inherently violent to beat upon his family than upon strangers.

[GreenStormCloud]

55. That is still a violent history, even if it isn't public knowledge.

The Gift of Fear discusses that too. It really is an excellent book.

[jazzhound]

30. We do think about it, but more importantly ----- we *research* it.

What you are describing is actually a very rare event when you STUDY crime statistics.

And you can't do an honest cost/benefit analysis of firearms without honestly evaluating the lives protected with guns via defensive use.

Have you honestly researched defensive gun use? If so, what are your thoughts on the matter?

[Euromutt]

35. That's pretty much a myth

From The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker (mentioned by GreenStormCloud above):

Though leaving is the best response to violence, it is in trying to leave the most women get killed. This dispels a dangerous myth about spousal killings: that they happen in the heat of argument. In fact, the majority of husbands who kill their wives stalk them first, and far from the "crime of passion" that it's so often called, killing a wife is usually a decision, not a loss of control. Those men who are the most violent are not at all carried away by fury. In fact, their heart rates actually drop and they become physiologically calmer as they become even more violent.

Even the phrase "crime of passion" has contributed to our widespread misunderstanding of this violence. That phrase is not the description of -- it is the description of an excuse, a defense. Since 75 percent of spousal murders happen after a woman leaves, it is estrangement, not argument, that begets the worst violence.

[JDPriestly]

37. I've known of angry spouses who used cars or other dangerous things

to harm their families, but guns are the most certain instruments of destruction. Guns make the act seem somewhat impersonal, I suspect. I have pointed out repeatedly that I am not opposed to gun ownership, but I am opposed to gun fanaticism. Guns should, like cars and knives, always be approached with cautious suspicion.

In the exuberance to defend the right to won a gun, people really forget that, as with cars and knives and other dangerous things, we always need to be responsible in exercising the right. When a person loudly opposes all gun regulation, I suspect that person is speaking from an emotional point of view and shutting of reason. A reasonable person understands that while we speak of the right to own a gun, as with the right to free speech, we have to use the right in a way that completely respects the rights of others.

I have the right to live in a safe neighborhood in my big city. I do not want to live next to someone with a huge gun collection.

We once had a burglary. The only thing that was stolen was a gun which we had bought during the LA riots and which we thought we had hidden away very carefully. There were no children in our house. We are responsible. The only thing stolen was the gun. It was very old and not very valuable. Having the gun did us more harm than good. The gun could just as easily been used against us by the burglar, had we entered our house while the burglar was in it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. Your post contains both an untruth and a non sequitur, in two consecutive sentences

I have the right to live in a safe neighborhood in my big city.

You (as well as everyone else) should be able to- but it's not a right. The courts have held repeatedly that there is
no entitlement to police protection. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, or Williams v. District of Columbia.

I do not want to live next to someone with a huge gun collection.

.

If your next-door neighbor has a huge gun collection, the chances are you live in a middle to upscale neighborhood
and are relatively safe. Guns do not emit "G-rays", so the size of the collection has nothing to do with how much
theoretical danger you are in. Study after study has shown that criminals convicted of gun crimes will tend to have
several prior convictions before the get busted commmiting a crime with a gun

That would be like saying you are in greater danger of being run over if your neighbor has a three-car garage.
Worry about his/her possible criminal record, instead.

[jazzhound]

50. Two things clearly displayed with this post

I do not want to live next to someone with a huge gun collection.

With this statement you show your clear bias against gun owners and demonstrate an irrational thought process. What a person will actually DO with firearms has absolutely NOTHING to do with how many he/she owns. Some people are collectors. Others just enjoy the different handling characteristics of various firearms.

We are responsible

Very obviously you are not responsible, since you didn't have your firearm safely secured while you were out of the house. As a result, you made yourself part of the problem by adding to the firearm supply in the hands of criminals. That is FAR from responsible.

[Callisto32]

53. Guns are hardly an impersonal way of killing something.

I've only ever shot animals, and then only for pest control(Rabbits and groundhogs really screw with my in-laws' farm) or butchering, because I feel a bullet to the brain is more humane than many of the other methods people use. I can see EVERY animal I have ever shot, and could describe to you in grizzly detail their last moments on Earth. Those images HAUNT me from time to time. Taking life is never impersonal, if you have half a heart.

[GreenStormCloud]

56. Very few of us oppose ALL gun regulation.

We do oppose gun regulations that are useless. Many gun regulations, such as microstamping, will actually accomplish nothing in crime fighting, but will make guns more expensive. For some laws, such as registration, criminals are exempt.

[Euromutt]

62. As noted in my post #61, Japan apparently sees a domestic murder-suicide every day

And given that it's exceedingly difficult to legally own even a single-shot rifle or shotgun in Japan, and illegal to own repeating long guns or any kind of handgun, it's a safe assumption that damn near all of these muri-shinju ("forced suicides") are committed by means other than firearms.

