Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So, that's it? Forgive me, but why in the world should anyone be interested in your defeatist opinion about suicide? Suicide prevention is the province of mental health professionals. Your casual dismissal of the problem is both typical and truly shameful. The so-called "pro gun rights" crowd have obsessively blocked the study of gun violence by health care professionals. Former Rep. Jay Dickey, who wrote the 1996 amendment which prevented the CDC from researching this problem now regrets that action. The president supposedly freed them to take up this study, and they have refused to do so. Why? Because they fear the NRA. The NIH has, at least, made a very small start in conducting such research.Yes suicide is tragic, and unfortunate and as Japan and Korea and the Scandinavian countries show us someone who is intent on killing themselves will do so. All of those countries have strict gun control and much higher suicide rates than we do. It ain't the tool, it's the desire to kill oneself that determines success.
By no means do I casually dismiss suicide and those whom it affects. A good friend of mine took his life many years ago. He was in severe pain and swam out to sea till he could swim no longer. I am well aware of the pain that survivors experience. However, those who are serious about suicide are going to do it.
The CDC uses biased metrics in everything they do so they are not a reliable source. If they truly wanted to reduce deaths they should concentrate on their specialty which is disease. Hell doctors kill more people than guns, and by a huge margin. Why do you think malpractice insurance rates are so high? They kill (according to the AMA) 120,000 people per year through mistakes, malpractice, misdiagnosis etc. This out of a population of 800,000 doctors.
How do you know the CDC uses biased metrics? What would be their agenda in doing so?
Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC
I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:
Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”
- Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.
In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.
“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.
- The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
- The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.
But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.
- CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.
Your source is a blog written by this man:
Timothy Wheeler, MD Articles – Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
You're lying by omission. These bullet points are the facts.
- A biased opinion. A blog by a doctor opposed to gun control
- A Republican Party which controlled a majority in both chambers of Congress
- A President under fire by The Congress and willing to compromise on everything to try to avoid impeachment
So, that's it? Forgive me, but why in the world should anyone be interested in your defeatist opinion about suicide? Suicide prevention is the province of mental health professionals. Your casual dismissal of the problem is both typical and truly shameful. The so-called "pro gun rights" crowd have obsessively blocked the study of gun violence by health care professionals. Former Rep. Jay Dickey, who wrote the 1996 amendment which prevented the CDC from researching this problem now regrets that action. The president supposedly freed them to take up this study, and they have refused to do so. Why? Because they fear the NRA. The NIH has, at least, made a very small start in conducting such research.But what if the "crazy idiot" is a veteran who has served their country honorably? What if their service has damaged them so badly that they raise a gun to their head and pull the trigger? Suicide is the number one cause of gun death in the US, and it is an epidemic amongst our veterans. What does the so-called gun-rights side say about that (I am completely pro-gun rights, btw, and I don't believe gun control would be an effective solution)?
Yes suicide is tragic, and unfortunate and as Japan and Korea and the Scandinavian countries show us someone who is intent on killing themselves will do so. All of those countries have strict gun control and much higher suicide rates than we do. It ain't the tool, it's the desire to kill oneself that determines success.
By no means do I casually dismiss suicide and those whom it affects. A good friend of mine took his life many years ago. He was in severe pain and swam out to sea till he could swim no longer. I am well aware of the pain that survivors experience. However, those who are serious about suicide are going to do it.
The CDC uses biased metrics in everything they do so they are not a reliable source. If they truly wanted to reduce deaths they should concentrate on their specialty which is disease. Hell doctors kill more people than guns, and by a huge margin. Why do you think malpractice insurance rates are so high? They kill (according to the AMA) 120,000 people per year through mistakes, malpractice, misdiagnosis etc. This out of a population of 800,000 doctors.
How do you know the CDC uses biased metrics? What would be their agenda in doing so?
The CDC is heavily anti gun so their use of biased metrics is well known. They are far, far from a legit source.
