On guns and public health (repost)

[Bragi]

(My earlier thread was locked because of a "call-out to another member". I presume if I remove any names then I can repost, so here goes:)

Yesterday I posted into a DU thread on the CA court ruling on ammo indicating I would support repeal of the second amendment.

I wrote: My objection to the second amendment is not political, my objection is from a public health perspective.

The proliferation of guns that has occurred in the U.S due to the second amendment is a public health catastrophe

To which a poster replied:

"Public health perspective?" Then you may wish to google up the CDC's executive summary of the effectiveness of "gun intervention strategies." The public health "model" has been tested and rejected firmly.

So I checked the CDC site, and their only apparent published study is from 2002, and titled "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws: Findings from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services"

Contrary to what was asserted, however, this study doesn't "test and firmly reject" any public health model. In fact, it reached no hard and fast conclusions beyond concluding that evidence to make conclusions was lacking:

"The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)" (My highlighting.)

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

So my question is this: Is this the CDC study that allegedly tests and "firmly rejects" the proposition that America's guns and gun culture are a public health disaster? Or is there some study that does this?

Anyone here know?

(I'm interested because I work in the public health field, and would be interested to know if there really is any evidence that shows that the proliferation of guns is not a public health disaster.)

[Hoopla Phil]

1. What about all the people that are potentially harmed but for the use of a firearm?

What about all the people that are potentially harmed but for the use of a firearm?

I wonder how your public health hazard would look. . . or would they be considered a public health issue - crime in general that is.


This is stolen verbatim from another thread;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

gun uses found by the NSDS (National Self Defense Survey) based on the source. So let's go to the original source of the information --- Dr. Gary Kleck. Here's the voluntary disclosure he opens with in "Targeting Guns -- Firearms and Their Control":

The author is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and CommonCause, among other politically liberal organizations. He is a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor to the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control Inc. nor any other advocacy organization, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization.

Kleck's honorable position w/regard to funding his research stands in sharp contrast with pro "control" "researchers" who have been only too happy to accept funding from anti-gun advocacy groups.

[Bragi]

4. I responded below

I'm a bit disorganized due to the locking thing.

See "Regarding Dr. Kleck" below.

[wtmusic]

2. One word: Kellerman

* 23.9% of homicides occurred in the victim's home
* 35.8% of the controls (homes where there was not a homicide) kept a firearm in their home
* 45.4% of all victims of homicides in their home kept a firearm in their home
* 62% of victims of firearm homicides in their home kept a firearm in their home (correction to original paper)
* other protective measures, (reinforced doors, deadbolts, burglar alarms, and bars on the windows) were associated with small (about 0.8 times) reductions in risk of homicide in the home
* after adjusting for other factors (such as a police-report history of violence in the home, a convicted felon in the home, drug or alcohol abuse in the home, race, etc.) there remained an independent 2.7 times increase in risk of homicide, specifically associated with a firearm in the home; this risk was not attributable to any particular "high risk" subgroup(s) identifiable by the above factors but was evident to some degree in all subgroups
* this risk was essentially entirely attributable to being shot by a family member or intimate acquaintance with a handgun which was kept loaded and unlocked in the house
* this risk was significantly less than the increased risk due to sociological factors (rental of a home instead of ownership, living alone) but close to that associated with the presence of a convicted felon in the home (see table at right).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann

It should be noted that Kellerman eats puppies. 5 gun enthusiasts will arrive shortly and make that clear, but I thought I'd beat them to the punch. :D

[Bragi]

6. I'm beginning to understand the gaps in research

So I'm wondering why it is that CDC has done no updated research on this particular rather pressing public health problem, and guess what?

According to the Kellermann wikipedia entry, the gun lobby opposed his research, and every CDC allocdation from Congress now apparently has this rider:

“None of the funds made available for injury control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control”. These words appear in every CDC grant announcement to this day. <5>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann

So any CDC research that might contradict the gun lobby's views of the benign or benificial public health results of a highly-armed populace, and suggesting that controls are needed, would be an illegal use of funds!

Yep, I think I see the contours of this area of public health research taking shape.

[wtmusic]

8. An unconscionable move by the NRA to bury data

and not unlike the global-warming denier movement spearheaded by the American Petroleum Institute.

[Hoopla Phil]

12. Rather than completely rehash this again please just check here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=334436&mesg_id=334436

[wtmusic]

15. Thanks, but I can go to FreeRepublic if I want to see links to National Review. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

20. Yes yes, by all means hide your eyes from evidence that contradicts your

preconceived ideas. How open of you.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bragi]

28. This is an odd corner of DU for sure

I don't know any other place in DU where people cite right wing sources and accuse others of being "liberal". Odd indeed.

[shadowrider]

57. Nothing odd about it

RW sources are about the only ones you can find that output pro-2A articles and data. I've tried and tried to find a LW site that does the same but they don't seem to exist. If you know of one, please let me know and I'll quote it.

