PDA

View Full Version : How your 2A rights can be take in the name of Public Health


OHOD
02-17-2012, 6:25 AM
I got an email from one of Calguns members asking to read a paper I wrote on public health and gun violence.

Think of public health as the back door to taking your 2A rights away. There will not be a direct attack on the constitution, but rather an insidious change in public health policy at the community level. There are all kinds of ways to accomplish this, as one only needs to Google "public health firearms violence" and you will come up with a plethora of data.

Here is something I found on the internetz regarding the issue, it's a good read. If you want to understand the rationale of anti-gun public health policy, read the following link. (not written by me).


www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-ch1.pdf

QQQ
02-17-2012, 7:17 AM
I'm going to respond to this later with an edit to this post.

EDIT (from someone who studies and works in public health):

1) There are plenty of descriptive statistics in this article, but zero actual correlations, let alone causations, being studied. Although it is a mere literature review, they fail to cite any articles that indicate any potential correlation with the measures advocated and a decrease in gun deaths. In layman's terms, they're jumping to conclusions without any evidence. Every single policy benefit is based solely on conjecture rather than experimental evidence.

2) Several of the measures advocated by the writers (biometric locks, loaded chamber indicators, magazine safety devices) would only prevent accidental or spurious discharge of the gun, which account for relatively few of the gun deaths and injuries in the US, even by the authors' own admission. And among the suicides, it is automatically assumed that suicides by gunfire are a major public health concern. Considering that suicides primarily impact the elderly and very unhealthy, preventing suicides in the general population should not be considered a priority.

3) Any paper in the field of Public Health policy should include some explanation of metrics of effectiveness/evaluation to ensure that the measures, once introduced, are actually working. There is no mention of any such measures in the article, which provides evidence that the authors only want the policies enacted for their own sake, rather than to create any measurable public health benefit.

4) It is assumed in the article that it is fair, using the willingness-to-pay approach, to place the entire burden of a public health measure (such as biometric gun locks) on a relatively small slice of the population (in this case, gun owners). Realistically, it is highly unlikely that gun owners are willing to bear this entire burden.

5) There is no mention of disability-adjusted life-years, which is a standard measure of burden of disease in public health, or direct overall costs to the economy of the measures being advocated. This severely reduces the article's credibility.

6) On page 58, it mentions that a case-control study indicated that having a gun in the home increased the "risk" of unintentional homicide and injury. This is impossible- a case-control study cannot be used to directly assess the risk, only the odds. Biostatistics fail. The odds can only provide an estimate of the risk, and only under certain circumstances.

There's more, but suffice it to say that even from a pure public health perspective, this is an awful article.

OleCuss
02-17-2012, 8:07 AM
Public health/good is and will be used to justify almost anything the fascists want. Firearm control may be our focus here - but their focus is nowhere nearly so narrow.

Everything pertains to your health. There are no exceptions. So if they can become responsible for your health they can control every aspect of your existence.

We need to tell government its job is to allow us to live peaceful lives where we don't harm others and they don't harm us. If they aren't simply keeping the peace, they probably shouldn't be doing it (with a few exceptions like a common currency, ensuring transparency in transactions, and foreign policy - which relate back to others not harming us).

Apocalypsenerd
02-17-2012, 8:30 AM
What is the date on that article? Is it recent? If so, what is the rationale for ignoring the continuing decline in violence from 2000-2012?

Questions I would ask those researchers: Is there a similar car research program at the CDC? If not, why not?

Yemff
02-17-2012, 8:49 AM
Think of public health as the back door to taking your 2A rights away.



Not only can it be used to take firearm rights away, but used to for much more ludicrous things. Things as ridiculous as not allowing footballs and frisbees at the beach, there are no ends to this ineptitude. And it's a scary thing to think about how far its going to go, and how much some people are willing to let the government take over every aspect of their lives and freedoms in the name of "public safety".

Wherryj
02-17-2012, 11:06 AM
I got an email from one of Calguns members asking to read a paper I wrote on public health and gun violence.