I notice you continue to use the word "angry"; I will reiterate that the criminological evidence indicates that intimate partner homicides are very rarely committed impulsively in a fit of anger. For the most part, they are committed with considered premeditation, and insofar as the rest are committed impulsively, it is by perpetrators with a prior history of and a low threshold for violence.

I have pointed out repeatedly that I am not opposed to gun ownership, but I am opposed to gun fanaticism.

You're going to have to forgive us if we treat that claim with skepticism. I get the distinct impression that the kind of gun ownership you claim to not be opposed to involves hunting weapons, maybe dedicated target weapons, probably all subject to licensing and registration. You're going to find that very few gun owners are amenable to that idea.

I have the right to live in a safe neighborhood in my big city.

You may have that desire (hell, doesn't everyone?) but nobody is under any obligation to actively provide that to you; nobody is responsible for your safety except you. There are already laws that make it a criminal offense to point a firearm at you, and certainly to discharge it, be it unintentionally or intentionally. But our criminal justice system is subject to the laws of physics, and can therefore only prosecute and punish people who endanger you after they have actually done so.

I do not want to live next to someone with a huge gun collection.

That, not to put too fine a point on it, is your lookout. I will point out that the risk to your safety potentially posed by a gun-owning neighbor does not increase with the size of his gun collection; it only takes one gun to suffer a negligent discharge that puts a bullet (or blast of steel birdshot) out of his house and into yours. And in fact, the less of an enthusiast a gun owner is, the more likely he is to make mistakes when handling a firearm.

But the risks attendant upon living next door to a legal gun owner pale next to those that come with living next to a drug dealer, or someone whom law enforcement suspects of dealing drugs. Nothing like having a home invasion take place next door. Or a SWAT raid; it's hard to tell the difference between the two anyway.

[one-eyed fat man]

65. Hidden gun stolen.

Here is a question. IF the gun was the only thing stolen, and as you say, carefully hidden, then I would suspect an inside job. Especially if the house was not ransacked. Somebody KNEW about that gun and broke in specifically to steal it. Very likely either a friend, family member, cleaning lady, trusted service man, etc took it, or blabbed to "somebody" about seeing it. You may even been overheard confiding to a friend "how much you wished the damn thing was out of the house" while having lunch at a restaurant.

That you were targeted because someone had specific knowledge would be even more likely if the break-in occurred during a preplanned absence like a dinner party, wedding, funeral or vacation.

A safe or a lock box may deter a casual or opportunistic burglar, but not a determined one armed with specific knowledge that something worth stealing is really there. One local cop who was known to have an extensive collection came home from a family vacation to discover someone had used his own tractor and hi-lift from the barn to break through the wall of his house and cart off his gun safe!

[jazzhound]

67. Professional thieves make off with valuables "expertly hidden" all the time

because they know where these "clever hiding spots" are. People tend to follow patterns, and foolishly think that the criminal won't think of looking in the spot where they've "cleverly hidden" their firearm.

Thieves rely heavily on the laziness and arrogance of the homeowner. Laziness in terms of hardening their home, and arrogance in terms of these "brilliant" hiding spots.

[one-eyed fat man]

69. targeted vs opportunistic.

There are really only two possible types of burglaries, targeted and deliberate, i.e, they broke in looking for something specific they knew, or strongly believed was there. Random, they spot a house where no one seems to be home, and break in hoping to find enough valuable stuff to make it worth the risk.

I will agree with your premise that even opportunistic thieves look for the "secret house key" hidden under the doormat or clever fake rock. Inside the house they are likely to ransack all the usual places people hide stuff. In those cases all the places the thieves looked will usually be evident as burglars are not known for neatness.

If only the gun was taken and the rest of the house was essentially undisturbed then the likelihood the gun was the specific target of the burglary is much greater. In that event, the question of who knew about it is often key to catching the thieves.

[Katya Mullethov]

73. Frank Frazetta's son did that recently to his gallery

Damned bizarre heist .

[aikoaiko]

12. Much like the police who think search and seizure laws interfere with getting the bad guys

The truth is that what freedoms we have left can be exploited by bad or careless people.

[Travis Coates]

13. I worked in the ER for several years

and saw far more MVAs than GSWs. I'm far more concerned with getting everyone in seatbelts than I am worried about guns

[JDPriestly]

20. In what city did you work in the ER?

I believe that the USC, Los Angeles, County hospital used to have the most gun victims. You are correct. Auto accidents are the biggest problem. But as I pointed out in some other posts, automobiles, knives, fire, nearly everything that is dangerous have purposes other than killing. Courts have ruled that the only purpose for guns is to kill.

If someone is killed in a car because the car malfunctions, the person may be able to sue the car company for negligence. Used to be and may still be, however, that if someone is shot by a gun, they cannot sue the company that made the gun for negligence -- because the gun is serving the very purpose for which it was manufactured and sold -- to kill or injure. That's what guns are for.

