A close relative is a trauma medicine specialist in a major hospital in a NE city that has very stringent gun control. He says there is a small decrease in gun related homicides year over year, but they are seeing a very large uptick In violent attacks with knives, hammers, and other items that results in serious permanent injuries and fatalties. It is virtually all gang/drug related, and it is rare for him to see a patient who is not a minority. He does not think more gun controls, mental health screening, or firearms training will have an effect (he laughed) because those things do not address the real problems. Border controls and deportation to prevent gangs from moving cash and drugs in and out of the country, and taking law enforcement off of highway patrols and ticket quotas and putting them into inner city hot spots to arrest criminals would do far more.

I appreciate your comments. I still hold with my recommendations for sensible gun control and an adequately funded mental health sysstem. Countries that have both see significant reductions in gun related death and injuries and the mentally ill are receiving needed treatment. Communities are much safer. i also had expeience working ERs I disagree with the physician that suggests there will be no significantly positive effect with such measures.

We all want to increase gun safety and reduce accidents and gun crimes, but rules that will not stand up to legal challenge are an exercise in futility. We need to work within the system. DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago guide us in the extent of gun control regulations Federal and State governments can enact.

We want to do things that WORK. Countries and cities in the US that have applied some of the measures you suggest are experiencing a sharp increase in violent crime. Either gun related homicides are not affected (see Chicago) or the perpetrators use knives, machetes, spears, clubs embedded with nails or wrapped with barbed wire, hammers, acid, flammables, etc. (see Australia, the UK, NYC).

Replacing gun deaths with stabbing deaths is not a solution.

Gun control advocates are fixated on guns, when in fact those intent on violence - and in the US 80% of violent acts are the result of gang/drug activities - will use anything.

Deal with the reasons people pick up a gun to commit crime, and you will also reduce the number of people who feel they must own a gun to protect themselves from crime.

In the interest of full disclosure, I do not now nor have I ever owned a gun.

You may find this interesting, from a former DC prosecutor on gun control efforts: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324081704578235460300469292.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion

The system you talk about resulted in 31000 deaths in2011and rising. My suggestions are an excellent start to curb violence. As for the courts,we shall see

I'm not talking about any system. Aside from Federal laws, each State has their own gun laws and they vary widely. Many large cities have enacted gun ordinances. There is no one system, but a variety of rules and regulations - which is as it should be.

Let's put your statistics in perspective. Two thirds of the deaths caused by guns are suicides. The remaining 11000 deaths can be divided thus: 75% is gang related violence, and of the remaining 2700 deaths, 400 are caused by police and 250 are justifiable self defense.

If you aren't a criminal, you have very little to worry about. In the US there are only 2050 homicides per year of people who are not in gangs, or shot by police, or shot by someone defending themselves.

Around 1500 people a year win at least $1 million in America's lotteries.

From the CDC:
3,533 fatal unintentional drownings
2,640 (not including firefighters) die in fires.
13,300 die from falls.
31,755 die from unintentional poisoning.
80,000 alcohol related deaths.
200,000 deaths by medical mistakes.

300,000,000 guns in the country, and your chance of being killed by one is statistically equal to winning a million dollars in the lottery.

You and I are not going to agree on sensible gun regulation. I am not sure where you stand on revisiting our broken down mental health care system. The odds are on your side that little will happen after Newtown as little happened after the other tragedies. That is sad because more horrific incidents will follow and millions of the dangerously mentally ill will continue to walk the streets without treatment. They will get guns and they will use them. Poeple with guns and no training wikll continue to have terrible accidents. Law enforcement will be handcuffed in tracing guns used in crimes to owners. However, I will continue to call for sensible gun regulation and a health care system that opens the doors to everyone in this country for equitible health care inluding comprehensive mental health treatment. Thank you for your comments. Marc

I was hoping to bring you around. :)

What you want, Marc, cannot be accomplished under our current form of government. You know that the right of the individual to own, carry, and use weapons for a lawful purpose has been affirmed in the Bill of Rights and upheld by the Supreme Court, but did you know that US v Cruikshank declares "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." Cruikshank says the Constitution did not create the Right, so even deleting the 2nd Amendment from the document would not change a thing. The Right exists whether we enshrine it in our laws, or not.

To change that, you must change the foundational political philosophy of our nation that proclaims Rights belong to the People and government is instituted to protect our rights - and turn back the clock to the time when no one had any Rights except those given to them by their King or Emperor.