Think of public health as the back door to taking your 2A rights away. There will not be a direct attack on the constitution, but rather an insidious change in public health policy at the community level. There are all kinds of ways to accomplish this, as one only needs to Google "public health firearms violence" and you will come up with a plethora of data.

Here is something I found on the internetz regarding the issue, it's a good read. If you want to understand the rationale of anti-gun public health policy, read the following link. (not written by me).


www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-ch1.pdf

I agree, although there are very good ways to fight this. Other Constitutionally protected rights require a good amount of scruitiny before being abridged by "public health".

As an example, you CAN be involuntarily comitted to a facility for active TB, but the judge will usually at least make those asking for the incarceration to meet a certain set of criteria (too lenient in most opinions).

Merely abridging a right based on the fact that soemthing COULD be a public health issue would leave quite the open door for legal challenge. I have heard that there are a few good lawyers here in CA and associated with the NRA/2AF that might bust said door right off its hinges.

All in all a good situation to keep a close eye upon.

Wherryj
02-17-2012, 11:07 AM
Public health/good is and will be used to justify almost anything the fascists want. Firearm control may be our focus here - but their focus is nowhere nearly so narrow.

Everything pertains to your health. There are no exceptions. So if they can become responsible for your health they can control every aspect of your existence.

We need to tell government its job is to allow us to live peaceful lives where we don't harm others and they don't harm us. If they aren't simply keeping the peace, they probably shouldn't be doing it (with a few exceptions like a common currency, ensuring transparency in transactions, and foreign policy - which relate back to others not harming us).

"Public health" is a field open to abuses by the government that is not unlike the "interstate commerce clause" has become. Whenever the government wants more control over something than they are currently granted, these seem to be the "go to"s.

IVC
02-17-2012, 11:56 AM
Think of public health as the back door to taking your 2A rights away. There will not be a direct attack on the constitution, but rather an insidious change in public health policy at the community level.

Not as easy as it might seem. Otherwise, the deep south would be justifying sodomy laws as a way to prevent HIV infections (public health), while in reality fighting a social issue they find immoral/objectionable (homosexuality).

Using gun deaths (public health) to fight a social issue blue coastal states find morally objectionable (gun ownership/culture) is the same mechanism and will be hard to defend against a competent counsel attacking it based on the constitutionally protected behavior.

Editorials about public safety issues will remain as an annoyance. For example, ACLU still has this to say about Heller (direct copy-paste from their site):

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Courtís decision in D.C. v. Heller.

While annoying, it has no effect and clearly cannot be used as an argument in any court.

Librarian
02-17-2012, 1:14 PM
The original link was to the first chapter of "Suing the Gun Industry: A Battle at the Crossroads of Gun Control and Mass Torts By Timothy Lytton" from 2005.

Second author of the chapter, Stephen Teret (http://www.jhsph.edu/faculty/directory/profile/3824/Teret/Stephen), is a known anti.

Alan Block
02-17-2012, 4:03 PM
regulate sugar.

OHOD
02-17-2012, 4:58 PM
Public health/good is and will be used to justify almost anything the fascists want. Firearm control may be our focus here - but their focus is nowhere nearly so narrow.



Yes and no.
Their goal is broad.
The battles can be big or small.

Think of their goal as this line...

[------------------------Eliminate 2A rights---------------------------------------]

[-----] [-----] [-----] [-----] [-----] and etc...
^^^^This is a bunch of small battles to reach the ultimate goal.

One of these battles is guns as a public health problem.

Think of the scenario this way.......

Jimmy and Susan have two children that are 12 and 13. They live in a low income community where violence, gangs and drugs run rampant. Jimmy and Susan cannot afford to leave the community, they must live there for many of the same reasons we like to live were we do. School, friends, job and etc...

The kids cannot play outside because of a high risk of abduction, being shot, preyed upon by drug dealers and etc... The kids become overweight. Jimmy and Susan live in moderate anxiety all the time. The stress is causing them to have hypertension. Additionally, the stress of living in the neighborhood is causing disruption in the family.

When you have more than 1 family experiencing this problem, then you have a community health issue that needs to be resolved. While there are plenty of interventions available, many of them take time and sometimes are just plain ineffective or expensive.