As I have explained, I am not opposed to guns. I understand that killing wild turkeys or deer or animals that are eating a farmer's crops may be a very good thing. But we have to understand why people may object to guns. Everyone is entitled to express their opinion on this issue.

I am suspicious of people who are overly enthusiastic about gun rights. I don't question gun rights, but all rights are subject to regulations -- even the right of free speech. Every right has to be exercised responsibly. Gun enthusiasts need to remember that. Information that is anti-gun reminds us about just how dangerous guns are. That's a good thing to remember.

[Travis Coates]

22. Tacoma WA and Colorado Springs

Oddly enough two cities W/ pretty lax regulations on guns.

Courts have ruled that the only purpose for guns is to kill.

Cite please?


If someone is killed in a car because the car malfunctions, the person may be able to sue the car company for negligence. Used to be and may still be, however, that if someone is shot by a gun, they cannot sue the company that made the gun for negligence -- because the gun is serving the very purpose for which it was manufactured and sold -- to kill or injure. That's what guns are for.

Key difference being,the car malfunctions, You make no mention of the gun doing such. I would guess that in an actual gun malfunction the manufacturer would be on the hook

As I have explained, I am not opposed to guns. I understand that killing wild turkeys or deer or animals that are eating a farmer's crops may be a very good thing. But we have to understand why people may object to guns. Everyone is entitled to express their opinion on this issue.

On this we agree

I am suspicious of people who are overly enthusiastic about gun rights. I don't question gun rights, but all rights are subject to regulations -- even the right of free speech. Every right has to be exercised responsibly. Gun enthusiasts need to remember that. Information that is anti-gun reminds us about just how dangerous guns are. That's a good thing to remember.

I'm suspicious of people who are overly enthusiastic about restricting my right to self defense w/ "common sense regulation" and "reasonable restrictions" Prior to 1968 firearms were much more readily available than now but there was less crime. Now, private gun ownership continues to climb while accident gun deaths and the violent crime rate go down.

maybe the guns aren't the problem.

[JDPriestly]

27. If you are a doctor, then you have known many people who are mentally ill.

Do you think that mentally ill people, people who have been determined by a Court to be so depressed that they pose a danger to themselves or others should have the right to own a gun?

If not, do you think that it makes common sense to deprive a person of a right to self-defense merely because that person is clinically depressed?

People don't risk loss of life simply because they are not permitted to have a driver's license. But if you accept the idea that prohibiting people from having guns puts them at risk of death, then doesn't depriving a mentally ill person of the right to own a gun also put that person at risk of death?

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I have actually wondered about the logic of this for a long time. What do you think? Why should the mentally ill be deprived of the right to participate in the theoretical militia referred to in the Second Amendment or even of the basic right to be able to defend himself against a theoretically armed intruder into his home?

The hospital in Los Angeles that I mentioned, USC, used to see record numbers of gunshot wounds each year. I don't know if it still sees more than other hospitals. I know someone who went to medical school there. That is how I obtained my information.

[GreenStormCloud]

31. One doesn't need to be a doctor to have known some mentally ill people.

Guns require mature judgement to be able to be used safely. Mentally ill people don't have that judgement. They are also excluded from enlisting in the Armed Services. Sorry, but life itself isn't always fair.

[JDPriestly]

38. So you need a gun to be a safe. But the guy down the street who

was committed to a mental institution 30 years ago for severe depression doesn't need a gun. Does the fact that you and anyone else on the street can have a gun and he can't make him more or less safe.

[GreenStormCloud]

57. Tough luck. Life isn't always fair. Blind people can't drive either.

I would love to go back on the road as a truck driver, and take my wife with me to see all of our country. But I am forbidden by law to do so. I have an illness that took me off the road, by Federal regulation. With guns, society's concern is in keeping guns away from the unstable.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. He should have a process for re-obtaining that right, just as a felon might.

Possible to evaluate that person, and if whatever issue they had is cured, gone, or whatever, they should have all rights restored.

[Travis Coates]

32. I'm not a Dr. I'm a Nurse

Do you think that mentally ill people, people who have been determined by a Court to be so depressed that they pose a danger to themselves or others should have the right to own a gun?

They don't now. What on God's green Earth does that have to do W/ the topic at hand?

[JDPriestly]

It's just something I have always wanted to ask gun enthusiasts who

claim that everyone except ex-convicts and the mentally ill should be able to have guns. The OP was opposing the fact that the AMA expressed its opinion about guns.

So we get a lot of gun fanatics here who argue that the right to own a gun should be nearly absolute because guns are necessary for self-defense.

One way that you test an argument is to apply its claim to every conceivable fact pattern. Does the rule always apply to every situation that might arise? If not, is there a rule that does apply to every situation?

