So now that the 2nd is recognized, get ready for rising death tolls...


PDA






goon
July 10, 2008, 05:21 AM
I found this story after digging into something I read on Yahoo news:

Guns and Health

Jeffrey M. Drazen, M.D., Stephen Morrissey, Ph.D., and Gregory D. Curfman, M.D.


The Supreme Court has launched the country on a risky epidemiologic experiment. The announcement by the Court last month of its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 which struck down a ban on handgun ownership in the nation's capital, has set the stage for legal challenges to gun regulation in other major American cities. Such challenges have already been introduced in Chicago and San Francisco. If there is a widespread loosening of gun regulations, we will learn over the next few years in a before-and-after experiment whether the laws we had in place had a significant impact in mitigating death and injury from handguns. In our opinion, there is little reason to expect an optimistic result; research has shown and logic would dictate that fewer restrictions on handguns will result in a substantial increase in injury and death.

The Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision reflects the sharp division among the justices and a very narrow victory for the majority. Still, all the justices agreed that American society has a legitimate interest in regulating firearms. The disagreement lay in the extent of regulation that they found acceptable within the framework of the Constitution. The majority indicated that regulation must be limited to specific circumstances, such as gun ownership by felons and the mentally ill and the carrying of firearms in schools and public buildings, whereas the minority believed that more far-ranging regulation, including laws such as the District of Columbia's handgun ban, meets a constitutional standard.

We believe that closer regulation promotes the public health. In April, just after the oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller, we wrote that "health care professionals, whose responsibility it is to treat the wounded and the dying, have special reason to be concerned."2 In light of the Court's decision in the case, that concern has been magnified.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in concert with health authorities across the country, keeps careful records on the number of injuries and deaths that result from handgun use. In 2005, the last year with complete data, there were more than 30,000 deaths and 70,000 nonfatal injuries from firearms.3 About one quarter of the nonfatal injuries and a tenth of the deaths were in children and adolescents. To place these numbers in perspective, 10 times as many Americans die each year from firearms as have died in the Iraq war during the past 5 years. Firearm injuries represent a major public health problem that seems certain to be exacerbated with less handgun regulation.

It is well documented in the medical literature that regulation of guns benefits the public health. For example, a careful study4 demonstrated that the 1976 restrictive handgun law in the District of Columbia, which was the focus of the Heller case, resulted in an immediate decline of approximately 25% in homicides and suicides by firearms, but there was no such decline in adjacent areas that did not have restrictive laws.

With the weakening of handgun regulations, we are very concerned about the health of the public, especially young people, whose safety is disproportionately affected by firearms. We have a heightened concern about suicide, in which impulsivity may have an important role; ready access to a gun may significantly increase the risk of completion.5,6 We believe that a sensible level of regulation is essential. There is no language in the Constitution that would limit regulation. Indeed, the preamble to the Second Amendment includes the phrase "well-regulated" in reference to the use of firearms by militias. Given the diversity of geography and population in the United States, lawmakers throughout the country need the freedom and flexibility to apply gun regulations that are appropriate to their jurisdictions. The Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller may greatly reduce the latitude that legislators have had in setting firearm regulations for their localities.

With the Supreme Court's decision and the expectation of a substantial reduction in gun regulation, we are poised to witness another epidemiologic study of the effect of regulation on gun violence. With this experiment, which may play out in many American cities, we will know in the coming years whether the overturned laws reduced death and injury from handguns. The Court has heard the arguments and made its decision; we will now learn the human ramifications of this landmark case.

After reading this, I was left with two questions:
1. Exactly what these people think is going to happen now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Ammendment is an individual right?
2. What do they think has been going on for the last 500 years?


Guns exist people!
They existed long before any of us were born.
They've been around for about 500 years now in forms that we could recognize as small arms. They've been around for the ENTIRE LIFE of this nation dating back to colonial times.
And just as important, people in this country have pretty much always had access to them.
So why is it that now, only after Heller, guns will all the sudden become so much more common and ultimately lead to the downfall of our entire civilization?
Have any of these people stopped to consider that guns have always been around in this country, that they've always been legal, and that with a few notable exceptions, you could always buy one pretty much anywhere in this country?
Guess all we needed to start lining up on the streets and killing each other in Judge Dredd style "block wars" was for the USSC to rule that it was OK for us do what we've all been doing since about as long as any of us have been alive.