As far as the "liberal" label, some liberals, on this site, fully agree with all rights in the BOR, except the 2nd, which for some reason is vilified and ridiculed by the same people who swear they support all rights of Americans.

[hlthe2b]

18. that should be "NONE of the funds made available... can be used

to advocate or promote gun control." CDC was effectively neutered in the late 80s early 90s by NRA lobbyists. This politicization (bastardization) of public health research so inflamed many of the best researchers that they moved into other areas or left CDC entirely.

So, those that would exploit this lack of clear data to suggest as in the OP, that CDC has conclusively disproven the effectiveness of gun control programs are as disingenuous as those who sought to prevent such research in the first place.

[Bragi]

26. Thanks. Corrected. /nt

[petronius]

86. Actually, the CDC restriction is only on lobbying and advocacy activities

AR-13: Prohibition on Use of CDC Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities

The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act specifies that: "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

Anti-Lobbying Act requirements prohibit lobbying Congress with appropriated Federal monies. Specifically, this Act prohibits the use of Federal funds for direct or indirect communications intended or designed to influence a member of Congress with regard to specific Federal legislation. This prohibition includes the funding and assistance of public grassroots campaigns intended or designed to influence members of Congress with regard to specific legislation or appropriation by Congress.

In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the language in the CDC's Appropriations Act to mean that CDC's funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.

Research, education, and data gathering activities are not prohibited and I'll bet never were. In fact, a quick troll through grants.gov turns up at least one current CDC notice (CDC-RFA-CE11-1101) intended to to help state health departments, which specifically mentions firearms in a list of injury causes to be included in the reporting...

[petronius]

45. I wouldn't assume that grants for injury control are the same as research grants

I would read that as relating to programs/activities intended to prevent injury, like bike helmet education campaigns or the like. Not funding education, activism, or outreach activities doesn't necessarily mean that support for scholarly research is also forbidden...

[bossy22]

10. if you actually looked at the wiki page in its entirety

the word kellerman wouldnt hold as much water as you think.

[Bragi]

19. Really? What are you hinting at?

He seems to be rather distinguished and impressive...

Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.E.P. (born 1955) was recently named the Director of RAND Health. He was the founding chairman of the department of Emergency Medicine at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, and founding director of the Center for Injury Control at Rollins School of Public Health, a collaborating center for injury and violence prevention of the World Health Organization. His writings include more than 200 scientific and lay publications on various aspects of emergency cardiac care, health services research, injury prevention and the role of emergency departments in the provision of health care to the poor.<1><2><3>

Kellermann co-chaired the Committee on the Consequences of Uninsurance of the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academies, of which he is an elected member. Kellermann holds career achievement awards for excellence in science from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, and the Injury Control and Emergency Health Services Section of the American Public Health Association.<1> As a 2006-2007 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Policy Fellow, he joined the Professional Staff of the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in Washington, D.C. In 2007 he was presented with the John G. Wiegenstein Leadership Award by the American College of Emergency Physicians, their highest award.<2><4>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann

What am I missing?

[Hoopla Phil]

11. LMAO!! please by all means check in here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=334436&mesg_id=334436

[wtmusic]

13. Please by all means explain why the NRA helped tie the CDC's hands

with regard to performing scientific, peer-reviewed studies on the effectiveness of gun control.

If gun control doesn't work, of course the NRA would welcome statistical validation, wouldn't they?

Why not the truth?

[Hoopla Phil]

21. I don't speak for the NRA and I am not a member. Why don't you ask them yourself?

[wtmusic]

Why would you think they don't want to hear the truth? nt

[Hoopla Phil]

30. Why do you assume they don't want to hear the truth? Oh wait. You actually

believe the Kellerman study. Ha Ha Ha Ha. LMAO!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[wtmusic]

31. Um, because they lobbied Congress to prevent the public from hearing the truth.

No CDC funds for gun violence research. Try to keep up.

[Hoopla Phil]

37. There you go again. What untruth are you speaking of?

That in 1994, a study indicated that Americans used guns in self defense 2,500,000 times per year?

http://www.gunthorp.com/private_firearms_stop_crime.htm

[Bragi]

43. A study that wasn't peer reviewed and never duplicated?

[Hoopla Phil]

48. And BINGO there it is. You didn't follow the link did ya? It WAS peer reviewed.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[X_Digger]

55. No prospective studies have been done on Kellerman, et al's work..

Hell, no cohort studies asking the same question.

The only thing close is Kellerman's 1987, then 1993 study-- which assessed the risk of death while owning a gun at 43 (not 4.3, 43) times more likely than without, down to 2.7 times. If that doesn't give you pause to consider his methodology, nothing will.

[Hoopla Phil]

80. Hello Bragi, any response?

[X_Digger]

82. To be fair, there is a metric shit-tonne of data to look at..

..though I would have thought the link to the now-infamous Kellerman study would have been enough to start the discussion with.