It's easy to say everyone needs a gun for self-defense except people who are x,y,z. But if you so contend, you must be able to support your contention. If everyone needs a gun because it is so important for self-defense, then why can't x,y,z also have guns? If guns are so important to insure self-defense, why exclude any group from having them?

Remember that many of the people we decide are crazy after they commit some mass murder could have obtained a gun permit. They eshibited unusual behavior, but no one realized that they were that mentally ill until after they committed their crimes. I'm interested in hearing how gun rights fanatics answer this question that has puzzled me for so long.

[Travis Coates]

40. I'm all for certain classes of convicts having a way

to get their rights restored. So I guess qualify as a "fanatic"

On edit

Why the concern about mentally ill people and guns? Can you cite an instance of a member here stating the mentally ill should be allowed access to fire arms?

There are far worse ways to go ever seen a person OD on Acetaminophen? It shuts down your liver and you die a slow painful nasty death maybe we should ban tylenol

IMO I feel that anyone who hasn't proven themselves to be a danger to themselves or others should have the option of using a firearm for self defense.

[GreenStormCloud]

58. The OP was complaining about the AMA being dishonest.

One would expect intellectual honesty and rigor from a supposed scientific organization, but the AMA fails in this case. They have a right to express their opinion and we have a right to challenge their opinion.

Some people have shown themselves to be too dangerous to society to be allowed to have guns legally. The danger they represent to society outweighs their need for self-defense.

[cowman]

46. I'm a Firefighter/Paramedic

with the Las Vegas Fire&Rescue for 35 years and I have seen far more MVA's than gun violence yet I don't abhor vehicles. My daughter is a Las Vegas Metro Police Officer who has seen lots of GSW's wounds and yet she is adamant about the RKBA. Dr's should know better that guns are only a tool that can be abused.

[Euromutt]

24. I can understand you'd form such a view in those circumstances; however...

...the experiences of E.R. personnel do not amount to more than anecdotal evidence. As GreenStormCloud pointed out, a convenience store clerk shot by a robber and a drug gang member shot by a member of a rival crew look pretty similar on a gurney. But what you don't see in the E.R. is a senior citizen who managed to avoid being severely beaten by a mugger, or a shopkeeper who wasn't knifed or bludgeoned by a robber, because both were able to drive the assailant to flight by presenting a handgun (without a shot being fired), or a toddler who wasn't mauled by a vicious dog because the kid's parent was able to shoot it. Trying to get an unbiased view of private firearms ownership in an E.R. is equivalent to trying to get an unbiased view of marriage in a battered women's shelter.

And not to put too fine a point on it, given that you're talking about an E.R. in Los Angeles, one of the more restrictive jurisdictions in a state considered by the Brady Campaign to have the best record of any on firearms regulation, your experience should have told you a thing or two about the effectiveness of gun laws.

When an outfit like the AMA puts its name to a publication, there is an expectation that the issue in question will have been examined in accordance with the scientific method, gathering and scrutinizing the evidence both supporting and contradicting the hypothesis. An entirely one-sided approach working towards a predetermined conclusion isn't science; it's propaganda.

<...> appellate court decisions in New York State stated that the only purpose for guns is to kill.

Legal opinions are just that: opinions. According to another court ruling, George Bush won the 2000 presidential election. But assuming for the sake of the argument that the opinion is correct, and assuming for the moment the veracity of the implied assertion that inflicting violent death in a civil society is ipso facto wrong, why do we authorize law enforcement officers to carry and use firearms? Could it be that, at a minimum, firearms can be legitimately employed to prevent harm to innocent life or limb, even if it requires inflicting (potentially) fatal trauma on the assailant?

And what makes you think that hunters are representative of legal gun owners? Eighty percent of American gun owners don't hunt, and many of those who do also own firearms for other purposes, including self- and home defense. Obama's "I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne" line is self-contradictory; if "what works in Chicago" (or Compton, CA) doesn't work in Cheyenne (or Red Oak, IA), that has to be because guns don't cause crime, and that means that "what works in Chicago" is based on an incorrect premise. Which goes a long way to explaining why it does not, in fact, work.

[Travis Coates]

33. Actually you do

But what you don't see in the E.R. is a senior citizen who managed to avoid being severely beaten by a mugger, or a shopkeeper who wasn't knifed or bludgeoned by a robber, because both were able to drive the assailant to flight by presenting a handgun (without a shot being fired), or a toddler who wasn't mauled by a vicious dog because the kid's parent was able to shoot it.

Well, maybe not the last one so much but the first to are likely to be so freaked out that the stretcher fetchers will bring them in just to monitor them.

[GreenStormCloud]

66. My wife wasn't brought in for monitoring.

She used her gun to save her own life by scaring a mugger away. She was already a senior citizen at the time, is a frail woman, and would have been unlikely to survive the mugging. After the incident, she pur in a full day's work. At the time she was vice-president of purchasing for a company of about 50 employees.

