No, “we” have not. And “totally bogus” is a very strange way of saying that one specific study – the Kellerman study which has been the subject of relentless attacks from the gun lobby for twenty years – may or may not have some of the flaws they claim. However, in the spirit of fighting ignorance, there are many, many other peer-reviewed academic sources with the same conclusions. Just for a few random examples:
[ul]
[li]Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. (2008)[/li][li]Douglas Wiebe, Homicide and Suicide Risks Associated with Firearms in the Home: A National Case-control Study, 41 Annals of Emergency Medicine 771 (June 2003)[/li][li]Douglas J. Wiebe, Firearms in U.S. Homes as a Risk Factor for Unintentional Gunshot Fatality, 35 Accident Analysis & Prevention 711, 713-14 (2003)[/li][li]Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 929, 935 (2004)[/li][li]Matthew Miller, David Hemenway, and Deborah Azrael, State-level Homicide Victimization Rates in the U.S. in Relation to Survey Measures of Household Firearm Ownership, 2001 -2003, 64 Soc. Sci. & Med. 656, 660 (2007)[/li][li]Guohua Li et al., Factors Associated with the Intent of Firearm-Related Injuries in Pediatric Trauma Patients, 150 ARCHIVES OF PEDIATRIC & ADOLESCENT MED. 1160, 1162 (1996)[/li][/ul]
similar to a lot of people on Obamacare and like it and they vote for Trump and others who want to get rid of Obama care. Some of them had no insurance for a long time before Obamacare. People can hold 2 views that conflict.
Let’s not hijack this with yet another gun control debate. Suffice it to say I thought our previous debate showed these studies to be bogus.
No more hijack, OK?
You’re right, of course. Rationally, there’s no reason a woman living in a safe suburb who’s never been assaulted would need to carry lethal self-defense. The likelihood of her ever needing to defend herself at all, let alone with lethal force, is very small.
But if we all behaved rationally … well, life would be unrecognizable.
I still think she’s nuts. She accepts my verdict cheerfully and won’t budge an inch. Life goes on.
She quite likely is addicted to opiods and will insist she needs them for pain,even those it is quite possible the opiods are not helping at all any longer.
So, she’s not rational about her pain.
However, marijuana is only a maybe and only mild effects for back pain, so it’s not like she is giving up a sure cure for all her back pain.
And like I said, admitting to AG Sessions that you are taking a drug he hates may have other consequences.
Just wanted to thank everyone who jumped on this thread. I definitely feel like I understand my friend’s thinking more fully.
I’ll be offline for the next day or so, so no offense if I don’t reply. Feel free to run with it!
They can, but that kind of cognitive dissonance can’t be considered rational. It’s only rational when the apparent conflict isn’t real. A doctor may be very religious but he can put that aside and understand that his patients deserve his best professional efforts, not prayer. A cosmologist may believe in God but still explore the natural origins of the universe. But someone who rejects a potentially beneficial medication (let’s put aside the question of how well it works and assume it does) in return for the illusion of greater personal safety (see my earlier post) is not acting rationally. I think the answer to the OP is the obvious fact that many people make important decisions based on emotion and not fact-based and critical thinking.
For once I agree, and it wasn’t my intent to hijack, but to make one rebuttal that would, well, at least demonstrate that this was not the settled issue it was claimed to be. But further discussion belongs elsewhere.
If I was that invested in gun ownership I can’t say how I would decide either…but the deciding factor in my case is that My Beloved is in pain, and I can safely say that I would give up guns to get her the pain suppressors she needs…and my right arm if it was required.
It may be, but it’s her decision to make - not yours - and you should respect that.
Lifelong gun owner, and I’m with you. If I had chronic pain that could be alleviated with a medication and doing so negated my right to keep and bear, my gun collection would quickly be dispersed (legally transferred) to trusted friends and relatives toot-sweet.