[Hoopla Phil]

84. (S)He has had ALL day and is back on line taunting. I figured

(S)HE would had come prepared. But it's late for me so I'll wait.

[shadowrider]

29. scientific, peer-reviewed studies

That agree with your position are valid

Scientific, peer-reviewed studies that don't are poo-poo'd and ignored.

[X_Digger]

54. Ooh, it's got 'scientific, peer-reviewed' innit-- it must be true, then.

Nevermind things like the NEJM publishing a paper without data, and peer reviewers never* getting to see any data.

Appeal to authority, much?


*eta: Kellerman released a sub-set of his data- five years later.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. Alleged dining habits aside, Kellerman also hides his data sets.

Let us know when you get to his original papers and the peer criticism thereof, mmkay?

[Bragi]

32. According to wikipedia, the data was released years ago

However, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grants do not require the individual investigator to make data public until there are no more publications to be developed from them. After publishing additional analyses, Kellermann released the dataset to the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, the world’s largest archive for social science research <2>. ICPSR released the data for public access on May 30, 1997 <3>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann

[Hoopla Phil]

42. Hid would have been a better term.

Study published in 86, data kept secret till 1997. Of course this was after much outcry about the data NOT being published and inability of ANYONE to reproduce the study. Well, we found out why the data was kept secret.

[Bragi]

46. And what was the secret reason?

[Hoopla Phil]

49. Already pointed you to it. You refuse to look. Can't educate a person that refuses

to open a book, much less their mind.

[Hoopla Phil]

79. Hello bragi, any response?

[Euromutt]

89. Four years after publication, and no longer available

This was the URL: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cgi/archive.prl?study=6898
Moreover, no independent observer was ever in a position to verify that that was the full dataset and there is strong evidence that it was not.

The very fact that the NEJM agreed to accept the paper for peer review in spite of the fact that Kellermann refused at the time to deposit his data with the journal, and the fact that the NEJM's reviewers gave it the nod despite not being able to verify at the time that the paper's conclusions were supported by the data, let alone that the NEJM actually went ahead and published it speaks very badly of both the NEJM (one of the most respected medical journals) and of their reviewers.

To give you an idea of what was not to be found in Kellermann's partial dataset, consider this question, posed in a letter to the editor of the NEJM, by the (post-grad) students of Mathematical Statistics 460 at St. Louis University:

Finally, the authors also state, "One or more guns were reportedly kept in 45.4 percent of the homes of the case subjects." This implies that no guns were kept in 54.6 percent of the homes of the case subjects. In how many of the homicides was the victim killed with a gun that was kept in the house rather than a gun that was brought to the house by the perpetrator?

Kellermann has never given a straight answer to that question. The conclusions of the 1993 study were written strongly implying that there was a causal relationship between having a gun in the house and an occupant of the house being shot ("In the light of <other> observations and our present findings, people should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes."), but if the homicides were not necessarily committed using a firearm kept in that residence, that conclusion becomes untenable.

Kellermann's dataset contained no data concerning the origin of the murder weapons in the cases studied. Given that such a determination is essential to supporting the study's conclusion, we have to conclude that Kellermann is either incompetent and didn't check, or he []did check but chose to conceal that data, and that should raise a big red flag about his scientific integrity right there.

[Bragi]

3. Regarding Dr. Gary Kleck

Someone noted that Dr. Gary Kleck apparently published a study on the alleged public health benefits of guns (by thwarting alleged attacks through gun brandishing.)

I checked our Dr. Kleck, and it appears his 1993 study was not independently peer-reviewed, and there has been considerable criticism of his methodology.

Of more concern to me is that this is 17 year old study, and it has not been replicated by others to confirm its veracity or its conclusions, in keeping with scientific methodology.

However, I will read more about Dr. Kleck and his non peer-reviewed, and as yet never duplicated study.

[Hoopla Phil]

36. Speaking of peer review

http://www.gunthorp.com/private_firearms_stop_crime.htm

I do find it very telling that you seem to disparage Klecks work by referring to when it was done but not so with the much older Kellerman study.

I also not that Kleck put his findings and data out for peer review while Kellerman kept all data secret for a rather long time - and for good reason. That information only came out after much outcry for it. The devil was in the details.

[Hoopla Phil]

81. Hello Bragi, any response?

[AtheistCrusader]

5. By all means, try and repeal it.

I'll wait.

[Bragi]

7. It politically can't be done..

I'm confident the public health nightmare will continue unabated.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. You'll be happy to know

That both accidental and intentional injuries by firearms are trending down, and have been for a very long time.

If we get a handle on the suicide thing, we'll cut the number of firearm related deaths in this country in half, approx.

Fortunately, none of this requires firearms regulation to encourage.

[DonP]

16. If I may slightly rephrase ...

"If we can get a better handle on the Mental Health thing we can reduce both suicides and the rare violent outbursts like we've seen in Tucson".

But I guess it's easier to ignore the actual trends and keep trying to ban inanimate objects rather than address real mental health issues for some folks.