[Travis Coates]

34. Actually you do

But what you don't see in the E.R. is a senior citizen who managed to avoid being severely beaten by a mugger, or a shopkeeper who wasn't knifed or bludgeoned by a robber, because both were able to drive the assailant to flight by presenting a handgun (without a shot being fired), or a toddler who wasn't mauled by a vicious dog because the kid's parent was able to shoot it.

Well, maybe not the last one so much but the first two are likely to be so freaked out that the stretcher fetchers will bring them in just to monitor them.

[JDPriestly]

41. Of course, guns don't cause crimes, but the up the ante when a crime is

committed. And, yes, if guns were completely illegal, criminals would find a way to get them -- by stealing them if necessary.

My point is not that people should not have guns. If you go to Switzerland or Austria, you will find a pretty low crime rate combined with centuries of the tradition of hunting -- and gun ownership. Clearly, gun ownership in itself is not the problem.

Our homicide statistics are pretty bad. Are we an angrier society?

This website shows homicide rates per country in 2000. I'm sure that they have changed. There is bound to have been an increase in the rate in Mexico, for instance. But compare the murder and homicide rates in the U.S. and Switzerland. Note that gun violence is even more prevalent in Eastern Europe and South America than it is here. Why do you think that is so?

cnn.com/

Gun ownership of course is not the essential problem. But attitudes in our culture regarding guns and gun ownership are a huge problem. Just what the answer is, I do not know. But certainly a good starting point is to cut down on the belligerent, defensive rhetoric by gun fanatics.

If gun lovers want to argue in favor of gun ownership, they need to take responsibility for ending the culture in the community of gun owners that causes so much gun violence.

I can't change that culture because I am not a part of the gun lovers' community. I am pretty neutral about guns. You can see what happens when someone like me who is neutral simply shows sympathy for the distress of doctors who have to deal with the victims of gun violence -- no matter who they are.

The only people who have the power to change the attitudes in the gun owners' community are the gun owners themselves. To do that, they, like alcoholics or overeaters have to admit that there is a problem, and that only they can solve it. There is a problem in our society. That chart, old as it is, shows it.

[Travis Coates]

42. Your disdain of "gun lovers" is only barely concealed

If gun lovers want to argue in favor of gun ownership, they need to take responsibility for ending the culture in the community of gun owners that causes so much gun violence.

By definition all gun violence is caused by gun owners just like all DUIs are committed by drivers (and again, I see them every friday night and a GSW maybe once or twice a month) and W/ 80 million gun owners in this country I'd say the percentage is pretty low

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. The problem doesn't lie with all gun owners, but with criminals who own guns

And the problems with the latter have decreased in recent years

We know this, and we have good, solid studies to back this up.

This is not a lack of "self-policing", but a criminological problem. Just as I would not take the advice of
a criminologist about whether or not to have surgery, I will not rely upon the advice of a medical professional in regards to crime.

[jazzhound]

45. "If gun lovers want to argue in favor of gun ownership.........

.............they need to take responsibility for ending the culture in the community of gun owners that causes so much gun violence."

What exactly is "the culture in the community of gun owners that causes so much violence"? If you are aware -- as you should be -- that the vast majority of gun crime is committed by persons with criminal backgrounds, how does it necessarily become the responsibility of law abiding gun owners (and not society at large) to solve the national gun crime problem? Do we suggest that citizens with breasts need to "step up" and lobby for solutions to breast cancer? People with diabetes to "step up" and confront childhood obesity?

How about if gun control proponents take some responsibility for creating gridlock in the dialogue with their refusal to publicly take prohibition off the table? Perhaps you're not aware that at one time or another all of the major gun control advocacy groups has advocated for prohibition?

To do that, they, like alcoholics or overeaters have to admit that there is a problem, and that only they can solve it.

Again........two problems with this remark:

1) Suggesting that gun owners deny that criminal abuse of firearms is a problem
2) Suggesting that only they can solve criminal abuse of firearms, and that it is the sole responsibility of law abiding gun owners to solve societal problems which rightfully need to be addressed by society at large.

[JDPriestly]

47. I have taken care of the gun culture problem in my life.

Someone stole the one gun we had in our household, and we never replaced it and do not plan to ever replace. Gun culture problem solved by this DUer.

And the criminal abuse of firearms is only part of the problem. There are a lot of gun accidents. There are also a lot of car accidents. That is why cars have to have a lot of safety features like seat belts and headlights as well as brake lights.

What changes could be made with regard to guns that could improve the record on safety as well as crimes with guns? When I think about gun safety, I, of course, always think about Cheney shooting his hunting companion in the face. Any ideas about how accidents like that could be avoided?

[jazzhound]

48. When you think about gun safety you *of course* think about the Cheney

incident? Wow. Perhaps you'd find it more productive to investigate such facts as how many gun accidents occur each year in the U.S. rather than focusing on isolated incidents. Fortunately for all of us, social policy isn't formed based on isolated incidents. At the risk of coming off abrasive, I sincerely doubt that you're aware that the number of gun accidents has been falling while the national gun stock has been increasing.......and the annual gun accident fatality rate has been running at around 1,400 for some time.