Having said that, each person’s life is their own; we all place value, relative value, on the things and concepts and people in our lives, and do so to varying degrees (varying, that is, from you to me, me to my neighbor Jim, Jim to his coworker Sue, etc.).
The answer you seek is not here; it’s with your friend; she can (or cannot) explain her value judgements better than I could ever guess. Talk to her, not random people on the internet.
Some mitigating factors: your “one-in-a-thousand” is probably an average, an overall National Average; it can vary considerably depending upon local circumstances. If your friend lives in a high-crime area, or works in one, her severe chronic pain may make her feel that she’s vulnerable to predatory criminals, muggers and rapists and such.
Just a WAG on my part, though.
Humans are, generally, poor at rational risk assessment, see for example hysteria about stranger danger, not being able bring pocket knives onto planes, fear of mass shootings, etc.
Yes- but if it was just a “maybe you might get mild relief” and “maybe there could occur other legal issues” it’s no longer so black and white.
If a magic fairy came and said instant, safe, sure relief from pain, with no other possible repercussions other than losing guns- you would be irrational to say no.
But since it’s only a maybe and mild relief at that, then the decision is not so crazy.
I didnt read past the OP so I’m sure this has been addressed already but I’d just like to point out the insanity evident in our laws and health care system that outlaw medical marijuana patients from owning guns yet permit opiate-using patients to have concealed carry permits.
Well, don’t know what is causing her infirmity, but I have a ccl in several states and own several assorted firearms from some antiques that never get fired to an assortment of long arms left to me by my father and brothers deaths as well as a rifle and a shotgun of my own [we grew up hunting and eating our kill, not trophy bullshit, that is obscene. You want a trophy, track and photograph.] I also have 2 hand guns that alternate as my daily carry depending on open on the hip or concealed that I regularly practice with.
In the self defense realm including castle doctrine I have no reasonable expectation of either escape or evasion of an assailant, and a hand gun is optimized for 15 to 30 feet/5 to 10 meters which is also the longest distance in either house. If someone desires to cause harm, they will be up close and personal and invading my residence, so why should I not defend myself? I can’t use my fists nor kick, I can’t jump out a window and run away, at the farm there is an admitted by the state police 45 minute response time and in the town home, something between 5 and 15 minutes. You know how fast an assailant can cover 30 feet, or chase me as I either try to crutch or wheelchair away? If I give up my daily carry guns I thusly have no defense, so I also stick with my pain control contract [and I have had random pill counts, bloodwork to assure them I have the correct amount of metabolites and no weed or other normally recreational or nonprescribed meds in my system. Done at the request of the state,not my doc, he trusts me, I have been a patient of hos for 13 years.]
Yep, that’s pretty much the case. Why do you find that surprising?
This brings up a lot of questions in my mind. I suppose first and foremost would be if the states share records of medical marijuana card holders with the feds. Lots of people who have cards are caregiver status and may just grow for the money. They could technically answer “no” on that question, assuming it’s worded exactly as you state and purchase a weapon and as long the ATF couldn’t immediately see the cardholder status and it seems like they would have a good footing if more questions were asked later. Considering the growing trend of marijuana acceptance, this whole issue should(hopefully) be moot in a few years anyway.
Any “yes” answer in question 11 on the form 4473 is disqualifying.
As well you should.
But what set of circumstances would entail your sacrifice of the right to own a gun in order to secure her access to medical marijuana?
Not to hijack, but have there been any court cases to define what a “current user” of marijuana is? I know that the BATFE has a regulation that any conviction for possession of a controlled substance within the past year is considered “current use” but that seems like an overly restrictive interpretation.
It seems to me that a court could just as easily say that as long as you are not currently and immediately using and under the influence of the drug, you may possess and carry the gun at other times.
It seems like the administration could modify that rule today: That insofar as marijuana is concerned, one may buy and possess guns so long as one is not under the immediate influence of the drug or is not at that moment using marijuana. Many states have the same law for alcohol.