# Guns: A Public Health Approach **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 5, 2004, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685 "2004-07-05T20:00:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685/41 "2004-07-08T02:34:13Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > People who know each other, such as rival gang members and those having disputes over illegal drugs. These are put into the books as ‘acquaintance’ crimes, which causes the statistic to paint a different picture than reality. Then why do they have categories called “gang disputes” and “drug deals”? Are the police THAT inept? > [@](#): > > A crackhead running from the police attempted to use my apartment as a hiding place. I warned him that any further steps through my door would result in his death, and he took off uninjured. He was later caught. I don’t see where a gun was involved. > [@](#): > > And most of the time the reason they ‘know’ the other person is because they are involved in some **other criminal activity either together or in competition with each other** such as dealing drugs or gang activity. _yawn_ Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685/42 "2004-07-08T02:36:08Z")
> [@Berkut](#): > > BTW, I think this is getting away from the OP. I’ve talked more about my personal choices for self defense rather than what you were looking for, Hazel. Sorry about that. I disagree. The number one cause for murder in this country is “argument” followed by “gang dispute.” The third is very far behind those two. 76% of those murderes happened with guns. I think that is very important to take those numbers into account when discussing guns and public health, don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685/43 "2004-07-08T02:43:17Z")
> [@](#): > > **Zagadka** said: > I don’t see where a gun was involved. Pointing it at him made the warning all the more effective. Nice try getting someone else to do your crime statistic homework. You started the discussion of numbers, so put 'em up. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685/44 "2004-07-08T03:59:59Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > I disagree. The number one cause for murder in this country is “argument” followed by “gang dispute.” The third is very far behind those two. 76% of those murderes happened with guns. As you’re so fond of saying. \ Cite? Marc ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685/45 "2004-07-08T05:32:22Z")
> [@Berkut](#): > > BTW, I think this is getting away from the OP. I’ve talked more about my personal choices for self defense rather than what you were looking for, Hazel. Sorry about that. No problem. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685/46 "2004-07-08T12:09:17Z")
If’n anyone’s still interested in Hemenway’s public health approach to gun control, there’s a substantial discussion of it in this thread (although Zagadka makes a pretty good attempt to hijack that one with emotional rhetoric, too): [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=255731&highlight=Hemenway](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=255731&highlight=Hemenway) In any case, Hemenway is first and foremost, a gun banner. This new work by him is simply a not-so-new angle at achieving that end. See the reviews of [Guns and the Constitution: The Myth of Second Amendment Protection for Firearms in America](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1880831147/qid=1089288395/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-4714326-9557707?v=glance&s=books); Hemenway is one of the authors. His bias and reasons for promoting this new scheme are exposed by his contributions here. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685/47 "2004-07-08T12:14:51Z")
You might also wish to take a peek at the “links of interest” you’ll find on the University of Michigan review of Hemenway’s book. It is quite enlightening. There’s a list of about 10 organizations which all work for gun control and even outright gun bans. Not a single disssenting opinion to be found. And this is supposed to be _scholarship_? I think not. It’s propaganda advancing a wholly pre-formed conclusion. [http://www.press.umich.edu/webhome/11405\_links.jsp](http://www.press.umich.edu/webhome/11405_links.jsp) ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685/48 "2004-07-08T12:18:57Z")
And more evidence of Hemenway’s bias. He’s a past director of Harvard’s Injury Control Research Center. An organization that spend about half of its resources on firearms injuries. > **[Harvard Injury Control Research Center](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/)** > > Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685/49 "2004-07-08T13:01:55Z")