I can't believe someone even took the time to compose all that blissninny paranoia into an article.
:rolleyes:

Why can't they spend their time working on a cure for AIDS or cancer or acne - any damn thing that might actually benefit society rather than whining about how we'll all soon be facing each other down with guns blazing over the last open parking space at the local Wal-mart? :banghead::cuss:

OK. I'll shut up now.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMe0805629?query=TOC

If you enjoyed reading about "So now that the 2nd is recognized, get ready for rising death tolls..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Golden Hound
July 10, 2008, 05:26 AM
Let's face it - people with PhD or MD after their name usually have absolutely no idea what they are talking about when it comes to guns. By and large, they live inside a shell, they've spent their entire lives in some form of school - from high school to college to grad school and then back to college to teach. That is not a real life, it's a self-contained bubble.

Solo
July 10, 2008, 05:28 AM
Question 3: How does correlation equal causation?

H088
July 10, 2008, 05:32 AM
Clearly these people are constitutional scholars who know more about the constitution then SCOTUS.

Since far more accidental deaths occur in hospitals I suppose we need to ban them also, they must be kept in a non functioning state in order to prevent the tens of thousands of deaths each year caused by them.

Crunker1337
July 10, 2008, 05:33 AM
Guns may or may not be good for public health.
They are, however, very good for individual health.

HK G3
July 10, 2008, 05:33 AM
The deeper I go into the medical profession, the more I realize that a lot of these docs would have us live in an Authoritarian Dystopia, wherein every aspect of our lives would be governed by double-blind cohort studies, and statistical "fuzzy math."

If there's a correlation between A and B, they immediately declare that A causes B, despite absolutely no mechanistic evidence of this, and since B is bad, A is bad and needs to be banned or severely regulated.

My stance is doctors are here to give advice - I'm never going to beat a patient over the head or demand the government bans this or that. I'm merely going to tell them the truth, and if they choose to ignore it, or me, then fine. I don't have some God complex where I feel everyone should be compelled to do as I say.

Unfortunately, I really believe a lot of people in the medical establishment do have this God complex where they want to be allowed to dictate every aspect of people's lives, under the pretext that they know better than the individual, and therefore are helping people by thrashing their rights and freedoms.

/rant about medicine

7mmsavage
July 10, 2008, 06:14 AM
I remember some politician saying something similar when the AWB expired in 2004. I wish I could remember who said it or had the exact quote, but it was something about how irresponsible it was for George Bush to let the ban expire, and how the body bags would begin to pile up, filled with law enforcement officers.

Standing Wolf
July 10, 2008, 06:49 AM
It is well documented in the medical literature that regulation of guns benefits the public health. For example, a careful study4 demonstrated that the 1976 restrictive handgun law in the District of Columbia, which was the focus of the Heller case, resulted in an immediate decline of approximately 25% in homicides and suicides by firearms, but there was no such decline in adjacent areas that did not have restrictive laws.

If not for lies, leftist extremists would have nothing to say.

nelson133
July 10, 2008, 07:05 AM
The big joke here is that for most of the country, the Heller decision won't change things much. It will change things in New Jersey, or California, or Illinois,but the vast majority of states shall carry laws, and allow their citizens buy any "normal use" gun they want and keep them in their homes. The Heller decision is good for the future to keep unseen events from causing the loss of these rights, but the whole "blood in the streets" dance is just silly.

qwert65
July 10, 2008, 08:56 AM
Most people in this country know very little about guns, that includes most proffessionals, It just looks better on paper than the association of car mechanics think guns are bad.

Also Dr are trained to respect science but very few have a good grasp of epidemology

burningsquirrels
July 10, 2008, 09:05 AM
they treat it as a public health problem. wth? if guns aren't available, they'll just find another convenient way to kill themselves. sure, gun suicide rates were down 25%, but what about overall suicide rates?

they talk about "logic"... but what is logical for one person would be blindly illogical to another. hey: if someone is sick with a virus, let's inject them with more to make them feel better. or, before they even get sick, purposely inject them with the virus to prevent getting sick in the future. sound crazy? it's called vaccines, and we nearly shut out the measles and other diseases with them.