So, that's it? Forgive me, but why in the world should anyone be interested in your defeatist opinion about suicide? Suicide prevention is the province of mental health professionals. Your casual dismissal of the problem is both typical and truly shameful. The so-called "pro gun rights" crowd have obsessively blocked the study of gun violence by health care professionals. Former Rep. Jay Dickey, who wrote the 1996 amendment which prevented the CDC from researching this problem now regrets that action. The president supposedly freed them to take up this study, and they have refused to do so. Why? Because they fear the NRA. The NIH has, at least, made a very small start in conducting such research.
By no means do I casually dismiss suicide and those whom it affects. A good friend of mine took his life many years ago. He was in severe pain and swam out to sea till he could swim no longer. I am well aware of the pain that survivors experience. However, those who are serious about suicide are going to do it.
The CDC uses biased metrics in everything they do so they are not a reliable source. If they truly wanted to reduce deaths they should concentrate on their specialty which is disease. Hell doctors kill more people than guns, and by a huge margin. Why do you think malpractice insurance rates are so high? They kill (according to the AMA) 120,000 people per year through mistakes, malpractice, misdiagnosis etc. This out of a population of 800,000 doctors.
How do you know the CDC uses biased metrics? What would be their agenda in doing so?
Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC
I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:
Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”
- Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.
In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.
“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.
- The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
- The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.
But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.
- CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.
Your source is a blog written by this man:
Timothy Wheeler, MD Articles – Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
You're lying by omission. These bullet points are the facts.
- A biased opinion. A blog by a doctor opposed to gun control
- A Republican Party which controlled a majority in both chambers of Congress
- A President under fire by The Congress and willing to compromise on everything to try to avoid impeachment
So are you. You have one group that is biased in favor of gun control. You have another group that is not biased in favor of gun control. And then there is you who are heavily biased in favor of gun control. And you wonder that we choose different source material than you. Really?
By no means do I casually dismiss suicide and those whom it affects. A good friend of mine took his life many years ago. He was in severe pain and swam out to sea till he could swim no longer. I am well aware of the pain that survivors experience. However, those who are serious about suicide are going to do it.
The CDC uses biased metrics in everything they do so they are not a reliable source. If they truly wanted to reduce deaths they should concentrate on their specialty which is disease. Hell doctors kill more people than guns, and by a huge margin. Why do you think malpractice insurance rates are so high? They kill (according to the AMA) 120,000 people per year through mistakes, malpractice, misdiagnosis etc. This out of a population of 800,000 doctors.
How do you know the CDC uses biased metrics? What would be their agenda in doing so?
Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC
I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:
Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”
- Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.
In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.
“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.
- The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
- The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.
But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.
- CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.
Your source is a blog written by this man:
Timothy Wheeler, MD Articles – Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
You're lying by omission. These bullet points are the facts.
- A biased opinion. A blog by a doctor opposed to gun control
- A Republican Party which controlled a majority in both chambers of Congress
- A President under fire by The Congress and willing to compromise on everything to try to avoid impeachment
So are you. You have one group that is biased in favor of gun control. You have another group that is not biased in favor of gun control. And then there is you who are heavily biased in favor of gun control. And you wonder that we choose different source material than you. Really?
Quality is the issue. primary sources vis a vis op-eds.
How do you know the CDC uses biased metrics? What would be their agenda in doing so?
Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC
I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:
Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”
- Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.
In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.
“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.
- The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
- The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.
But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.
- CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.
Your source is a blog written by this man:
Timothy Wheeler, MD Articles – Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
You're lying by omission. These bullet points are the facts.
- A biased opinion. A blog by a doctor opposed to gun control
- A Republican Party which controlled a majority in both chambers of Congress
- A President under fire by The Congress and willing to compromise on everything to try to avoid impeachment
So are you. You have one group that is biased in favor of gun control. You have another group that is not biased in favor of gun control. And then there is you who are heavily biased in favor of gun control. And you wonder that we choose different source material than you. Really?
Quality is the issue. primary sources vis a vis op-eds.