But as long as you're bringing up Darth Cheney ---- he's the perfect example to underline the fact that irresponsible gun owners are the problem ---- not the guns themselves.

You dodged my question w/regard to defining your odd, overly vague phrase "gun culture problem", but we'll let that go as I doubt you'll respond.

I also happen to agree with the member who has noticed your thinly veiled contempt for guns/gun owners.........so I'm not sure that continued dialogue would be productive.

[JDPriestly]

49. I think you have lots to think about.

Remember, I am not opposed to gun ownership. I just think that gun lovers should spend as much time advocating for the safe use of buns as they do blustering about gun rights. Nobody is taking away your gun as long as you are following the law in using and storing it.

[jazzhound]

51. Strawman argument

I never claimed that I thought anyone was "taking away my gun".

But I will agree with you that we all need to advocate for the safe use of buns! :-)

I'm done here.

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. And *I* think *you* should be advocating for ....

....better responses to incompetent, impaired, or unsafe medical practices - as they kill far more people in this country
than do gun owners, despite their being far fewer medical professionals than gun owners.

Do you lecture your colleagues and co-workers in the same manner as you do us?

[GreenStormCloud]

60. There are those who do wish to take away our guns.

They have been successful in some cities, such as DC and Chicago.

[one-eyed fat man]

68. A culture of criminality

The worst of gangsta rap has not merely reflected behavior but has also inspired it, much of it lawless and destructive. Its lyrics are paeans to murder and mayhem. It celebrates an outlaw culture that disrespects women, mocks middle-class values and preaches against any cooperation with police in catching criminals.

If it is better to be an outlaw than to be a teacher or a chemist or accountant, then young black men will continue to go to prison in record numbers. If it is more acceptable to be violent and reckless than to be a responsible father and husband, then marriage will continue to decline in black communities. If you want to ruin a nation, a society or an ethnic group, seduce its impressionable youth by the celebration of savage violence, educational failure and misogyny while persuading its members that the highest form of achievement lies in criminality.

There in lies the problem, it matters not how small a population actually "buy into" the thug lifestyle, the havoc, mayhem, and destruction that 5% unleash on their communities simply overwhelms the good and decent people. If you doubt the seductiveness and pervasive influence of "thug culture" explain why million dollar athletes find it "necessary" to adopt that persona going out to a nightclub?

[Katya Mullethov]

74. That may all be quite painfully true

But you can dance to it .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvrl2IW-GRc

[GreenStormCloud]

59. You are conflating LEGAL and ILLEGAL gun ownership.

The legal gun owning community does take responsibility very seriously. But we have no influence over the thug culture. The problem is violent thugs.

[Euromutt]

61. I'm far from convinced guns even up the ante

Or insofar as they do, it's because of the decision of the parties wielding them to acquire them. The number of firearms used for criminal purposes is a function of demand, not of supply.

Allow me to quote a piece written by Daniel Polsby (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/PolsbyFirearmCosts.htm) and published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in 1995:

Not only did the bull market for crack cocaine greatly multiply the number of illegal retail transactions that occurred (this being the point in the distribution chain that is most vulnerable to police intervention), but it also seems to have involved a new and younger class of distributors, taking advantage, perhaps, of the relative lenity of the juvenile justice system. <32> Juveniles' debut in this marketplace demanded a gun for protection of self, remittances, and inventory, and for sustaining a reputation that would facilitate treating one's elders on terms of proper respect. <33> To this parvenu class of criminals, the economic opportunities in the cocaine market were perceived to be greater, and may actually have been greater, than those that were available in the straight world, notwithstanding the enormous risks to life, limb, and liberty that resulted. <34>

With respect to the firearms side of this problem, it cannot be emphasized too strongly that one is dealing with a demand-led rather than a supply-led phenomenon--young men demanding guns as a means of self defense and self- realization. These young men are not merely using guns because large numbers of them are floating around, as mayors and police chiefs insinuate when they tell reporters that "there are too many guns out there." Recognizing this problem as a demand-side situation predicts the limited usefulness (if not futility) of public policies that seek to "dry up" the supply of guns.