Novus Collectus
July 10, 2008, 09:42 AM
It is a trick bag or a set up. They know there is a strong correlation with poverty and economic recession with violent crime. They know with the higher gas prices and impending recession that there is a damn good chance violent crime will rise and they are just waiting to say a few years from now "see! It is all because of the easier access to handguns".
I bet this has been a game plan of Josh Sugarmann and the VPC "think tank" as a plan B in case they lost the SC decision. THey are hedging their bets.

Remember, they got the Brady bill and the "assault weapon" ban passed after years of economic recession and a long lasting spike in crime, so they will try to take advantage of the same thing again.

Deanimator
July 10, 2008, 09:46 AM
Like at Taste of Chicago where several people were shot?

But how was that possible? Chicago doesn't recognize the 2nd Amendment (or any of the others for that matter)...

Phil DeGraves
July 10, 2008, 09:49 AM
research has shown and logic would dictate that fewer restrictions on handguns will result in a substantial increase in injury and death.


Actually, research has shown an overall decrease in injury and death when right to carry legislation went into effect.

resulted in an immediate decline of approximately 25% in homicides and suicides by firearms,

But it did not show an overall reduction in death, only death by firearm, so whose lives are being saved? They just chose different methods.

Novus Collectus
July 10, 2008, 09:57 AM
How do we know this was written by people with an agenda? They lied about the figures. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in concert with health authorities across the country, keeps careful records on the number of injuries and deaths that result from handgun use. In 2005, the last year with complete data, there were more than 30,000 deaths and 70,000 nonfatal injuries from firearms.3 About one quarter of the nonfatal injuries and a tenth of the deaths were in children and adolescents. In order to get that figure of one quarter of the injuries are children and adolescents, they have to include young adults up to the age of 19.....but fifty percent of those injuries occur after the age of 17 years old.
Same thing with the deaths. Only if they include 19 year olds can they get that number. Half that number comes from the age of 17 to 19.

To place these numbers in perspective, 10 times as many Americans die each year from firearms as have died in the Iraq war during the past 5 years.If they want to make a comparison, more people in this country die a year from sexually transmitted diseases (over 30,000).

burningsquirrels
July 10, 2008, 10:00 AM
If they want to make a comparison, more people in this country die a year from sexually transmitted diseases (over 30,000).

time for a sex ban. lmao.

DWFan
July 10, 2008, 10:02 AM
I love the phrase "logic dictates".
Yes, I fully expect the death toll to rise in the wake of the Heller decision. It will simply because more and more citizens will arm themselves and protect their lives and property against those who would take it from them. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the DC weapons ban was in place for over three decades and did nothing to curtail crime; it was safer for an American citizen to be in Iraq than in the capital of our own nation. The concept of retreating in the face of an intruder implies that the criminal somehow has the right to do what he wants while the disarmed victim does not even have the right to live in security in their own home.
Doctors are the last persons to have a respected opinion about gun control, in my opinion. The rates of malpractice insurance today indicates that they are at least as much of a threat to the health of the public as any firearms are. People are falling over dead in emergency rooms after being ignored for hours, for crying out loud. Automobiles are involved in more deaths in this country than firearms but aren't regulated to the extreme of firearms.
I could go on and on with this, but I won't.

MD_Willington
July 10, 2008, 10:05 AM
did some one say MD...


Hows are those automobile, unsafe sex, saturated fat, backyard swimming pool, bans coming along...
{/Bueller... Bueller... Bueller
{/ crickets chirping


Thought so....

Phil DeGraves
July 10, 2008, 10:13 AM
Doctors are the last persons to have a respected opinion about gun control, in my opinion. The rates of malpractice insurance today indicates that they are at least as much of a threat to the health of the public as any firearms are. People are falling over dead in emergency rooms after being ignored for hours, for crying out loud.

TOUCHE'!