I agree with you on that. However, anyone who go's into a study with a pre conceived idea is going to be afflicted with confirmation bias which renders their work suspect in the best case and outright crap in the worst.
Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC
I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:
Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”
- Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.
In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.
“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.
- The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
- The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.
But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.
- CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.
Your source is a blog written by this man:
Timothy Wheeler, MD Articles – Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
You're lying by omission. These bullet points are the facts.
- A biased opinion. A blog by a doctor opposed to gun control
- A Republican Party which controlled a majority in both chambers of Congress
- A President under fire by The Congress and willing to compromise on everything to try to avoid impeachment
So are you. You have one group that is biased in favor of gun control. You have another group that is not biased in favor of gun control. And then there is you who are heavily biased in favor of gun control. And you wonder that we choose different source material than you. Really?
Quality is the issue. primary sources vis a vis op-eds.
I agree with you on that. However, anyone who go's into a study with a pre conceived idea is going to be afflicted with confirmation bias which renders their work suspect in the best case and outright crap in the worst.
If and only if the conclusion does not follow the evidence. Most studies test a theory - a pre conceived idea if you like - but most are peer reviewed and must follow the evidence.
The Constitution is not a set of laws. They are rights laws are written to uphold those rights not to take them away. .Even though the 2nd Amendment was for protection against a tyrannical Government the framers also had self-defence in mind, as well as later writings by them, show this. The Constitution is amendable but you still can not take a fundamental right away or weaken it.Yes, that was the purpose of the second amendment, and it was a wise provision in it s day. That day ended with the establishment of a standing army at the start of the Twentieth Century. Anyone who thinks that the same purpose is being served today is delusional. Anyone who thinks that laws (and that is all the constitution is, laws) will remain viable throughout all of history is ignorant of what law and government is. The same people who made the constitution made it amendable. It's up to us, the people who are alive, to determine whether any law on the books is still viable. All of this, of course, is completely irrelevant to the subject of this thread, which is how to reduce gun violence."Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or paramilitary force of our government."
You do know that's precisely what the 2nd amendment is for right? Protection against a tyrannical Government. Wether you believe it is possible or not is irrelevant history has shown that it can happen time and time again.
There are already background checks in place in every state in the Union, In each of those states there are laws in place that should stop shootings from happening so why are still occurring? Criminals do not follow the law. The gun control that some want will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to practice the Constitutional rights and when that happens that tyrannical Government you dismiss as unlikely will be here.
So, that's it? Forgive me, but why in the world should anyone be interested in your defeatist opinion about suicide? Suicide prevention is the province of mental health professionals. Your casual dismissal of the problem is both typical and truly shameful. The so-called "pro gun rights" crowd have obsessively blocked the study of gun violence by health care professionals. Former Rep. Jay Dickey, who wrote the 1996 amendment which prevented the CDC from researching this problem now regrets that action. The president supposedly freed them to take up this study, and they have refused to do so. Why? Because they fear the NRA. The NIH has, at least, made a very small start in conducting such research.Yes suicide is tragic, and unfortunate and as Japan and Korea and the Scandinavian countries show us someone who is intent on killing themselves will do so. All of those countries have strict gun control and much higher suicide rates than we do. It ain't the tool, it's the desire to kill oneself that determines success.
By no means do I casually dismiss suicide and those whom it affects. A good friend of mine took his life many years ago. He was in severe pain and swam out to sea till he could swim no longer. I am well aware of the pain that survivors experience. However, those who are serious about suicide are going to do it.
The CDC uses biased metrics in everything they do so they are not a reliable source. If they truly wanted to reduce deaths they should concentrate on their specialty which is disease. Hell doctors kill more people than guns, and by a huge margin. Why do you think malpractice insurance rates are so high? They kill (according to the AMA) 120,000 people per year through mistakes, malpractice, misdiagnosis etc. This out of a population of 800,000 doctors.
How do you know the CDC uses biased metrics? What would be their agenda in doing so?
Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC
I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:
Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”
- Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.
In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.
“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.
- The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
- The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.
But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.
- CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.