Regarding international comparisons of homicide, my pet hypothesis is that homicide is more a function of culture than of national borders; essentially, homicide is more frequent in cultures in which a higher value is placed on personal self-image and the perception of how others regard you (aka "honor") than on human life. To some extent, this correlates with the status of being a socio-economic "have-not" as opposed to a "have," in that people who have few material possessions and little social status place a higher value on their personal "honor" and are concomitantly willing to kill to protect it. How this is expressed also depends on cultural background; young males among populations descended from black slaves in the Caribbean and North America (and by extension, Afro-Caribbeans in the UK) are liable to kill someone for showing "disrespect"; in south-west to central Asia (and globally dispersed members of the cultures of that region), male members of family/clan will murder a female who brings "dishonor" on it; the Japanese, having had the notion that murder is an unacceptable means of saving "face" forced on them, have taken to dealing with loss of "face" by killing themselves, and quite often taking one or more family members with them. The Japanese language has a distinct term for a familicidal murder-suicide: muri-shinju, or "forced suicide" (as opposed to ikka-shinju, in which an entire family collectively commits suicide). On average, at least one muri-shinju occurs in Japan every day (http://www.glocom.org/special_topics/social_trends/20040107_trends_s65/index.html) and a dirty secret about Japanese crime statistics is that all victims of a muri-shinju are counted as suicides, which goes some way to explaining why the official Japanese homicide rate is so low, and the suicide rate so high. Note that muri-shinju occur despite the extremely restrictive Japanese gun laws.

A lot of non-drug gang-related murders in the United States, specifically murders of members of the opposite sex (which are mostly male-on-female), are the result of a culturally generated attitude that regards rejection by a desired or actual partner as a slight to one's self-image: thus, men murder wives or girlfriends who (threaten to) leave them, or refuse to come back, and single parties in an extra-marital affair murder the other, married party when (s)he announces that (s)he will not leave his/her spouse for his/her lover.

Gun ownership of course is not the essential problem. But attitudes in our culture regarding guns and gun ownership are a huge problem. Just what the answer is, I do not know. But certainly a good starting point is to cut down on the belligerent, defensive rhetoric by gun fanatics.

To do that, you have go another step back along the chain; if the prominent gun control organizations (the Brady Campaign, VPC et al.) and their allies in Congress (Sens. Schumer & Lautenberg, Rep. McCarthy etc.) would explicitly acknowledge that there exists an individual right to own and carry firearms for self-defense, and focus on measures to reduce violent crime (including but not limited to that involving firearms), rather than embracing measure after measure apparently intended only to harass legal gun owners (and to restrict their ability to own firearms effective for self-defense), the gun rights lobby would have a lot less to be paranoid about.

Yes, American society has a problem. Whether the problem is the degree to which private ownership of firearms is legal is, however, highly disputable. As noted above, the Japanese manage to have a domestic murder-suicide on an almost daily basis in spite of less than 1% of the population legally owning a firearm (and even then, it's a single-shot rifle or shotgun; absolutely no handguns). Most homicides in Russia are committed by means other than firearms (stabbings and beatings are more usual) frequently under heavy influence of alcohol (the fact that the standard drunken utterance in Russia it "do you respect me?"--"Ты меня уважаешь?"--serves to support my hypothesis that hypothesis is fostered by cultural conditioning causing one to place a higher value on one's self-image than on human life).

[AtheistCrusader]

64. Hold on a second

I can't change that culture because I am not a part of the gun lovers' community. I am pretty neutral about guns. You can see what happens when someone like me who is neutral simply shows sympathy for the distress of doctors who have to deal with the victims of gun violence -- no matter who they are.

Deduct all crimes committed with firearms, and we still have a shockingly high murder rate. So you have a dog in this fight whether you like it or not, whether you belong to the firearm owning segment of the community or not.

Also, keep in mind, as a member of that 'gun lover's community' as you put it, I have ZERO input into the segment of society most likely to criminally mis-use a firearm. That being gang members. We don't 'hang out' at the range together, and they certainly won't be interested in any moral lecturing on my part.

If you want an illustration of how the 'gun loving community' handles social pressure around safety or mis-use, see the accidental firearm death rate, which has been declining since the 50's.

[safeinOhio]

4. No progress on gun violence

until diverse groups like the AMA and the NRA, both see the value of coming together to find ways to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals. It would be in both groups best interest to keep guns out the hands of those that are restricted by law from possession of handguns. The AMA ignores the value of self-defense, while the NRA is blind to any restrictions that reduce illegal use. I don't think anyone wants to be defenseless in the face of life threatening crime, just as no one wants to be the victim of illegal gun use.

[GreenStormCloud]

5. The NRA is not blind to provisions that actually work.

The problem is that most provisions are actually only feel-good laws that do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns, but instead make things difficult for the law-abiding.

[safeinOhio]

9. I don't think buying a gun from a FFL dealer

Makes it difficult to buy a firearm. They have to do a NICS background check. Making the same rule for private sales makes it no harder for legal gun buyers to do the same.

Not all crime guns are purchased that way, but many are. Slowing those sales would help keep guns out of the hands of those that can't buy one anywhere else works or there wouldn't be that requirement on store bought guns. That is not a feel good measure, it is a reasonable solution to part of the problem. Sorry if it is too much trouble for you to go to a dealer and get a background check for a private sale. Then again if it keeps some dirt bag from killing your wife or daughter it'd be worth all that terrible hassle for you.

