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.
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:
OK. I'll shut up now.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMe0805629?query=TOC
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.
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:
OK. I'll shut up now.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMe0805629?query=TOC
