Posted on 03/12/2015 6:01:13 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The American College of Physicians, combined with the American Bar Association and eight other professional organizations, has issued a call for action to stem the national crisis in firearm deaths and injuries. In a white paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, they point out that more than 32,000 deaths a year are the result of gun violence. The United States has the most gun deaths of any industrialized nation. In addition, the number of injuries caused by guns is more than double the death number. The Children's Safety Network estimated that in 2010, gun violence cost $174 billion. The ACP considers gun violence a national health crisis. They have proposed six starting steps needed to begin to bring this crisis under control:
1) Universal background checks. There is statistical evidence that present limited background checks do weed out a substantial number of unstable individuals who should not own a gun. Unfortunately, many of these individuals can easily get around this restraint by purchasing a weapon at a gun show or from a private individual.
2) Repeal all physician "gag laws." There are states where it is a crime for a physician to ask his patient if he owns a gun. There are no rationally justifiable reasons for these laws, and if not repealed, every physician has an ethical obligation that exceeds the right of the state to enforce such laws.
3) Improve access to mental health services. The American Psychiatric Association has published a position statement on firearm access that clearly shows that early identification, intervention and treatment of mental and substance-use disorders reduces firearm-related deaths and injuries. Unfortunately, mental health services are the stepchild of health financing, making access to these services difficult and infrequent.
4) Modify mandatory reporting laws. Many states require mandatory reporting of individuals who show signs of serious injury to themselves or others. These laws often do not provide adequate protection of confidentiality and have resulted in disincentives to patients seeking treatment. There should also be a mechanism for an individual who has lost his right to purchase and possess a firearm because of mental disease to be able to re-establish his right once the mental condition is under control or cured.
5) Establish more reasonable laws concerning ownership of military-style assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. The only person who needs an assault-type weapon to hunt is the shooter who cannot hit the side of the barn with a modern lever-action hunting rifle. The argument of the insecure and paranoid fringe that they need such a rifle to protect themselves from a dictatorial government is nonsense.
6) Research. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health should be adequately funded to study firearm violence and methods for preventing gun violence. Scientifically studying gun violence could improve gun safety not only for the average citizen but also for the gun user.
First, police use training videos that are designed to test and shorten the defendant officer's reaction time. This is so ingrained in the policeman's psyche that he has come to believe that he must shoot first or be killed. Does this type of training result in a significant increase in unjustified shootings? Might training in which the officer is taught to first fall prostrate to the ground be a more-efficient training exercise? Would falling prone result in fewer accidental killings? Falling to the ground would provide less of a target area, might confuse the offender and would give the officer additional time to evaluate the situation while at the same time studying his shot if needed. Presently there is no data to even begin to analyze these questions.
Second, consider the recent threat of mall shootings raised by Islamic jihadists. If 1 or 2 percent of the people in the mall had legally concealed weapons -- or, for that matter, open-carry loaded weapons -- would this deter attacks or make the situation more chaotic? I doubt that a standard handgun would deter a suicidal jihadist when he comes with body armor and a rapid-fire assault weapon. Would the presence of several armed citizens make it difficult for the responding police to tell the good guys from the bad guys? Again, there is no scientific data available to use in trying to analyze this situation.
None of these recommended points is in any way contrary to the Second Amendment. I am in full agreement with these efforts and believe the time is long past since these recommendations should have been instituted. I am, however, realistic and believe none of this will be done until there is recognition of the individual, social, economic and political harm that has been done to this country by the gun lobby.
William D. Bezdek , M.D., is a fellow of the American College of Physicians and a retired cardiologist.
I always ask my leftie anti-2nd Amendment gun hating “friends”... How many otherwise law-abiding, productive, tax paying Americans are you willing to have KILLED, IMPRISONED, THREATENED WITH VIOLENCE (likely with Gestapo tactics using fully-auto government guns)... to disarm the public as to “protect” us from the “health crisis” of “gun violence”? Blood may run in the streets, casualties on both sides mount... but we’ll then be “safe” won’t we?
His argument is moot the moment he breaks out any statistics. Given the amount of violence in America, which by the way is decreasing, the statistics should be viewed as a success. I assume part of those statistics include self defense. I am completely fine with those statistics increasing until there is no more violence, although I would never wish anyone to have to use a weapon in self defense.
“The American College of Physicians, combined with the American Bar Association and eight other professional organizations”.....
It would really be interesting to know exactly how many of those hypocritical, over paid bastards “carry” or have someone else protecting them.
Everyone who talks or writes about the morally specious category “gun violence” should be reminded in some sharp way that those who are murdered with clubs or knives are just as dead as those who are gunned down, their friends and relatives just as bereaved, and the soul of the murderer just as stained. Perhaps IS beheading videos might be put to some good use in this regard. (I am absolutely certain that the relatives of the 21 Coptic New Martys of Libya take solace only from the fact that their sons and brothers dies as marytrs for Christ, and none from the fact that they were not “victims of gun violence”.)