[Bragi]

25. You have a causality versus correlation problem

An aging population could explain this decline, independent of the continued adverse impact that proliferation of guns has on public health.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. No, the correlation

around accidental deaths is increased training and awareness through various outreach programs on firearm safety, and mandatory since 1972 hunter safety education. Per capita, we mint safer hunters today than we did in 1950, even though the firearms technology has not changed radically in the last 50 years or so.

[Scruffy1]

39. Yep there almost down to 1980 levels.

If we just get a handle on the suicide thing?. Guns are very effective for suicide. Others not so much. That whole argument about gun deaths going down is a crock to me because as anyone who knows the first thing about statistics knows that correlation is not causation. If you do the homework it looks like the whole thing has more to do with the crack epidemic and drug wars of the late eighties and nineties causing gun deaths to spike and taper off to previous levels. Of course the gun lobby made sure there were lots of guns on the streets. Besides a lot of the victims weren't white, so the the nearly all white NRA probably thinks all those deaths are a good thing.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. With wider access to health care

fewer people will attempt suicide. It's pretty much a given. You address suicide by firearm just like all methods: by getting people help before they choose the option.

You don't remove firearms, ropes, sharp objects, internal combustion engines, bridges, household cleaning chemicals, and all structures over 2 stories tall from society. It's simply ineffective. One only need compare the suicide rate in Japan and the US, and then the firearm ownership rate, to see firearms are not necessary to commit suicide.

[friendly_iconoclast]

61. And there are more guns in circulation now then there was then.

Correlation is not causation, true- but you can't have causation without correlation.

And the fact remains that there are more guns in the US, at the same time the murder rates are at record lows.


BTW, damn-near gun free Japan has a far higher suicide rate than the US...

[HelenWheels]

14. Don't need a study

Just look around and see how many deaths are from guns. Pretty frightening. Also frightening is how easily a mentally ill person can buy a gun and even worse, one that shoots 31 rounds. No one has ever given a good explanation as to why anyone but an officer of the law should have access to an automatic pistol and/or cop killer bullets.

[wtmusic]

22. Bingo.

Ask a cop - the guys who have to walk through the blood every day - not the Call of Duty couch warriors.

[Straw Man]

23. At the risk of endlessly rehashing terminology...

...it was not an automatic pistol. They are strictly regulated and extremely rare. It was a semi-automatic pistol, which is the single most common type of pistol available in this country today. "Cop killer bullets"? Armor-piercing ammunition is available only to law enforcement. Loughner used standard ammunition. Any bullet can kill someone.

Don't need a study? So you want to base public policy on random observations gleaned from the mass media?

The CDC conclusions amount to "we can't see a correlation, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't exist."

[Bragi]

33. The CDC has been banned from doing further research

Courtesy of the gun lobby.

[Straw Man]

35. They didn't get the result they wanted the first time...

...so they wanted to do it again until they could "get it right." Not good science.

[Bragi]

41. You obviously know nothing of scientific methodolgy

And I'm not here to teach you.

[Straw Man]

70. Scientific methodology...

...involves ignoring conclusions that don't conform to your expectations. Got it.

[HelenWheels]

52. Okay "semi-automatic"

Feel better now? And I never said Loughner used any thing other than standard ammunition. If armor-piercing ammo is only available to law enforcement why do other people have it? If a criminal can get a gun, and very easily because of the proliferation of guns, what makes anyone think they can't get "cop killer bullets"? And I am sure you prefer the term "armor-piercing ammunition" because "cop killer bullets" is too close to the truth as to what this ammo does.

[Glassunion]

58. Terminology aside...

You do realize the no officers have ever been killed by "cop-killer" bullets.

The Techonology of "cop-killer" bullets:
The initial objective of the design was to develop a law enforcement round capable of improved penetration against hard targets like windshield glass and automobile doors. Basically a doctor(Kopsch), a police sergant(Turcos) and the Dr.'s investgator(Ward) were trying to find a solution for law enforcement. Conventional bullets, made primarily from lead, are often ineffective against hard targets especially when fired at handgun velocities.

Kopsch, Turcos and Ward produced their "KTW" handgun ammunition using steel cored bullets capable of great penetration. Following further experimentation, in 1981 they began producing bullets constructed primarily of brass. The hard brass bullets caused exceptional wear on handgun barrels, a problem combated by coating the bullets with Teflon. The Teflon coating did nothing to improve penetration, it simply reduced damage to the gun barrel.

The word "cop-killer" is a media invention. See: NBC 60 Minutes January 1982.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. You haven't been able to purchase 'cop killer bullets' since 1994.

And armor-piercing is the correct term.

Surely you can cite large numbers of police officers killed with 'cop killer bullets' eh?

[Hoopla Phil]

62. "too close to the truth"??? Please name one cop killed with banned armor

piercing handgun rounds.