Phil DeGraves
July 10, 2008, 10:23 AM
Doctors' sloppy handwriting kills more than 7,000 people annually.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1578074,00.html

Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year
http://www.heart-disease-bypass-surgery.com/data/articles/52.htm

America's Healthcare System is the Third Leading Cause of Death
http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm

Doctors Are The 3rd Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 225,000 Deaths Every Year
http://www.healingdaily.com/Doctors-Are-The-Third-Leading-Cause-of-Death-in-the-US.htm

Looks like guns which even by their own overinflated figures only kills 30,000 a year can't hold a candle to medical professionals in the killing department.

To quote the Good Book, "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye but do not notice the log in your own eye?"
Matthew 7:3

GBExpat
July 10, 2008, 10:32 AM
I am practicing driving slower so that I may more easily avoid the bodies that will soon litter our streets ... just like after the AWB expired in '04. :rolleyes:

jrou111
July 10, 2008, 11:06 AM
http://mcguff1.googlepages.com/OhNoes.gif

da3394
July 10, 2008, 01:20 PM
Sounds like the prediction of gun fights on every corner and in every parking lot 24/7 back when Florida and other states passed the "shall issue" concealed weapon permits. The anti's use that arguement or variations of it for anything that they do not want. Here, in the "dry" NC county where I live, the small county seat town had a refurendum vote on alcholic beverages. All we could hear or read about were the predictions of drunks on every corner and DUI's along every road 24/7. The town approved Beer, wine and mixed beverages (would not approve an ABC store though--still do not understand that one) some 3 to 4 years ago and I still cannot find even one drunk on the corners. The anti's are like "Chicken Little", they will lie and streatch the truth and logic to fit their agendas. Ignore them!

El Tejon
July 10, 2008, 01:35 PM
we will learn over the next few years in a before-and-after experiment whether the laws we had in place had a significant impact in mitigating death and injury from handguns.

No, we know now. Your gun bans and regulation has absolutely NO IMPACT on criminal behavior. In fact, gun control is a catalyst for crime.

Your gun laws did not exist from time immemorial. They are recent and we can tell that your gun laws are feckless, the CDC told us so.

We believe that closer regulation promotes the public health.

Believe all you want, but where, show us where your "closer regulation" has promoted public health? New York City? California? Chicago? Gary, Indiana?

Even if it worked, your gun laws are illegal. The Constitution trumps policy, always.

There is no language in the Constitution that would limit regulation.

Other than "shall not be infringed"? The doctors are saying, "are you going to believe us or your lying eyes." When the Marx brothers did it, it was humorous. When doctors say this, it is pathetic.

Indeed, the preamble to the Second Amendment includes the phrase "well-regulated" in reference to the use of firearms by militias.

Amazing dishonesty. Well-regulated means well-trained and well-skilled with firearms.

The Constitution is not a permission slip for government; it is a prohibition on government being involved in several areas, including my guns.

Given the diversity of geography and population in the United States, lawmakers throughout the country need the freedom and flexibility to apply gun regulations that are appropriate to their jurisdictions.

Isn't this what the Lost Causers told us after the Civil War or even in the 1960s? That they should be allowed to pass their racist laws in the name of "freedom" and "flexibility (i.e. States' Rights)".

You are going to have to take down your "Whites Only" and your "no guns allowed" signs. We are going to make it official very shortly.

Cosmoline
July 10, 2008, 01:40 PM
By and large, they live inside a shell, they've spent their entire lives in some form of school - from high school to college to grad school and then back to college to teach.

Further, those with "MD" after their names all to often view themselves as our superiors. They're not used to being questioned or challenged. To many of them, we are but children.

XD Fan
July 10, 2008, 02:21 PM
In 2005, the last year with complete data, there were more than 30,000 deaths and 70,000 nonfatal injuries from firearms.3 About one quarter of the nonfatal injuries and a tenth of the deaths were in children and adolescents. To place these numbers in perspective, 10 times as many Americans die each year from firearms as have died in the Iraq war during the past 5 years. Firearm injuries represent a major public health problem that seems certain to be exacerbated with less handgun regulation.