**catsix** I am not too interested in getting into another full fledged gun control debate. This is more to illustrate to **hazel** that the gun control side is NOT generally advocating banning all guns, but that any public health approach is met as if it is. To the specifics. You are wrong here - although you will dismiss my source as “biased” - [the Brady Campaign](http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=second) which documents that unregulated unlicensed sales of handguns are allowed in many states: > [@](#): > > Secondary or private sales are not subject to the federal Brady Criminal Background Check and are often not regulated by state law either. Secondary or private sales that avoid the background check, such as may occur at gun shows or over the internet, represent a dangerous loophole in the background check system… > > When an individual buys a handgun from a licensed dealer, there are generally state and federal requirements for a background check to insure that the purchaser is not prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm. However, in many states, when an individual wants to buy a handgun from another private citizen who is not a licensed gun dealer, there is no requirement to ensure that the purchaser is not in a prohibited category. This creates a huge loophole, which makes it easy for criminals, mentally ill persons, juveniles and others to evade background checks and buy guns… > > Unregulated, private or secondary handgun sales create opportunities for criminals and other prohibited purchasers to obtain guns. Criminals, knowing that they will face a background check at a licensed gun dealer, consistently buy guns from the secondary sales market to evade the background check requirement. Criminals also use individuals willing to purchase firearms for them, known as “straw purchasers.” These people are not legally prohibited from buying a firearm and can purchase guns from licensed dealers and then resell them in secondary/private sales to criminals and gang members. > Requiring background checks and registration of both primary sales (sales by a licensed firearm dealer) and secondary sales puts straw purchasers and illegal gun dealers at risk of criminal prosecution. Gun owners who knowingly sell their guns to criminals or other disqualified buyers could be held criminally liable if the gun is later used in the commission of a crime. The last bit is what preventing immunity from prosecution is about. I understand your desire to have the perception of safety that having a loaded handgun under your pillow gives you. I’ll leave the debate about how much safety versus how much increased risk it is to you personally alone for today. Been there in past threads, no need to rehash. But the bottom line is that the benefit to society of preventing handguns from getting into the hands of criminals is significant and perhaps worth the cost of requiring secure storage and that all gun sales be regulated and subject to background checks. ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685/50 "2004-07-08T13:23:24Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Knife manufacturers are not liable for stabbings. Firearms manufacturers should not be held liable for the criminal acts of those who illegally purchase or steal their products long after they leave the warehouse. On what grounds exactly do you think these suits should be based? I live in New York City, which has incredibly stringent laws that amount to nearly a blanket ban on the carrying of concealed weapons, and pretty close to that on the possession of guns in one’s home. Still, people seem to be shooting each other all the time around here. I wonder if we can hold the firearms manufacturers somewhat responsible here. If they’re making and selling more guns than they know the LEGAL gun market can absorb, they’re knowingly selling to the illegal market. And if they’re not vetting the retailers they sell to (i.e., selling guns to retailers who then engage in “straw man” sales in states with lax laws, which guns are then brough into places like NYC and sold on the illegal market), they’re doing the same thing. Note that I don’t present what I said above as fact, so please, don’t jump down my throat. But I do think there is a legitimate question (and I’m asking it) as whether the gun manufacturers bear some responsibility for some deaths caused by guns. ---
**Author:** ![sinical\_brit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/48db29/32.png) [@sinical\_brit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinical_brit)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685/51 "2004-07-08T14:43:05Z")
Quote QTS: " I would argue that Dunblane and Hungerford were made worse by there not being an armed citizenry. Had nearby citizens had firearms, they would have been able to engage Hamilton at an early stage or whoever thus saving the lives of some of the children." What an absolute load of bollocks - i am actually gobsmacked that this particular statement has not been picked up any anyone else from Britain. 