When you have an entire city that lives like this, then you have a real problem. For example...Oakland. Sure there are some areas that are lovely and safe, but some areas are not....allot of areas.

So, what to do?
Eliminate guns in these communities. This is not a solution, but an intervention. I have to be clear on this....an intervention. Many interventions are used to develop a plan of care.

I hope this helps to clarify how gun violence is viewed from a health care perspective.

Librarian
02-17-2012, 6:16 PM
However, in properly conducted assessments, an intervention will be chosen based on 'best practices'. For example, a cephalectomy is a possible intervention for a headache, but ordinarily would be rejected.

Since the 'remove the guns' intervention cannot be shown to have any effect on the problem, a properly vetted assessment would reject that intervention.

Addressing social problems as health problems is applying a wrench where a screwdriver is required.

CenterX
02-17-2012, 6:28 PM
Interesting - some carry based on health problems.
Now, does this throw them under the bus for the "Good of the Whole"? I think not.
Current posting - "No Weapons" signs in businesses is based on "Safety of the Public, Employees, and Patrons". This "Saftey" stance is not reducing firearms carry all that much - and is only supported by "Private Property Laws".
Now "Safety" as a control in public is fueling the Homeland Security interventions regarding public transportation - which will be a SCOTUS case at some point - only takes time for this.
I think I need to run for my tin hat - excuse me.....

IVC
02-17-2012, 8:31 PM
Current posting - "No Weapons" signs in businesses is based on "Safety of the Public, Employees, and Patrons". This "Saftey" stance is not reducing firearms carry all that much - and is only supported by "Private Property Laws".

Gun owners/carriers, NOT being one of the protected groups, can be discriminated against at will. As you point out, it is just the privacy law and the explanation provided by the business carries absolutely no weight.

If gun carriers WERE a protected group and the "safety" explanation withstood the court challenge, that would be a reason to worry, though.

ldsnet
02-17-2012, 10:55 PM
Not dated, copyrighted or footnoted (though the numbers exist throughout). I wonder why the "publisher" chose to leave out those little details. Takes an already slanted story and throws it into the deep end of FUD. Just goes to show "don't trust half of what you read."

Kerplow
02-17-2012, 11:14 PM
This thought has definitely crossed my mind, and is really my main issue with socialized health care. When someone else' health becomes the concern of the collective, liberties will play second fiddle to cost/public health.

CDFingers
02-18-2012, 5:33 AM
The piece identifies certain groups for whom guns are dangerous. Kids, for example. The solution is not to attempt the impossible and remove guns from everyone, but to correctly supervise guns. And kids. I like Eastwood's idea on gun control: "If there's a gun around, I want control of it." Parents take heed.

As shown above, this is one chapter from a book. I would guess that the numbers in the article point to somewhere in the book where the notes exist.

CDFingers

OleCuss
02-18-2012, 6:21 AM
Yes and no.
Their goal is broad.
The battles can be big or small.

Think of their goal as this line...

[------------------------Eliminate 2A rights---------------------------------------]

[-----] [-----] [-----] [-----] [-----] and etc...
^^^^This is a bunch of small battles to reach the ultimate goal.

One of these battles is guns as a public health problem.
.
.
.
.
.

I hope this helps to clarify how gun violence is viewed from a health care perspective.

Your perspective is much appreciated.

The goal, however, is far more expansive although nowhere explicitly defined. You read a whole bunch of medical "studies" over time and you get an idea where this is going.

There is nothing which is excluded from the goals of those who think they should control public health. This ranges from belief systems to income equality, climate control, international cooperation, food choices, lifestyle choices, etc.

You come up with your wildest fascist/socialist dream and there is a very good chance that it has been advocated by some in the medical community as furthering public health.

Part of this is because those who write the papers and go to the policy meetings are people who work for the government in some fashion or who want the government to run everything. The portion of the medical community that actually wants to take care of the patient and respect the patient's choices generally is not in those meetings - and if they are they rapidly find the meetings boring and unproductive.

So you mostly end up with a bunch of people running the system who are fascist dweebs.

Understand, the vast majority of physicians do not belong to the AMA.