What an apples-to-oranges comparison! Ridiculous! But just to stay in the vein of apples-to-oranges, there are fewer deaths among our soldiers in Iraq because they have firearms with which to defend themselves. I know that is somewhat of a wierd conclusion, but not nearly as bizarre as their comparison.


a careful study4 demonstrated that the 1976 restrictive handgun law in the District of Columbia, which was the focus of the Heller case, resulted in an immediate decline of approximately 25% in homicides and suicides by firearms, but there was no such decline in adjacent areas that did not have restrictive laws.


This is directly opposing to statistics I have seen here on THR several times. Does anyone know where these numbers came from? Also, what are the accurate figures.

romma
July 10, 2008, 03:03 PM
Not to sound cold, but Oh Well, gotta die from something!

Seriously though. Nanny State Protectors think they can sheild us from everything.

bogie
July 10, 2008, 03:08 PM
Hey, if you wanna see your doctor's head 'splode, when he's lecturing you on a "sensible diet" after your next checkup, and he's telling you that "eating fat will make you fat," ask him if it is okay to eat a lot of hard candy. He'll likely tell you no...

Then ask him "Hey, why - sugar is 100% fat free!"

For people who are supposedly educated in how the engines they're working on run, they seem to know surprising little...

Further, those with "MD" after their names all to often view themselves as our superiors. They're not used to being questioned or challenged. To many of them, we are but children.

Ask any professional con artist who their favorite target is - a doctor.

They're so used to people telling them that they're smart, and essentially being treated like deities in their workplace, that when someone starts stroking them in the same way, they're an easy mark - "Sure, doc, you're smart, so this investment plan should make perfect sense to you." I've seen a stock swindle, real estate, investment, and even a plane ticket for a "young lady" to fly here from Russia... Sigh...

spencerhut
July 10, 2008, 03:19 PM
We get hammered all the time on patient safety. The last time I got the lecture doctors and hospitals in general were killing about 120,000 people a year purely from medical mistakes. Wrong medicine, removing the wrong organ etc. You know, mistakes, by people not paying attention to what the hell they are doing. :scrutiny:

I'd rather walk down a dark alley with my CCW than get admitted to a hospital.

Questioning a doctor is like questioning God Himself. They know everything and are always right. You, being a non doctor are not worthy to express an opinion. Way worse than working with lawyers who think highly of themselves, but not that much.

roger505
July 10, 2008, 04:20 PM
Compare the number of people who die by gun shot with those who die from medical mistakes.
Where do more people die than any other place? A hospital.
Who is normally the last to see them? A Doctor

This is just a doctors opinion, and you know about opinions.

Sistema1927
July 10, 2008, 04:48 PM
If this type of "logic" was correct, then I have to wonder why the blood isn't running to the level of a horse's bridle here in free America where we can wander into a gun store and buy handguns willy-nilly.

AdamSean
July 10, 2008, 10:32 PM
The way I see it, even if all the guns in the entire world were destroyed, people will find the next best thing to maliciously kill others. Look at the 3rd world countries picking up machetes. If someone tries to hurt me or my family, I want my gun.

burningsquirrels
July 10, 2008, 11:30 PM
^^^ my sentiments exactly. no guns? let's go get a big knife or baseball bat. oh no, then we'll have to ban baseball and then our food has to run through a processor because we can't have knives. yay! we're safe!

Solo
July 11, 2008, 12:27 AM
Hey, if you wanna see your doctor's head 'splode, when he's lecturing you on a "sensible diet" after your next checkup, and he's telling you that "eating fat will make you fat," ask him if it is okay to eat a lot of hard candy. He'll likely tell you no...

Then ask him "Hey, why - sugar is 100% fat free!"


Possibly because fat is the body's way of storing uneeded energy, and sugar can be converted into fat?

Seriously, you're making very little sense with that statement up there.