1st off :bet you cant name 1 more random shooting spree in the last 20 years ( exluding the Irish troubles ). I certainly cant think of any more massacres involving innocent bystanders. Thats probably coz there are very few guns in the hands of the local population in Britain. Where do the nutters come from - ummm, that’d be the population of Britain. Now then, lets look at the US. Everyone and his dog has a selection of guns and other weapons. How many gun deaths per capita? Cant be arsed to look it up , but im betting its approximatly FUCKING LOADS. Does America have a greater % of nutters in the general population? Well, thats for another thread, but to say that Dunblane or Hungerford would have been better had everyone else had guns, is fucking maddness. What about tha small fact that there would be shit loads MORE massacres like Dunblane and Hungerford if we all had guns. QTS: it is better to have many “well handled” massacres than it is to have few "poorly handled(?)) massacres? Poo poo ca ca !!! Sin ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685/52 "2004-07-08T15:16:00Z")
> [@MGibson](#): > > As you’re so fond of saying. \ Cite? To bring some statistics that everyone can use into this discussion, I’m using the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report fro 2002. Total murders in 2002: 14,054 Murders Using Firearms: 9,369 (66.7%) Next, there is a table entitled “Murder Circumstances.” Murders committed in the course of a felony: 2,314 Murders committed other than felonies: 7,097 Unknown: 4,576 The first category is broken down into: Rape: 43 Robbery: 1,092 Burglary: 96 Larceny: 15 Motor Vehicle Theft: 16 Arson: 59 Prostitution and Other Vice: 8 Other Sex Offenses: 8 Narcotic Drug Laws: 657 Gambling: 5 Other: 315 The second category (non-felonies) is" Romantic Triangle: 130 Child Killed by Babysitter: 38 Drunken Brawl: 153 Drugged Up Brawl: 84 Money/Property Argument: 203 Other Argument: 3,527 Gangland Killings: 73 Juvenile Gang Killings: 911 Institutional Killings: 12 Sniper Attack: 11 Other: 1,955 The deaths as a result of 9/11 have not been included by the FBI because they would skew what they’re trying to do. If you combine the narcotic drug laws and the juvenile gang killings you come out to 1,568. I’m not sure what “other arguments” entails (murders not over money, property, love, or bar fights), however, and how many of those can actually be linked to drugs and gangs. Now then as to relationships (just acquaintance vs. stranger vs. unkown relationship): Acquaintance: 3,217 Stranger: 1,963 Unknown: 6,015 ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685/53 "2004-07-08T15:41:10Z")
**LLM:** Several cases _have_ been tried making that very argument (“gun dumping”); a supposed “industry insider” (Robert Ricker) came forward and testified to “closed door meetings” of gun industry executives where they allegedly secretly stratagized a nation-wide gun-dumping campaign. A _Brooklyn_ jury found for the defendants in about two hours of deliberation; the city of Boston _withdrew_ their lawsuit against the gun industry(s) _after_ comparing Ricker’s testimony to that of leading gun industry executives, finding that the industry overall is comitted to producing and distributing safe, legal products. How could one of the five boroughs and Boston come to that conclusion? Possibly, they were presented with facts: Firearms manufacturers **do not** sell directly to the public; they sell to nationwide and regional distributors; quite often these distributors sell again to wholesalers **before** they get to the local dealers. Only _one_ manufacturer has, to my knowledge, been culpably linked to some form of “gun dumping:” Intratec, the maker of the infamous “Tec-9.” Holding manufaturers liable for the actions of distributors and wholesalers is like holding Ford liable because one particualr dealership sells to a disproportionate number of recidivist drunk drivers; or holding Craftsman Tools liable because one Sears outlet sells to a disproportionate number of people who injure themselves with power tools. **sinical brit:** this sounds like another variant that putting guns in the public’s hands leads to a “wild west” environment. Query: if America has soooo many guns and gun owners, how come more mass shootings haven’t been aborted by armed citizens? Could it be that most of America’s guns are sitting at home in drawers and shoeboxes in closets? That carry, open or concealed, is nowhere near as prevalent as some people think? To my knowledge, only _two_ “mass shooting” has been aborted by an armed citizen; one, by a school administrator and another by a student at a college. In both cases, they were in violation of either the law or of administrative policies, but intervened nonetheless, stopping the shooters without firing a shot themselves (the school administrator may have fired a warning shot; I don’t recollect completely there). Dunblane could’ve played out many different ways if an armed citizen had been present; the shooter could’ve surrendered when confronted; he could’ve “gone out in a blaze of gory,” injuring or killing himself, the confronter, and/or innocent bystanders; he could’ve suicided; he could’ve vacilated until police arrived with lethal or non-lethal means of taking him out. Only a time machine could tell us for certain. What is certain is that in the two known cases in the U.S. where mass shooters were confronted with lethal force _before_ they could act, they surrendered without firing a shot. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685/54 "2004-07-08T16:19:46Z")
Thanks, **Neurotik.** Those are some good numbers. But, to my way of thinking, as good as that data is, it illustrates pretty well a CDC finding published last year, to the effect that they (CDC) have no credible evidence that gun control laws have worked as they intended (no evidence that they haven’t, either). The FBI’s data also has several gaping holes: after the fairly complete “committed in the course of a felony” category, we have several huge “unknowns” all over the place. There are plenty of people who will _not_ care to realize that those big numbers represent _total_ murders, not just _firearms murders_. These people would also feel perfectly justified crafting nation-wide gun legislation based upon a whole raft of “unknowns.” I would feel loathe to allow such legislation to pass unchallenged; somehow, this position (which is the NRA’s) is attributed to feeling that _no_ gun control legislation is effective, or beneficial, and therefore there should be no legislation. This is false. We simply feel that any legislation, current and proposed, should have practical implementation plans, have defined and practical goals, and should balance individual rights against societal benefits in a fair manner. **DSeid’s** mandatory storage proposals only meets one of those criteria (defined practical goal); how is it checked? Will police have carte blanche powers to search gun owners homes? Will gun owners have to have a “gun safe owner’s certificate” that must be presented to purchase a firearm? IOW: _How do you make gun owners actually keep their guns locked up?_ If the law is proactvie, how do you square that with “right to privacy?” If you can’t, then the law, like most others, is _reactive,_ punishing gun owners _after_ their guns have been stolen (assuming the thieves didn’t cart the whole gun safe away, or “crack it” somehow). ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685/55 "2004-07-08T17:08:48Z")
Yeah, they have the crimes by circumstance broken down by weapon even more, but they all follow about the same curve and I didn’t feel like listing them. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2004, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685/56 "2004-07-08T18:14:48Z")
> [@](#): > > **DSeid** said: > ?To the specifics. You are wrong here - although you will dismiss my source as “biased” - the Brady Campaign which documents that unregulated unlicensed sales of handguns are allowed in many states: Handgun Control Inc, headed by Sarah Brady who wishes to ban all firearms, is hardly an unbiased source of information. > [@](#): > > **Brady Bunch** > Secondary or private sales that avoid the background check, such as may occur at gun shows or over the internet, represent a dangerous loophole in the background check system… Refers to all sales from private citizen to private citizen. This has nothing whatsoever to do with gun shows, and in order to have a booth selling firearms at a gun show the proprieter _must be an FFL holding dealer_ already. It is also already illegal to sell a firearm to someone who cannot legally possess one, and not knowing that the person was prohibited is no excuse. All sales of handguns, whether from dealer to private owner or private owner to private owner, or private owner to dealer _must_ be accompanied by an approval number from NICS. > [@](#): > > This creates a huge loophole, which makes it easy for criminals, mentally ill persons, juveniles and others to evade background checks and buy guns… It’s far more rare than the Brady Bunch believes to see these private sales going to criminals or juveniles. The mentally ill are not legally prohibited from owning firearms _unless_ they have been involuntarily committed to a mental instutition. Law abiding gun owners by and large do not want to risk the jail time that comes with selling a firearm to someone who cannot legally possess it. > [@](#): > > Criminals, knowing that they will face a background check at a licensed gun dealer, consistently buy guns from the secondary sales market to evade the background check requirement. I like how the Brady Bunch includes the illegal purchase of stolen firearms in with the legitimate secondary sales such as my father selling me his old hunting rifle. They are masters of deceit. > [@](#): > > Gun owners who knowingly sell their guns to criminals or other disqualified buyers could be held criminally liable if the gun is later used in the commission of a crime. They are already criminally liable if they sell a firearm to someone who cannot legally possess it. It’s a felony to do so. > [@](#): > > LMM\*\* said: > But I do think there is a legitimate question (and I’m asking it) as whether the gun manufacturers bear some responsibility for some deaths caused by guns. And we’ll tackle that one as soon as we ask whether or not automobile manufacturers are liable for the deaths caused by cars when someone gets drunk and misuses one. The manufacturer is not repsonsible for the criminal misuse of the product. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685/57 "2004-07-09T16:05:04Z")