NoJoke
02-18-2012, 6:33 AM
Stepping back and observing - isn't this debate (gun "control") simply emotional vs rational?

On a rational level, I would guess that every human being on this big blue marble would declare that if I or my family were threatened, I have the GOD given right to stand up and defend myself - at any level of attack.
-Humiliation
-Accusation
-Insult
-Fight

...it's in our DNA - it's self preservation. Good lord, we're taught about "fight or flight" in school - so we all know it's insider everyone of our souls.

On the emotional level you can run wild since ultimately we're talking about death. Your death or the death of an attacker. In a sense here, we're talking Mutual Omaha's wild kingdom stuff - you know, the lion stalking the young deer outside the pack. Yeah, it's hard to watch the first time- cuz it's fairly clear the little Bambi isn't getting back up again. But, Bambi gets it - every time with no chance of self defense.

It would be sooo much easier to make a law that lions can't kill deer any longer. No blood. Nice. Pretty.

But, that's never going to happen.


How do we keep the discussion at a rational level? At that level, there really isn't any discussion at all. :facepalm:

Joewy
02-18-2012, 6:40 AM
They can get you for almost anything if they really want to.
I was talking to a guy some time back that lost his gun rights by marking single instead of married on his w4 form. Felony with no time served

r3dn3ck
02-18-2012, 6:54 AM
You wanna know how far this public health BS can go, ask anyone in Britain. They can't even roll cheese wheels down hills and then run after them (a tradition engaged in by a small minority and by their own choice) because someone might fall.

The cry "someone might get hurt" is often misused. If you say you don't mind that you or another might get hurt you're branded uncaring or even hateful. In reality you're probably just wanting to race a wheel of cheese down a damned hill and you'd really rather that other people mind their own business when it comes to your safety.

The same people that think public health is the right cry to use to restrict freedoms also think that government (nay the people themselves) are responsible to make sure that the health care of any one individual is seen to and financed from the public purse. Those same people do not and cannot understand the individual that believes the exact opposite. You can't fight this sort of logic because it isn't based on logic.

Those who spend 90% of their time feeling and 10% thinking screw it up for everyone. Those who spend 90% of their time thinking and 10% feeling are seen as heartless by the rest and that leads to the rest spending their time feeling.

girlswithguns
02-18-2012, 8:23 AM
I'm new to the gun debate and have only read part of that chapter. I totally agree with the idea that the "public health" excuse can and WILL be used to increasingly micromanage our lives.

But my question is this: Why are things like empty chamber indicators and gun locks opposed by so many gun owners? While personally I would never rely on an indicator to tell me when the chamber is empty, for someone less scrupulous about safety it could be a (literal) lifesaver. Ditto an empty magazine device.

OleCuss
02-18-2012, 8:34 AM
I'm new to the gun debate and have only read part of that chapter. I totally agree with the idea that the "public health" excuse can and WILL be used to increasingly micromanage our lives.

But my question is this: Why are things like empty chamber indicators and gun locks opposed by so many gun owners? While personally I would never rely on an indicator to tell me when the chamber is empty, for someone less scrupulous about safety it could be a (literal) lifesaver. Ditto an empty magazine device.

I don't oppose those things - and I think a lot of others don't oppose them either.

The problem is with government requiring that we pay for a more expensive and complex item.

Take the "smart gun" technology? I greatly oppose the government requiring it. But if someone comes up with a reliable firearm using "smart" tech which I can use under any conditions and while wearing gloves - I'll pay a premium to get one without the government requiring it.

The problem is that there are people for whom "government" is the answer to every question.

If it hurts the government must fix it.

If it looks bad the government must fix it.

If I am offended the government must fix it.

If I don't like it the government must fix it.

The problem is that government doesn't do anything well. Nothing. Nada. So if you want something permanently screwed up, just put the government in charge of it.

creekside
02-18-2012, 8:46 AM
But my question is this: Why are things like empty chamber indicators and gun locks opposed by so many gun owners? While personally I would never rely on an indicator to tell me when the chamber is empty, for someone less scrupulous about safety it could be a (literal) lifesaver. Ditto an empty magazine device.