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. The rifle Sarah Brady purchased as a gift fired "cop killer bullets" (as you called them)

In fact, most of the center fire bolt-action rifles (i.e., dedicated hunting weapons) that people like you are just fine with

fire what you call "cop killer bullets".


So are you ignorant about the subject of which you speak, or planning to ban those 'suitable for hunting' weapons later?


Inquiring minds want to know...

[PavePusher]

74. Because armor-piercing ammo is only allowed to be sold...

to law enforcement and military.

There really isn't any on the civilian market.

Note that this kind of restriction only works because ammo is a consumable product which gets used relatively quickly.

[Straw Man]

78. Better.

If armor-piercing ammo is only available to law enforcement why do other people have it?

They don't. As has been pointed out, no cop has ever been shot with the stuff. Mexican drug cartels might have it, but they get it through corrupt military sources.

And I am sure you prefer the term "armor-piercing ammunition" because "cop killer bullets" is too close to the truth as to what this ammo does.

No, just observing that they are two different things. "Cop killer bullets" is not a technical designation: it's a buzzword that literally means "any bullet that can kill a cop," which includes every single type of ammunition on the market. "Armor-piercing ammunition" is a type that is especially designed to penetrate hard surfaces, and it is available only to the police and the military. Banned already. So your vision of "automatic pistols" and "cop-killer bullets" is a fantasy.

[Glassunion]

51. An Answer...

"No one has ever given a good explanation as to why anyone but an officer of the law should have access to an automatic pistol and/or cop killer bullets."

A few things first for clarification...

By automatic pistol, I am going to assume you mean "semi"-automatic pistol. This is the type of pistol that was used in the shooting in AZ. If I am wrong on that assumption, please correct me on that.

Also, I'm unsure on what you mean by "cop-killer" bullets. If you intended "Armor-piercing" then as was already pointed out, they are only available to law enforcement and I will not discuss that further.

As for why a citizen should have access to a semi-automatic pistol here are a few of my opinions...
1. The technology of semi-automatic pistols have been available for over 100 years. It is not some new, somehow more deadly technology.
2. It makes for a very reliable self-defense platform.
3. You differentiate between the police and citizens as if they are two separate classes of people. In my opinion, a law enforcement officer, is someone of the citizenry, who has volunteered to perform a dangerous, and mostly thankless job serving the public. But at the end of the day, I would not place law enforcement somehow above or separate from the citizenry.
4. #3 being said, the police on the whole primarily carry these types of pistols to defend themselves or others. What could a police officer possibly encounter that an individual citizen would never encounter, thus justifying allowing them to carry something that the average citizen cannot?
5. Like it or not, the 2nd amendment is a civil right of the citizenry, not granted by the government, but specifically restricting the government from infringing on it. So, if the government(the people), wish to specifically deny that right or a part of it, it would be up to those who wish to deny that right to justify that denial. The right never needs to be justified.

Something that folks tend to forget that things are not illegal by default or design.

[HelenWheels]

71. Not much of an answer

Sounds like you think there is no need for police officers as everyone should have a gun and just have a great big shoot out.

[Hoopla Phil]

72. So have you found any cops killed by the so called "cop-killer" bullets yet?

[Glassunion]

73. That is nowhere close to what I was saying

Try reading it again, this time without putting words in my mouth.

[NewMoonTherian]

76. You're not far off...

from my perspective anyway. The police have consistently abdicated all responsibility to individual citizens, and judges have consistently backed them up in that respect. As a whole(not referring to every specific officer) they are ignorant of the law they enforce, arrogant, corrupt, incompetent and dangerous. Give me an armed populace any day of the week.

[Glassunion]

77. Quote from Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates:

"There are going to be situations where people are going to go without assistance. That's just the facts of life. There are not enough of us to be everywhere."

Armand Arabian, a California Supreme Court justice, noted that if the Los Angeles Police Department had responded any slower to the riots, "we would have seen photos of policemen pasted on milk containers and listed as missing." While the police effectively ran away from the violent rioters, they did return later to seize the guns and handcuff some of the owners of Korean stores who fought to defend their property. The city government even banned law-abiding citizens from buying bullets or picking up previously purchased weapons after the riot began.

[slackmaster]

24. To declare a disaster you must have concrete evidence of a sudden, calamatous event causing great...

...harm. A dramatic change in the status quo.

The evidence does not support it. If the ever-increasing number of guns was correlated with increases in firearm-related injuries and deaths, there might be some reason to declare a public health disaster.