Wow **ExTank**! You and I are on the same page. (Although I suspect that we are still on different paragraphs.:)) Still. Who’d have thunk it? Me: > [@](#): > > A public health perspective must focus on reducing that event with interventions that are cost effective in the broadest sense of cost. (which includes the cost of limits to the rights of legitimate gun owners) You: > [@](#): > > any legislation, current and proposed, should have practical implementation plans, have defined and practical goals, and should balance individual rights against societal benefits in a fair manner. Your willingness to rise above the negativistic naysaying bunker down and don’t budge NRA position raises the level of debate far above **catsix** ’s silly _ad hominem_ approach.\* Now we can discuss how much benefit is worth how much cost (again including, especially including, the cost of limiting legitimate gun owners rightful freedoms to collect and use firearms.) First off, I agree that enforcement of such a law would be spotty at best. Obviously privacy laws take precedence. Still, I think that most law abiding legitimate gun owners are, well, law abiding. They will in large numbers follow the law just because it is the law. Just like most of us do not run red lights even when we are sure that there is no police there to catch us. Sure there will be scofflaws. Perhaps they open themselves to prosecution or civil liability for negligence if harm results from their ignoring the law, and perhaps such would be enough. Secondly, unless it is shown to me that theft from private homes is a major source of lillegal weapons (and I do not believe it is), then I care less about this than the rest. While I, as a pediatrician, am concerned over the accidental shooting deaths of children, my public health hat recognizes that such are an extremely small percentage of all gun deaths. The cost of unsecured guns in private homes is, from this perspective, relatively small, compared to the deaths from the illegal handgun market. This, **hazel** is why your op is a bit wrongheaded. The public health perspective has to go for, excuse the expression, getting the biggest bang for the buck. The focus must be on keeping handguns out of the hands of criminals. On interrupting the flow of guns to them and changing the circumstances that lead to their increased use. And it must do so in a manner that is least costly to the rights of legitimate gun owners. **catsix** : What other industries besides the gun industry are asking for special immunity from negligence lawsuits? If a knife manufacturer is somehow found to have been producing a negligent product, or marketing it in a negligent manner, then they would be open to a lawsuit. Why should the gun industry be granted specific and special exemption? This is a different question that deciding _what_ constitutes negligence. I would agree that production of weapons is not _per se_ negligence and would think that it would be difficult to make a case of negligence unless you could show a clear intention to market to an illegal trade. Which I doubt is present. But some resellers are clearly negligent without committing an actual felony. \*Sources are always biased; the question is “is it true?” Michael Moore for example is very biased in F9/11. But his facts are in the main, accurate (with only very few misrepresentations.) The information from the Brady cite is true. Read the information in the cite. Your perception of what is required at gun shows is not accurate for all states. If what they present isn’t the whole story then present the rest of it but argue against what is proposed not what you believe to be their “agenda.” ---