As someone who occasionally carries a gun with which I might have to save my life or more likely someone else's, I'll take a stab at this one.

Seat belts save lives. No quarrel there. However, cars started being sold in 1974 with seat belt ignition interlocks, so that you cannot start your car unless the driver's and passenger's seat belt is fastened. Good idea, yes? Saves lives, yes?

Real world problems: people were victims of crime when they couldn't get their cars started in time to escape an attacker; seat belts came unfastened (as by a child playing with their seat belt) and took the engine with them, disabling brakes and power steering; people immediately started modifying their car's ignition to bypass this system, sometimes resulting in electrical fires.

What really caused seat belts to take off was neither the interlock nor the warning buzzer an angry populace forced Congress to substitute for the interlock, but "Click It Or Ticket" seat belt usage laws.

In engineering we talk about "fail safe" and "fail deadly." The default in many things is "fail safe" -- if my television doesn't work, I want it to shut off instead of catching fire. However, I do not want to be fiddling with my smart gun magazine safety interlock grip hardener while one or more assailants are trying to kill me dead. (Conversely, if I drop the mag while someone is wrestling with me for control of the firearm, I'd really like the mag safety interlock to work as designed . . .)

Firearms are complex tools and every additional feature adds complexity. There are uses for firearms with grip safeties, loaded chamber indicators and magazine disconnects -- and there are uses for firearms with none of these features, "Pistola go BANG! when trigger is pull."

The choice should be with the individual firearms owner. Different people have different needs, and I don't want my friend with a disability and weak hands fumbling with a "safety" as she tries to fight off an attacker.

The underlying problem is using the law not to regulate behavior but to dictate what kind of products we can buy and not buy, either by having "mandatory safety features" or by forcing people to buy licenses (i.e. Handgun Safety Certificate) or gun locks (ask any gun owner how many of these he has piled up in a drawer somewhere) as a backdoor means of taxation.

Also, the California "Roster of Safe Guns" has infuriated many gun owners because it is a partial gun ban cloaked in alleged safety concerns. Many very safe modern firearms (with the features you highlight) cannot be sold new in box in California because they are not on the "Roster" yet many allegedly unsafe firearms can be obtained just because the manufacturer was willing to jump through CA-DOJ's hoops to get the gun on the roster. Also guns "expire" from the roster -- my Smith & Wesson Model 64-5 did not magically become unsafe just because Smith & Wesson changed model numbers.

It is as if we asked the Sierra Club to regulate automobiles. Before you knew it, you'd have a "safe driver's certificate" and a "steering wheel lock must be sold with each new car" and "mandatory shift safety feature" and "cars must only be sold through a licensed car dealership" and "gasoline can only be purchased from approved vendors after showing photo ID and giving a thumbprint" . . . need I go on?

It's the death of a thousand cuts and many gun owners are sick of being sensible about it -- when groups such as Brady have made it clear that they are taking an incremental approach to firearms bans and ultimately confiscation.

IVC
02-18-2012, 9:16 AM
But my question is this: Why are things like empty chamber indicators and gun locks opposed by so many gun owners? While personally I would never rely on an indicator to tell me when the chamber is empty, for someone less scrupulous about safety it could be a (literal) lifesaver. Ditto an empty magazine device.

The real reason these are pushed in CA is not for the safety. If it was, the police would be required to use the same technology.

The real reason is that the mandated extra features make a large percentage of new handguns automatically ineligible for inclusion on the Roster. This in turn renders Roster a slow constrictor of handgun ownership rights: it eliminates the most common/modern models (automatically disqualified) of the most commonly used firearm type for self defense (handgun).

Consider that the newest models from Glock (G4), HK (45, P30), SA (XDM), and many others all have features that prevent them from even trying to get on the Roster.

wash
02-18-2012, 9:44 AM
I'm new to the gun debate and have only read part of that chapter. I totally agree with the idea that the "public health" excuse can and WILL be used to increasingly micromanage our lives.

But my question is this: Why are things like empty chamber indicators and gun locks opposed by so many gun owners? While personally I would never rely on an indicator to tell me when the chamber is empty, for someone less scrupulous about safety it could be a (literal) lifesaver. Ditto an empty magazine device.
When people start relying on LCIs, magazine disconnects and other mechanical systems that can break, accidents will happen.