[GreenStormCloud]

10. The NRA supports the NICS.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=217&issue=018

We continue to support legislative efforts that:

Improve the accuracy of NICS records

Reduce delayed approvals for firearm purchasers

Require federal and state governments to remove or update inaccurate records when discovered

Provide the NICS with information on events such as criminal expungements and removal of restraining orders, thus lifting a person’s prohibition on possessing firearms

Permanently prohibit the FBI from charging a “user fee” on NICS background checks

Ensure that mentally defective adjudications are limited to adjudications following adversarial hearings only, not a solely administrative finding or short-term diagnosis from a doctor, as often occurs in cases of depression or post-traumatic stress disorder. Remove mental disability records from the NICS if a judge determines that the person is no longer a danger to himself or others, or no longer requires involuntary treatment

Provide necessary funding for the NICS so that it can operate as accurately and quickly as possible, without unnecessary delays; and provide necessary funding for states to transmit records on prohibited classes of persons, so that the NICS is effective and efficient

Many of us here support opening the NICS to private sales, An alternative idea has been to mark driver's licenses with a small, discrete symbol that means the person is legal to own a firearm.

[safeinOhio]

11. They say nothing about

requiring NICS checks on private sales. They are against it. Which makes no sense if the criminal can buy from a private seller, what good does shoring up dealer NICS checks.

[hack89]

14. Since it is not a Federal issue

what are the odds of 50 states implementing such a law. Who is going to pay for it?

[GreenStormCloud]

15. Please point to where the NRA is against it. N/T

[aikoaiko]

6. Actually, there are plenty of people who don't think non-leo civilians should not have access to ...

...firearms for self-defense. Some of them post on this board. I know that's not what you said, but its relevant to point out the difference in starting positions.

It would be nice to see the AMA and NRA get close to the same page, but I'm not holding my breath.

The real trick is to think of gun laws that actually reduce crime but not by infringing on law abiding folks right to keep and bear arms.

[spin]

7. In today's society all we do is fight over issues like children in a school yard ...

We rarely solve any problems.

I agree that we should all work together to take firearms away from violent criminals. In most cases, all we have to do is enforce existing laws. The punishment for a criminal caught carrying an illegal weapon should be a lengthy time in prison.

Mayor Daley in Chicago has such a plan...

State Senate Passes Daley Gun Bill
April 29, 2010

A gun bill backed by Mayor Daley that calls for tougher punishment on those found guilty of unlawful use of a weapon has passed the State Senate. The bill calls for those convicted on the charge but without a Firearms Owners Identification card to be sentenced to one to three years in prison. As the law stands now, offenders are eligible for a lesser sentence of probation. The bill now heads to Gov. Quinn's desk after having unanimously passed both the State House and Senate.

The bill's passage is a boost to Mayor Daley, who's preparing himself for the Supreme Court's seemingly inevitable over-turning of the city's handgun ban. In a statement, Daley said, "This law reduces the threat of gun violence by sending a clear message that serious offenders will be held accountable and will not be let off scot-free as many of them are today...This bill protects the rights of law-abiding citizens, but also gives us another tool to combat violence in our neighborhoods and protect our children." Daley has supported several new gun-control proposals, including an assault weapons ban, but this seems to be the only one so far likely to become law. Looks like he's not taking the ISRA's advice about that vacation.
http://chicagoist.com/2010/04/29/state_senate_passes_daley_gun_bill.php

[Callisto32]

21. Agreeing with Daley makes me feel dirty...

[DonP]

25. It's just another plea bargaining chip

The courts have a great track record of allowing gun related offenses to be pled down to a lower rung.

"Your honor this is a good boy that went wrong one time and carried a gun for his older friend. He's not a career criminal or gang member - really he's not. Drop the weapons charges and find it in your heart to give him another chance to go home with his mother and be with the rest of his family."

It's an all too common refrain at 26th and California.

[jazzhound]

26. Agreed..........but I think it should be added that we'll see no progress

in negotiations between the two camps until the pro-control camp very loudly, and very publicly renounces prohibition as an ultimate option. Ultimately the responsibility for the polarization lies with them for this reason.

As some have observed, their failure to renounce prohibition makes negotiations for moderate and reasonable control impossible --- effectively undermining their interests. Unless their interest in NOT moderate and reasonable control. How else does one explain this behaviour which is so obviously against self-interest? Clearly, the PC'ers are banking on a political opening to implement more draconian gun "control".

It will be interesting to watch how this dynamic evolves. Will the pro-control crowd ever realize that their refusal to publicly renounce prohibition isn't working for them strategically and change course? I personally tend to doubt it, given the strength of the GCRDF (gun control reality distortion field) in disrupting brain function.

[jody]

39. AMA claims 22% of MDs and students as members but probably less. n/t

[jazzhound]

70. kick NT

[jazzhound]

71. kick NT

[Hoopla Phil]

72. Another classic worth of a kick.