An analysis of gun control and if it can be used to save lives

History[ edit ] Calamity Janenotable pioneer frontierswoman and scout, at age The American hunting tradition comes from a time when the United States was an agrarian, subsistence nation where hunting was a profession for some, an auxiliary source of food for some settlers, and also a deterrence to animal predators. A connection between shooting skills and survival among rural American men was in many cases a necessity and a ' rite of passage ' for those entering manhood. Therefore, the armed citizen-soldier carried the responsibility.

An analysis of gun control and if it can be used to save lives

The medical scholarship does a reasonably good job of quantifying firearms deaths. But the literature is so full of ignorant statements about how guns function, hostility to the notion that guns might sometimes have a pharmakopic effect the victim's gun serving as a "remedy" to the criminal's gunvicious denunciations of gun owners, and a complete incomprehension as to why anyone would actually own a gun as to be of very limited value in formulating gun control policy.

Reckless Spending and Foolish Laws

There is no effort to enter the world of the gun owner, to see guns as gun owners see them. Accordingly, the medical literature regarding guns is generally as flat and sterile as would be research about wines written by a hard-shell Baptist preacher whose lips have never tasted a drop.

As Blumer observed, "the scholar who lacks firsthand familiarity is highly unlikely to recognize that he is missing anything" Fujimara's description of "doable problems" in scientific research helps explain in part why there has been such an explosion of mediocre research about guns in the medical research community.

The data from the official records is already present, needing only to be quantified and analyzed. The research is also doable in that there are abundant resources for such studies provided by grants awarded by the federal Centers for Disease Control to researchers seen as likely to support the CDC's strict gun control agenda.

And the research is doable in that unlike the vast majority of ordinary medical researchprospects are high for publication in prestigious professional journals like the New England Journal of Medicine; the researcher may also enjoy laudatory interviews on National Public Radio, and find his research reported uncritically in the news media, restated in newspaper editorials, and turned into an enduring factoid of the gun control argument.

Although the medical literature takes the form of ordinary medical research, the analysis often fails to conform to basic principles of common sense that are applied to ordinary disease research Suter, For example, the fact that there is an inverse relationship between the prevalence of the suspected disease vector guns and the "disease" firearm fatalities --in that rural or wealthier populations have more guns per capita but far fewer firearms fatalities than do core urban areas with lower gun densities--ought to but does not lead medical researchers to question whether the cause of the disease involves something other than just guns such as the collapse of family and community.

InLouis Pasteur discovered that he could make chickens sick by injecting them with cholera germs. But a few years later, Max von Pettenkofer a professor of hygiene in Munich drank a cup of pure cholera germs, with no ill effect.

Pettenkofer is credited with establishing that germs by themselves do not cause infection; there must also be a susceptible population and a suitable environment. In the case of inner-city male minority teenagers, there is plainly a population and environment susceptible to the "disease" of p.

Yet the medical research about the disease looks almost exclusively at guns, and pays little attention to the factors that have made one particular portion of the population immensely more susceptible to the violence disease than every other part of the population.

But to point out the illogic or methodological deficiencies of the public health approach to violence control is to miss the whole point.

Medicalization of the social problem of violence has less to do with curing violence than with expanding the sphere of medical control of the rest of society. Indeed, the public health program of attacking ideological opponents rather than proposing useful disease reduction programs is hardly new to the late 20th century.

In the 15th century, the "public health" community of the day put its effort into burning witches whose practice of herbal and other folk remedies threatened the male-dominated medical and religious systems' ideological monopolies and ignored disease-reducing programs such as rat control.

Today, the Centers for Disease Control makes the funding of firearms-related research a top priority, but accords a far lower priority to domestic violence, even though the CDC's own research shows domestic violence to be a far greater risk factor for death and injury Blackman, What is most striking, ideologically, about much of the medical research is the tone with which it is presented.

The notion that gun control should be considered a "public health" issue is taken as proof that the debate on gun control is over; all that remains is to implement to prohibitionist prescriptions of the medical experts, as public health experts "succeed in shifting the debate over firearms and violence from the political to the scientific arena.

While criminologists tend to present their research as simply one item which may be of use in shaping public policy, there is a sense of outrage among much of the medical literature that the United States has not yet followed the prescription of the "public health" community by outlawing handguns and severely restricting all other guns.

Turning gun control over to the prescriptions of the self-appointed medical technocracy might, however, endanger public safety. Several centuries ago, physicians treated wounds by caring for the weapon that caused it.

The US gun lobby says that guns save lives – do they? | Aeon Essays

By the armarium uguentum, prescribed for gunshot and other wounds in"If the wound is large, the weapon with which the patient has been wounded should be anointed daily; otherwise, every two or three days. The weapon should be kept in pure linen and a warm place but not too hot, nor squalid, lest the patient suffer harm" Bechker, Today, it would seem absurd to deal with gunshot wounds by treating the gun rather than the wound.

But prestige organs of the medical establishment such as the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association claim to have found the solution for the public health problem of woundings: The better the pathogen of guns is controlled, the safer society will be.

Like the armarium urguentum in its time, this view is widely accepted among public health professionals of this time. As in the 17th century, a focus on the object that seemed to "cause" the distress--the weapon--was a solution that missed the real cause of the distress.

Health News | Latest Medical, Nutrition, Fitness News - ABC News - ABC News

The distress of a wound, and the distresses of a violent society, have causes more profound than physical objects.

Better mental health and criminal justice care may be the better direction for public health to take, by directly treating those who are violent--rather than attempting to control a single means of violence.

Instead of trying to calm the violence by controlling guns, would it be more prudent to prevent the violence from occurring, by incarcerating and treating people p.

Patrick Purdy, who murdered five children in Stockton, California in January with a semi-automatic Kalashnikov rifle, had a long arrest record for felonies such as robbery, receiving stolen property, and sale of illegal weapons.

But instead of being imprisoned for his crimes, he always slipped through the cracks of the system, avoided a felony conviction, and wound up back on the street.In politicizing mass murders, gun control advocates, such as President Obama, insist that more laws against firearms can enhance public safety.

Over and over again, there are calls for common sense. A new, huge review of gun research has bad news for the NRA The findings, while limited, point in one direction: Gun control can save lives.

By German Lopez @germanrlopez Mar 2, , am EST. As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Stronger Gun Control Laws Will Save Lives Guns and Crime, The Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV) is a national public interest law center dedicated to preventing gun violence and to providing legal assistance in support of gun violence prevention.

An analysis of gun control and if it can be used to save lives

It's time there was a serious debate about semiautomatics being banned. Anytime a mentally ill person, or a homegrown terrorist, gets their hands on one of these weapons, all of society quakes. But surely one factor is the ease with which one can acquire a gun in America.

And yet, after every mass shooting, pro-gun lobbies trot out the same tired arguments, insisting that guns are not the problem. In recent years, they have taken to blaming the mentally ill.

Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives | Section 8: Arm Yourself With The Facts | Just For Skeptics