That is not the case. Roll your own query at WISQARS:

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

[benEzra]

34. As I mentioned in the other thread, the public health approach has been undermined

by idealogically driven studies to the degree that it is difficult to separate the politics from the reality. Witness the stark disconnect between public-health rhetoric on modern-looking civilian rifles (aka "assault weapons") and the reality that rifles are the least misused of all classes of weapons in the United States.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

Total murders...........................13,636.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,452......47.32%
Firearms (type unknown)..................1,928......14.14%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,864......13.67%
Edged weapons............................1,825......13.38%
Hands, feet, etc...........................801.......5.87%
Shotguns...................................418.......3.07%
Rifles.....................................348.......2.55%

The 5-year trend 2005-2009, again per the FBI Uniform Crime Reports:

2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348

The public health community maintains a shrill, "the sky is falling" rhetoric about U.S. gun ownership sprinkled with the idea that things are getting worse, yet the U.S. murder rate has declined by half since the 1980's (even as lawful gun ownership has increased, and shifted toward more modern designs). The U.S. murder rate now stands at its lowest level since the 1960's.

You also see studies purporting to show that U.S. gun ownership results in a high suicide rate, when in fact the U.S. suicide rate is lower than that of most nations with stricter restrictions; the U.S. suicide rate is lower than that of Canada, Norway, Japan, Denmark, Austria, Australia, Iceland, New Zealand, Portugal, Ireland, Germany, France, and Belgium, and this despite the fact that Americans work the longest hours with the least time off of any First World nation, and have some of the poorest access to mental health care.

If you read the literature closely, it seems that it is antipathy to gun ownership itself, rather than any objective, achievable public health goal, that seems to drive most public health studies, and the standard of peer review is much, much worse than on most other topics. I believe this is the reason why you see intentional conflation of lawful gun owners with violent criminals in population studies, suppression of overall-suicide-rate comparisons when discussing suicide, and misclassifying most justifiable defensive uses when assessing self-defense use.

An interesting survey of the literature, some years old but still quite relevant, is Kates et al, Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? (61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994).)

Another, related problem in the medical gun-control-advocacy literature is when physicians write outside their areas of expertise but are given only cursory peer review. For example, see Trask, Richards, Schwartzbach, and Kurtzke, "Massive orthopedic, vascular, and soft tissue wounds from military type assault weapons: a case report," J Trauma 1995 Mar 38(3):428-31. That article ascribed magic wounding powers to low-energy 7.62x39mm caliber bullets (which is flatly contradicted by the peer-reviewed wound ballistics literature, e.g. Fackler et al), overstated kinetic energies by 40% (a simple math error), and claimed that low-velocity AK rounds have greater velocity than high-velocity hunting rounds. As is all too often the case, their blunders weren't even noticed in peer review, because the "reviewers" didn't know beans about the subject either, but rubber-stamped it because it reinforced the foregone "we need more bans" conclusion.

So please forgive me if I as a gun owner take public-health censure of the contents of my gun safe with a grain of salt. Politically motivated criticism and handwaving from de facto laypersons is no more reliable when published in AJPH or JAMA than when it is published on a private blog, IMO.

[Bragi]

38. De facto laypersons?

Does this fellow sound like a de facto lay person to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann

[benEzra]

68. When writing about criminology, firearms law, or firearms technology, yes.

Dr. Kellerman is an emergency room doctor, and writes as a highly trained subject matter expert on trauma care. He writes as a layperson on criminal law, criminology, or firearms law, though, and to some degree even when writing on wound ballistics (he has certainly seen GSW's as an emergency room physician, but AFAIK he has no formal training in wound ballistics and no papers at all published in the wound ballistics literature).

Likewise, physicians who peer review such topics review them as laypeople working outside their field, which is a big reason why peer review on such articles is so abysmal. See Trask et al for an example of egregious factual blunders that were not caught because neither the authors nor the reviewers were familiar with the broader topic. Perhaps because of this, Dr. Kellerman's work is among the most notorious examples of misclassification in the study of defensive firearms use, among other things (and that is a topic that deserves a thread of its own).

Being exceedingly well educated in a field does not make you an expert outside your field. My sister is a very highly trained professional engineer, but she would be an intelligent layperson on the topic of medicine, law, epidemiology, or automotive repair.

[Bragi]

40. Gotta go, been a pleasure.

I think I learned today that pro-gun advocates don't have much by way of evidence to back up their bizarre counter-intuitive belief that lethal weapons benefit public health.

Back later...

[Hoopla Phil]

47. " I think I learned today that pro-gun advocates don't have much by way of evidence"

No, you just keep your eyes closed when it is offered up. Big difference.

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. ...that he is willing to admit actually exists.

[PavePusher]

75. Sigh. You can lead a horse to water, etc..... n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

83. Please come back. I see you're back online. . . and there are so many unanswered questions.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[X_Digger]

44. Kellerman, Branas, Hemenway, Azreal..

aka the 'treat guns like germs on a doorknob' crowd. They're the only ones the CDC funded to study the issue, and they did a piss-poor job of it.

For example, Kellerman's 1993 study- http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/329/15/1084

Kellerman refused to deposit his data initially, peer review didn't demand it, and the NEJM published it anyway.

Even with gaping holes like this-

Only 45.4% of households in the 'case' group (those who were shot and killed) had firearms in the home. (54.6% didn't).