**Author:** ![Tristan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tristan/32/18058_2.png) [@Tristan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tristan)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685/58 "2004-07-09T17:22:25Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > I disagree. The number one cause for murder in this country is “argument” followed by “gang dispute.” The third is very far behind those two. 76% of those murderes happened with guns. > > I think that is very important to take those numbers into account when discussing guns and public health, don’t you? Of course, outlawing guns reduced murders in England and Australia. Oh wait, it didn’t. And the “Assault Rifle Ban” sure kept all those illegal firearms out of the hands of criminals. Oh wait, it didn’t. Personally, I don’t think any private citizens group has any business telling me what I can or can’t own. Period. And I don’t even own any firearms right now. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685/59 "2004-07-09T17:51:45Z")
> [@](#): > > catsix: What other industries besides the gun industry are asking for special immunity from negligence lawsuits? If a knife manufacturer is somehow found to have been producing a negligent product, or marketing it in a negligent manner, then they would be open to a lawsuit. Why should the gun industry be granted specific and special exemption? This is a different question that deciding what constitutes negligence. I would agree that production of weapons is not per se negligence and would think that it would be difficult to make a case of negligence unless you could show a clear intention to market to an illegal trade. Which I doubt is present. But some resellers are clearly negligent without committing an actual felony. No other industry is under attack from those who would like to use civil lawsuits to make their product disappear when that product is not defective,. The firearms industry _should_ be entirely exempt from lawsuits regarding the criminal misuse of their product. Firearms are not defective merely because they are firearms, which is what this whole ‘sue them out of business’ bullshit is supposedly based on, the idea that a firearm is a defective product because a criminal can use one to cause death and that the maker is negligent for creating such a product. The manufacturers sell to wholesalers who sell to either retailers or other wholesalers, and th retailers all hold FFLs and are culpable to the federal and state government for every sale they make. Where the hell is the ‘clear negligence’ other than in Brady & Ilk’s imagination? As for what you refer to as my ‘ad hominem’ attack against the reposted Brady material, I’ve read Brady & Co’s crap many times before. It is _always_ a distortion of fact, and the only difference among different pieces is how honest they are about their real objective. Sarah Brady has already stated that she is on a mission to ban firearms. She has changed the name of her organization from Handgun Control Inc to the Brady Campaign because there wasn’t enough public support for her real platform. This is an organization that twists and manipulates data to fit with its own agenda, uses blatantly wrong terminology like ‘gun show loophole’ in order to scare the public to their side, and has as much relationship with facts as I have with Mickey Mouse. None of what you posted can be remotely corroborated by an unbiased source, none of it squares with my experience (which involves going to firearms shows in multiple states), and since it appears as the original work of a Brady member or employee, I’m going to call it ‘bullshit.’ ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2004, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685/60 "2004-07-09T19:46:18Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > The vector is mainly handguns; a weapon well designed to be used both in self-defense and in criminal activities. Certainly reducing the total number of handguns available is one public health approach that has been advocated. Redesign of the weapon to make it nonfunctional other than by its legal owner has been played with but such technology is not yet practical. Here is another problem. Let us compare handguns to a bacteria in the human boby. And we’ll say that about half of Americans have this bacteria. In most cases, the bacteria is entirely harmless- does nor harm nor help. It is just there. In a few very rare cases, the bacteria becomes sybiotic- it actually helps the body fight off attacks by other infections, and saves the life of the host. In another few very rare cases, it is deadly. And, the most important thing _there is almost no way to tell if the bacteria will be deadly, benficial, or in 99.9% of the cases- sit there doing nothing._ There are a few rare carriers who it can be shown are far more likely to be a deadly carrier- and there are laws in place that require them to be treated- which are pretty much ignored. So far, it has been shown that any drug that kills this bacteria has some serious side effects. Would any sane epidemiologist suggest that we apply the “cure” (reducing or banning handguns) to the entire population? The only population in which it has been shown that a handgun is statistically dangerous is violent felons- and they are already enjoined from owning them- a law which they ignore. Not that the gene-spliceing food industry has asked for (and i think recieved) immunity from certain lawsuits also. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-a-public-health-approach/253685.md?page=4)