The only comparable country to the United States — multi-ethnic with a long uncontrollable border — the Russian Federation has a murder rate about 8 times that of the U.S. with a firearms ownership rate about 10% of that in the U.S. This fact demonstrates the vacuity of “gun violence” as a category both in moral and policy considerations and makes the notion of “controlling gun violence” uninteresting both morally and as a matter of public health.
The statistical sleight-of-hand gun-haters like to use is that places with weak gun laws and high gun ownership rates have more “gun deaths.”
What they won’t tell you is that those places have the lowest per capita murder rates.
More guns, less murder.
Bill Whittle’s YouTube video “Number One With a Bullet” illustrates this very succinctly.
Here is a link to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
Here are links to the three data sources that he references.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate
Fact is, states and countries with strong gun laws and low gun ownership rates lead the nation and world in per capita murder rate.
They also lead the world in violent crime rate.
Gun-controlled Britain has a low homicide rate, but it has the highest violent crime rate in the EU, a violent crime rate that is higher than even South African, and much higher than the United States.
The only first-world nation with a higher violent crime rate than Britain is Australia, a nation that also banned and confiscated firearms, stripping its people of their ability to defend themselves from violent criminals.
So if you like high violent crime and murder rates, by all means advocate taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.
Bull splatter! Stick to medicine, Doc, and leave public policy to The People.
Dear sawbones, “From my cold dead hands.”
4 outright lies and 2 half-truths with Socialist undertones.
About par for the course...
Look at number 6 - Follow the money!
OK, doc ... so guns kill 32000 people per year.
Doctors kill nearly a million people per year.
Maybe we should regulate doctors more tightly.
Enforcing existing laws would help a lot.
Illegal alien gang members have a lot to do with guns stats as well.
I want to know what gun violence is suppose to mean? Is it like knife violence, baseball bat violence, car violence, alcohol violence, drug violence and government violence? Should I worry about one of my guns attacking me one day?
According to 2011 FBI statistics, of 12,664 homicides, 8583 were committed with guns. According to the CDC, 13,834 people with an AIDS diagnosis died in 2011. Statistically, guns are much Much MUCH safer than gay sex, which the US gov't encourages.
2) Repeal all physician “gag laws.” There are states where it is a crime for a physician to ask his patient if he owns a gun. There are no rationally justifiable reasons for these laws, and if not repealed, every physician has an ethical obligation that exceeds the right of the state to enforce such laws
What would be a “rationally justifiable reason” for a Physician to ask?
It seems like they do recognize that suicide is a large part, if not the largest contributor to the 32,000 gun deaths in this country. They just won’t say it. Because if people knew this fact, then they might decide that saving people from themselves is not worth sacrificing “my” liberty. Plus, if they pull the 32,000 number out and lead people to believe that this is gun murders it is easier for people to accept their premise.
My dad is an M.D. We had this conversation less than a mo. ago.
He thought it absurd that, in Alabama, a Doctor can’t ask if you have guns in the house.
I asked “Why would you ask?” He looked at me like I was nuts and said “to prevent children from getting killed or injured, of course!” (he’s a Pediatrician, semi-retired he has been practicing over 50 years).
I asked him how many of his patients have been “killed or injured over the years” Answer “One”. But if we can save one life......
I explained that many gun owners think that Doctors asking about guns in the home is a back door way of the Government banning guns. He seemed to think that was an extreme view. But I hope I got him thinking.....
I think I’ll pull up this thread and discuss it with him tonight. Gently.
the murder rate varies by race, and most gun deaths are gang/drug related.
But although this information is on the CDC website, it is ignored by the press.
Doctors kill 400,000 people annually...over 10 times the total annual firearms deaths.
Yes.
A firearm left in possession of its ammunition, absent a human actor, is still capable of going off on its own and slaughtering millions of people, mostly Minorities and children.
/liberal douche-bag
Japan has total gun control and the third-highest suicide rate in the world.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html
Just a couple of points on this diaper load of crap.
1) Universal background checks.
Strategical note to gun-banning self: let's put up in blazing first place the cause du jour. It's the only one we've had traction with lately, with Bloomie's millions flumoxing those idiots in Washington state to pass I-594.
5) Establish more reasonable laws concerning ownership of military-style assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. The only person who needs an assault-type weapon to hunt is the shooter who cannot hit the side of the barn with a modern lever-action hunting rifle. The argument of the insecure and paranoid fringe that they need such a rifle to protect themselves from a dictatorial government is nonsense.
Aha! Buried in fifth place is our real intention. Include some blather belittling sport rifle owners, without showing too much of our ignorance...wait, too late!
"Modern lever-action hunting rifle"? Now I love my Winchester AE, but how modern can a style of rifle be with model designations such as "1866", "1892", "1894", and the real new kid on the block, "1895"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.