Your source is a blog written by this man:
Timothy Wheeler, MD Articles – Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
You're lying by omission. These bullet points are the facts.
- A biased opinion. A blog by a doctor opposed to gun control
- A Republican Party which controlled a majority in both chambers of Congress
- A President under fire by The Congress and willing to compromise on everything to try to avoid impeachment
1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.
Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.
2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.
3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.
4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.
You don't know what will or won't work to mitigate gun violence. I will admit gun control is not a panacea for violence in America but doing nothing, trying nothing is foolish, selfish and can not stand.
Rational people with normal amounts of empathy are fed up with daily reports of murder, suicide and accidental deaths by gun.
The more the NRA and it followers continue to roadblock efforts to reduce gun violence the more likely more restrictive laws will be promulgated.
You are not giving up any Right, you may be inconvenienced by the suggestions I've made over the past months.
The only ones' who will have gun restrictions are those have been convicted of a violent act, placed by civil order in a facility as a danger to them self or others, are on parole or probation or have a documented alcohol or drug addiction. All responsible gun owners support a means to keep gun out of their hands - why don't you?
Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control?]
I'm so tired of people saying something won't work so let's do nothing. Eventually, gun control will work. I've mentioned smart guns which can't be used by anyone but the programmed owner, and I hear the howls, "They won't work!" Rights! Restrictions! Regulations! So let's do nothing and eventually ,again, we won't be able to go to theaters, churches, malls, schools, public events without risking our lives. Lets. Do. Nothing.Here is the problem that liberals never ever think about:
Some crazy idiot kills a bunch of people with a gun.
Ignorant but well meaning people allow politicians to restrict gun rights.
But gun control does not work so.....
Some crazy idiot kills a bunch of people with a gun.
Ignorant but well meaning people allow politicians to restrict gun rights.
But gun control does not work so.....
Some crazy idiot kills a bunch of people with a gun.
Ignorant but well meaning people allow politicians to restrict gun rights.
Eventually, there are no more gun rights and still some crazy idiot kills a bunch of people with a gun.
And don't forget, Use a gun, go to prison legislation, and the enhancement when a gun is present in any crime, adding years to a sentence.
I'm so tired of people saying something won't work so let's do nothing. Eventually, gun control will work. I've mentioned smart guns which can't be used by anyone but the programmed owner, and I hear the howls, "They won't work!" Rights! Restrictions! Regulations! So let's do nothing and eventually ,again, we won't be able to go to theaters, churches, malls, schools, public events without risking our lives. Lets. Do. Nothing.Here is the problem that liberals never ever think about:
Some crazy idiot kills a bunch of people with a gun.
Ignorant but well meaning people allow politicians to restrict gun rights.
But gun control does not work so.....
Some crazy idiot kills a bunch of people with a gun.
Ignorant but well meaning people allow politicians to restrict gun rights.
But gun control does not work so.....
Some crazy idiot kills a bunch of people with a gun.
Ignorant but well meaning people allow politicians to restrict gun rights.
Eventually, there are no more gun rights and still some crazy idiot kills a bunch of people with a gun.
And don't forget, Use a gun, go to prison legislation, and the enhancement when a gun is present in any crime, adding years to a sentence.
Sounds great!
The following is how your idea translates to the real world in a US city plagued by gun violence.
____________________________
St. Louis Police Chief Dan Isom:
"One thing we have to be aware of to give context to this whole problem is that we are looking at an urban problem. It’s much less a suburban or rural problem. It really affects young minorities— Hispanic and black males. I think that the suspects devalue life, the victims devalue life, and the system also devalues life. When you look at the shooting victims and suspects in these neighborhoods, you see 20 or 30 felony arrests, with eight convictions.
Often the convictions don’t result in any jail time at all; they’re getting probation on top of probation. This has caused a lot of us in cities to move toward federal prosecution, because we know on the state level it’s a hit-and-miss prospect: they’re arrested, they’re convicted, and they come out multiple times.