Yet Kellerman claimed that a gun kept in your own home would make you 2.7 times more likely to be killed by a gun- even by one not kept in your home- ie, brought in from outside, by someone else. They even included three drug dealers being shot- by police.

Why? Because Kellerman also failed to account for previous criminal activity of household members, households with domestic violence, alcoholism, and substance abuse. The conclusion, were one to be honest, is that living with a criminal, a domestic abuser, a drug dealer, an alcoholic-- is more likely to lead to being the victim of gun crime.

It's as though Kellerman's saying guns attract guns, like cations and anions in a solution.

When the CDC sat down to review the public health literature on guns, this is the kind of dog's breakfast they found. A bunch of epidemiologists treating a social problem like a biological one.

The very best they could say is that there's insufficient evidence.

[Hoopla Phil]

59. Help me out a bit. Who was the one that published a "study" that claimed

gun ownership in our countries past was very rare? It was found out that the data was completely made up and the person got into all kinds of trouble IIRC.

[X_Digger]

64. Michael Bellesiles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Bellesiles

He's the darling of some of our DU'ers, regardless of the fact that the community of historians thinks he gave them a HUGE black eye with his shit.

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. Michael Bellesiles, currently an unperson amongst gun Prohibitionists.

However, his ally Saul Cornell is still around and pushing the same line:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361998


Google their names together and you'll find some rather interesting results.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aikoaiko]

66. You sound just like the alcohol temperance movement of long ago.

Maybe massive gun control would save some lives or maybe it would be a disaster much like alcohol prohibition.

[Flyboy_451]

69. I'm not sure it qualifies as a catastrophe

but I will offer some thoughts. When you call for repealing the 2nd amendment, I assume that you mean the complete abolition of private firearms ownership. If I am incorrect about this, please voice any corrections.

Since you are calling for this based on a public health threat, let's look at some of the possible unintended consequences of what you suggest.

There are nearly 300 million firearms currently in private ownership. If the 2nd were to be repealed, I think it is very fair to say that those who posses firearms illegally, are not going to turn them in. I think it is also fair to say that a significant number of legal owners will also refuse turn in theirs. If we were to assume that, of the 300 million guns in private hands, 75% were turned in, this still leaves 75 million of them out there. I simply pulled 75% out of the air, but I think it is pretty fair to say that this number is fair to both sides of the argument, I may be wrong, but who knows?

In this scenario, we still have 75 million guns unaccounted for somewhere within the general public. These guns will now be highly sought after by criminal elements. Criminals will also know that intended victims are less likely to resist violence with a gun. Could this possibly embolden criminals? I think it is likely that it not only could, but would. Repealing the 2nd, effectively removes the ability of the average person to defend themselves and their families with, arguably, the most effective tool. Couple this effect with the increased value of guns to criminals, due to a smaller supply, and it is quite possible that we would see an increase of home invasion type crimes by those in search of guns.

What other sources are left open to criminals seeking guns? How about cops? They have guns. We have already seen multiple ambush style attacks on police officers for everything from initiation rites into gangs to revenge and a "show of power" or bragging rights. I have personally been involved in two such instances. I would prefer that we not add any more incentive for this type of activity.

Now look at the holes within our borders and think about the overseas sources of arms that would strive to supply a black market with high earnings potential and a relatively unsecured border access. Is it truly believable that this would not occur? we cant even secure our borders against illegal drugs, immigrants or terrorist. I think we would see the same results with regard to guns. This only leads to a situation in which the criminals have the advantage of force. If you believe that supporters of the 2nd amendment and laws that allow concealed carry live in some state of paranoia, imagine how terrifying it would be to know that criminals posses a measure of force that is readily supplied by black market dealings, yet there is no way to legally counter this force as a law abiding citizen.

I have said it before, and will now repeat it; If we could wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear, we wold still have a criminal problem. However, if we could do the same with criminals, we could not have a gun problem. I am going to opine that the latter is a more realistic course to pursue.

JW

[Bragi]

85. You wrote:

When you call for repealing the 2nd amendment, I assume that you mean the complete abolition of private firearms ownership. If I am incorrect about this, please voice any corrections.

To be clear, the reason I personally oppose the 2nd amendment is not because I would remove every gun from its current owner. My opposition is this: according to various rulings, the 2nd amendment apparently makes regulation of gun ownership virtually impossible.

The result is you end up with a mess, where there are just too many damn guns floating about, and where everyone feels obligated to load up just because everyone else is loading up, and too many people are being shot.

If the U.S Constitution did not include that particular amendment, then the U.S would be able to properly regulate guns, to the betterment of public health. I think that would be better than what is currently in place.

As for the argument that if you oppose one part of the bill of rights -- in this case the 2nd amendment -- then you forfeit all the other rights, this is a nonsensical argument. If the drafters of the Bill felt it was perfect, they would not have included an amending formula.