Every gun is always loaded.

Safety is mental, not a physical device.

My sister worked in public health for the CDC in Atlanta.

In medical school she was indoctrinated to be anti-gun and even anti 4 wheel ATV.

Doctors have a nonsense mentality thinking that if they see one kid in the emergency room due to driving like an ******* on a 4 wheel ATV, the obvious solution is to ban 4 wheel ATVs. They don't worry about the new ways kids will figure out to land themselves in the emergency room.

Some doctors are smart in many ways but dumb as a box of rocks in others.

For example, my 100 lb. sister got mugged by a 200+ lb. black dude in Atlanta, her solution: nothing. She accepts being a victim because she's to timid and dumb to protect herself. Oh and by the way, the mugger got away with a thumb drive with thousands of patients personal information...

vincewarde
02-18-2012, 12:15 PM
Eliminate guns in these communities. This is not a solution, but an intervention. I have to be clear on this....an intervention. Many interventions are used to develop a plan of care.

Nice try - but there are two huge problems for the antis here:

1) This has been tried at least twice (DC and Chicago). In both cases they argued before SCOTUS that public safety justified handgun bans. Not only did it not have any positive impact of public health and safety, it was ruled unconstitutional.

2) How would this be accomplished? Warrantless searches? Martial law? How many other constitutional rights, many of which the ACLU holds dear, would have to be violated?

Bottom line: This won't go anywhere unless we lose and Heller is reversed. All the more reason to make sure this is Obama's last term.

Bolillo
02-18-2012, 1:45 PM
While personally I would never rely on an indicator to tell me when the chamber is empty, for someone less scrupulous about safety it could be a (literal) lifesaver. Ditto an empty magazine device.

You answered your own question.

Anybody who chooses to NOT check if a firearm is loaded by dropping the magazine and observing the chamber is also not likely to be paying attention to a loaded chamber indicator and will continue with their dangerous behavior.

A child or anybody unfamiliar with firearms isn't even going to know or understand what an LCI is or what it designates and shouldn't be handling a firearm under those circumstances anyway.

It's simply makes no sense to teach or instruct anybody to rely on a LCI as a substitute (crutch) for direct observation of a chamber and an empty mag well. The concept of an LCI as a public health benefit does nothing to address the millions and millions of handguns that are not equipped that way.

press1280
02-18-2012, 2:52 PM
There are a few states that have a "health,safety,welfare(or along those lines)" clause in their gun laws. Typically they are used when someone has some low level misdemeanor or something else that doesn't automatically disqualify them(like from NICS). The PDs will then use this as a denial reason, and its difficult for the average Joe to challenge just like "good cause", because it's never adequately defined.
Who knows though, after good cause/need is struck by the courts, don't be suprised if some states try to start using this just to try to dissuade folks from applying.

ALSystems
02-19-2012, 6:43 AM
But my question is this: Why are things like empty chamber indicators and gun locks opposed by so many gun owners? While personally I would never rely on an indicator to tell me when the chamber is empty, for someone less scrupulous about safety it could be a (literal) lifesaver. Ditto an empty magazine device.
The CA "rooster list" with "safety" requirements has evolved into an almost complete on new handguns. I believe Gene said a while ago that fewer than a dozen new guns were added to this rooster in the last 2-3 years. Most of the guns on the list were added before the rules were changed to require both a loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect. Many new guns aren't built this way and its not worth it for many manufacturers to make a special "California" version. Manufacturers are tired of paying a yearly ransom fee for each gun model they sell in the (now tarnished) Golden State.

intruder1_92tt
02-19-2012, 8:58 AM
regulate sugar.

I hate to break it to you, but they're already working on it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/leading-researchers-propose-tax-sugared-drinks/story?id=8594299#.T0E1meT4Kdw

It certainly underlines the worries from other posters on here that the "public safety" argument can be applied broadly. I know that some recent court decisions have thrown out the public safety argument, I doubt it will stop these people from trying again, and again... and again.