In Missouri, there’s a type of probation people can receive, and it has made it very difficult for us to establish a person as a convicted felon. I’ve heard other chiefs talking about the fact that a weapons charge in their state is only a misdemeanor offense. But in St. Louis, a weapons violation can turn out to be no offense at all. An individual will get arrested for a weapons charge, which is a felony, and often they plead to that case and get an SIS—a suspended imposition of sentence. It means that if you serve out your probation, which everybody does, that conviction is erased.
So if you’re arrested again with another weapon, you don’t have a conviction on your record, so you’re not a felon in possession of a weapon. If you continue to get multiple SISs, you never become a convicted felon. These offenders will often show up for other crimes, and if they never have a conviction, then you’re never able to put stiffer charges on them."
__________________________
So, how does your idea square with the reality of the liberal revolving door justice system?
Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control?]
I wonder if anyone asked the majority of the 39th Congress that question?
A big reason why we have the 14th Amendment were laws that said:
__________________
Section 1. Be it enacted, ... [t]hat no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States [G]overnment, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie-knife,. . . -- 1865 Miss. Laws 165 (Nov. 29, 1865).
__________________
The "equal rights" argument was that such a requirement (that was not enforced against Whites) was a violation of rights of Freemen (former slaves, then citizens) which was why the 2nd Amendment needed to be enforced against state action.
So it's your opinion that as long as such a license to own a gun was mandated for everybody (equal restriction) it would pass constitutional muster?
If one were suspicious...one would think that they were letting known violent gun criminals back on the streets to commit more gun crimes.......
Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control?]
I wonder if anyone asked the majority of the 39th Congress that question?
A big reason why we have the 14th Amendment were laws that said:
__________________
Section 1. Be it enacted, ... [t]hat no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States [G]overnment, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie-knife,. . . -- 1865 Miss. Laws 165 (Nov. 29, 1865).
__________________
The "equal rights" argument was that such a requirement (that was not enforced against Whites) was a violation of rights of Freemen (former slaves, then citizens) which was why the 2nd Amendment needed to be enforced against state action.
So it's your opinion that as long as such a license to own a gun was mandated for everybody (equal restriction) it would pass constitutional muster?
Yes, for everybody who wanted to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control.
Everyone could apply for a license, but some restrictions would need to be applied based on issues NOT related to a protected class, and of course would not adversely impact white males.
And don't forget, Use a gun, go to prison legislation, and the enhancement when a gun is present in any crime, adding years to a sentence.
Sounds great!
The following is how your idea translates to the real world in a US city plagued by gun violence.
____________________________
St. Louis Police Chief Dan Isom:
"One thing we have to be aware of to give context to this whole problem is that we are looking at an urban problem. It’s much less a suburban or rural problem. It really affects young minorities— Hispanic and black males. I think that the suspects devalue life, the victims devalue life, and the system also devalues life. When you look at the shooting victims and suspects in these neighborhoods, you see 20 or 30 felony arrests, with eight convictions.
Often the convictions don’t result in any jail time at all; they’re getting probation on top of probation. This has caused a lot of us in cities to move toward federal prosecution, because we know on the state level it’s a hit-and-miss prospect: they’re arrested, they’re convicted, and they come out multiple times.
In Missouri, there’s a type of probation people can receive, and it has made it very difficult for us to establish a person as a convicted felon. I’ve heard other chiefs talking about the fact that a weapons charge in their state is only a misdemeanor offense. But in St. Louis, a weapons violation can turn out to be no offense at all. An individual will get arrested for a weapons charge, which is a felony, and often they plead to that case and get an SIS—a suspended imposition of sentence. It means that if you serve out your probation, which everybody does, that conviction is erased.
So if you’re arrested again with another weapon, you don’t have a conviction on your record, so you’re not a felon in possession of a weapon. If you continue to get multiple SISs, you never become a convicted felon. These offenders will often show up for other crimes, and if they never have a conviction, then you’re never able to put stiffer charges on them."
__________________________
So, how does your idea square with the reality of the liberal revolving door justice system?