RP88
July 11, 2008, 12:35 AM
well, close to 70% of shootings involve criminals shooting other criminals. Allowing these guys to get guns may cut the criminal population in half for all we know.:confused:

The ban won't conclude with less gunshot victims in the ER. What it will conclude is that now there will be a better chance that the person who does end up going to the ER with a gunshot wound is the son of a ----- who deserved to get shot.

rainbowbob
July 11, 2008, 01:31 AM
When none of their predictions come to pass...do you suppose they will publish retractions and apolgies?

goon
July 11, 2008, 01:32 AM
The biggest point I was trying to make is that very little will change as a result of Heller.
Eventually, there will probably be some "real" changes, but in the short term:
- Maybe DC, NYC, Chicago, California, New Jersey and their like will get their hands slapped. We should be so lucky.
- Overall, not much will change in states without restrictive gun laws. You'll still be able to buy your 15 round Glock magazines and semi-automatic AK's in PA, Florida, and Montana, just like you could at this time last year.

Even during the AW ban, high capacity magazines and military style rifles were still readily available - many of us actually got our starts on EBR's during the AW ban. It meant nothing. All it did was make standard capacity magazines cost more in some cases and keep us from having bayonet lugs.

So it all just makes me wonder...
What is really so different today that will lead to all these deaths that are being predicted?
Near as I can tell, not a damn thing.

Halo
July 11, 2008, 03:03 AM
Here, in the "dry" NC county where I live, the small county seat town had a refurendum vote on alcholic beverages. All we could hear or read about were the predictions of drunks on every corner and DUI's along every road 24/7.

Isn't that the truth. I've observed the "liquor by the drink" referendum in a number of small NC towns over the years and the "drys" always pull out the same mantra. It's funny that you mentioned this, because I was also thinking about the similarities among antis in general. It seems that people who are against something tend to be far more emotional and loud than people who are in favor or ambivalent, and this seems to be the case regardless of what the actual issue is.

I know the anti-gun crowd likes to think of itself as more evolved and progressive, but might we dare say that they are, in reality, simple reactionaries?

B yond
July 11, 2008, 03:11 AM
Ph.D. - Paranoid Hypocritical Dumb@$$

Why are people who seem to be so concerned about Average Joe's safety upset that he has the ability to protect himself?

Deanimator
July 11, 2008, 08:37 AM
The way I see it, even if all the guns in the entire world were destroyed, people will find the next best thing to maliciously kill others.
That's a lie!!!

Genghis Khan didn't have a gun and he was a vegan pacifist who just smoked dope and watched "Gilligan's Island" all day. Dennis Kucinich told me so, and he wouldn't lie, would he?

Deanimator
July 11, 2008, 08:48 AM
It's funny that you mentioned this, because I was also thinking about the similarities among antis in general.
One of the funniest things I've ever seen is the confluence of fanatical and irrational pro AND anti beliefs.

Time after time, I've seen British anti-gunners in usenet who promote the usual hysterical anti-gun nonsense in the stupidest, most ill informed ways, who THEN cite the GREAT "freedom" of the UK because the drinking age is lower! They then cap this off by combining the two in their argument that people shouldn't have guns because people who get insane drunk and break into the wrong house might get shot! That actually happened to a Scotsman (in Houston?) in the '90s, who kicked in somebody's door after being warned he'd be shot if he did. The alcoholic, anti-gun Brits simply would not even CONSIDER the very IDEA that their "right" to drink until they lose their minds DOESN'T trump MY right to be secure in my home.

rainbowbob
July 11, 2008, 03:21 PM
I know the anti-gun crowd likes to think of itself as more evolved and progressive...

As do all do-gooders - whether legislating prohibition of guns, drugs, booze, alternative sexual identites, abortion, assisted suicide, etc, etc. (See anything in there that gores your ox?)

Why can't we just leave each other the hell alone to make our own choices?

pappy
July 11, 2008, 03:32 PM
OK, I think I have a handle on their "logic".
Peaches taste good.
Peaches have fuzz.
Tennis balls have fuzz.
Hey! Tennis balls taste good! Who knew?? :evil:

mike101
July 11, 2008, 03:45 PM
Getting firearms related information from a physician is like getting medical advice from a plumber.

Nuff said.

bmitchell
July 11, 2008, 04:00 PM
^^ Fuzzy logic.

If you enjoyed reading about "So now that the 2nd is recognized, get ready for rising death tolls..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!