- Bragi

[Flyboy_451]

87. Thank you for stating your position more precisely.

your statement "My opposition is this: according to various rulings, the 2nd amendment apparently makes regulation of gun ownership virtually impossible." leads me to think that you may not be well versed in what current firearms law entails. Not only am I a firearms enthusiast, I also operate a firearms related business. While there is certainly room for improvement of current law, our current laws are far more stringent than what popular media would have most believe. Firearms, as a whole, are actually quite heavily regulated in many regards. There are restrictions on everything from physical dimensions to operating mechanism, caliber, and many other properties. There a laws defining who may and may not purchase, posses, use or even have access to firearms. Regulations require licensing for those wishing to manufacture, sell and even repair firearms. As a general rule, if a business wishes to deal in firearms in any way, a license is required.

As I said earlier, there are areas in which improvement would be possible and in some cases desirable. The biggest problem that I see with most proposals that I have seen in the past twenty years, is that they do nothing to really make a difference in anything other than making someone "feel" safe. This is a function of many things, but probably most prominent is that legislators tend not to be educated enough to be able to write effective legislation on this particular subject. A perfect example is the 1994 assault weapons ban. Rather than try to further regulate equipment, I would suggest that we focus our efforts on creating legislation that truly targets criminals and their access to firearms. This is where the problem lies, not with the massive majority of law abiding gun owners.

The funny thing is that many, if not most, law abiding gun owners would truly support effective legislation that focused on true crime reduction and reducing criminal access to firearms. Unfortunately, those calling for further regulation tend to be the extremists that want nothing less than the elimination of firearms ownership for all citizens. This can be seen in their own words in many other threads right here on DU, so I will not bore you with quotes, although I would be happy to point some out if you would like. These same people would very likely be the one proposing legislation should the second amendment be repealed, and I daresay it would b far from "proper" or "reasonable" by most peoples standards.

Therein lies the problem. You are in favor of "proper regulation"; but who is to decide what is proper? Even if the 2nd were repealed, we would be having the same type of disagreements that are underway now. Why not actually try some of the suggestions that have come from our side of the fence? At the very least, it would at least be legislation that would likely pass both public and constitutional scrutiny. IT may even have a significant impact on criminal access and actions with guns. Here are just a few suggestions, right off the top of my head:

--Open up access to NICS, so that private sellers are able to do background checks on potential buyers.
--Vigorously pursue and prosecute (if appropriate) any NICS check that gets denied
--Eliminate plea bargains for reduced sentences in crimes which involve firearms
--Enforce minimum sentencing in cases of firearms crimes

I am sure I could come up with many more if I took a little time. Can you say that any of these suggestions are not reasonable in any way? If the answer is "no", can you explain why we should not pursue such measures prior to trying to eliminate a right that, according to our Supreme Court, predates the constitution and is not dependent upon that document for it's existence? I am more than willing to work with anyone that truly wants to attack the problem of gun violence, and I think that you will find that to be a sentiment held by the vast majority of, if not all, law abiding gun owners. What we are not willing to do, is give up a right to gain nothing in return.

JW

[oneshooter]

91. And what type of regulation would you advocate? n/t

[shadowrider]

92. Lemme guess. "Common sense regulation" with no defined

start or end.

You know, common sense.

[beevul]

88. 300 million + guns...

300 million + guns.

80 million + gun owners.

15 thousand-ish gun homicides in a country of 300 million.

(Not counting suicides, because I support the right of people to end their own life. If ones own life does not belong to themself, who then DOES it belong to?)


I haven't done the math, but somehow I doubt the numbers come anywhere close to "catastrophe".



Public health indeed. :eyes:

[Euromutt]

90. How is public health NOT politics?

PolSci 101: Politics is the process by which a society, or subset thereof, decides who gets what, and when.

The moment you start making public policy recommendations on the basis of the supposed interest of public health, you are engaging in politics, like it or not. When you argue that the general public should not have access to item X lest, allegedly, the physical well-being of Y number of people be adversely affected, you're engaging in politics.

From the report:

The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)

Or to put the parenthetical sentence in more familiar terms, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." And that's a good rule of thumb, within certain limitations. Namely, when people have been actively searching for evidence, and it may be reasonably argued that if a certain event had occurred, there would be detectable evidence of its occurrence, but said people have failed to produce any concrete evidence that the event has indeed occurred in spite of their actively searching for it, then we are fully justified in being highly skeptical that the event in question has indeed occurred.

Certainly, the absence of evidence that a particular gun control measure has resulted in a positive effect is evidence of the absence of a positive effect resulting from that particular gun control measure. We're not talking dark matter and string theory here; we're talking about things that can be readily measured by statistics. Sure, you can argue "if it weren't for this gun control measure, the situation might have been worse" (as many gun control proponents do) but then you've gone from the realm of empirical evidence into the realm of conjecture, because your cop-out is ipso facto an admission that your hypothesis was unfalsifiable, and therefore unverifiable.

Rather than demand proof of a negative, your time and effort might be spent more productively advocating for better education in the scientific method (including the philosophy of science and basic logic) in the public health sector.