I emphatically believe the American form of representative democracy is better than any other. It is not perfect, but it is as perfect a form of government as humans can create.

... more to come...

The abysmal treatment of the mentally ill, along with the profit motivated business of our legal system and incarceration, is a national shame. It is beyond horrible. When I am crowned Queen there will be changes. BIG changes.

But here's a shocker - did you know our prisons are filled with people who fit the diagnostic criteria for anti social personality disorder and psychopathy - anywhere from 35 to 80% of violent offenders - but the many personality disorders that are the source of social dysfunction are NOT classified as "mental illness".

Thus, the vast majority of juvenile delinquents, gang members, and other low lives that comprise the element of the population that commits gun crimes - fully 75% of all gun homicides and countless injuries - fall OUTSIDE of the mental health screening and limitations you suggest.

The UK has addressed the problem with ASBO laws, which they intend to eventually replace with community based social control policies. I am watching how that works for them.

Even though we may differ, I enjoy a good debate, and you've been a worthy challenge. Thank you.

Mary: I Guess we are not finished yet. Given we have the right to bear arms does that somehow negate the possibility of sensible gun policy. I had the opportunity to work in the State mentral health system briefly before the closures (that's how old I am). The nature of treatment had changed and was more humane. Today with the new medications, treaments are light-years away from the 50s and 60s. We do not disagree with the curruption in the providing of health care including mental health care. That is why I advocate for a national health one payer system. No argument on gang related violence except that rigid policy on gun sales would allow more enforcement options for the police when people that should not have guns, have them. It would also allow for penalties for people who are not authorized to sell them. My final comment would relate to, what you are for to curb the violence. Data-wise we are in agreement - what to do about it is the impass. My best. Marc

I'll date myself by telling you that for many years my best friend was a psychiatrist who worked at Greystone in NJ. Oh, the stories...

We don't have sensible gun policies because people who know nothing about guns or how they are legitimately used have created over 20,000 laws.

One of the stats I quoted above was 200,000 deaths annually from medical mistakes. That's terrible. But imagine if politicians said the solution was to close hospitals, limit doctors to prescribing no more than 7 pills at a time, and ban certain types of operations. You know even more people would die if we tied the hands of medical professionals.

My in laws are cattle ranchers. Packs of coyotes, rattlesnakes, and territorial bulls are just part of their day. Modern cowboys ride ATVs and pack what many would consider an arsenal - shotguns, rifles, AR-15s with standard 30 round magazines. When he heard the most recent gun control plans Grandpa said, "I hope politicians who think I don't NEED my guns don't NEED beef, because I am not going out without them."

Gun laws should be simple and generous. The law has consistently upheld the public's right to own products (mp3 players, cd recorders) even when some people abuse them for illicit purposes.

Violence is a social problem. The causes are complex. What needs to be done is something most people will not find acceptable. Our compassion got us into this mess, tough love on a national level is the only thing that will get us out.

I have lot of Canadian friends, the snow birds that come down for the winter and a number of Brits. We meet for tennis daily and lately discussions have turned to guns. Canada and England have restrictive gun laws. Both countries have overwhelmingly lower gun violence, gun related crimes, and suicide rates. There are rare accidents if any. Australia instituted gun restrictions on certain types of weapons after one of their Newtown-like tragedies and have seen less suicides and no repeat of the incident that prompted gun control measures. I would best define our culture as too many guns, too many mentally ill without services, and too few practical policies on gun ownership. The key is smart policy. (continued)

(continued from above) I will say that due to Mary's responses and others that I have seen on other blogs, I have adjusted my thinking that gun rights advocates are not just plain gun-crazy rednecks. When they are not lashing out, pro gun folks can make rational arguments to protect the right to bear arms. It is important to understand, my position is not to take guns away, but to promote policies that will address the mayhem caused by too many guns. Public opinion shifts back and forth on the need for restricting certain types of weapons and beefed up gun policy. It is difficult to predict what gun rules will survive the current attention post Newtown. Ultimately, politicians will do what an overwhelming number of voters will demand. I would predict safer communities should mental health and gun ownership restrictions be enacted as I have recommended. My recommendations remain. They are not perfect . No solution will be.

Obviously, the doctor is prescribing without seriously examining the history of the medicine he prescribes. Bluntly, there are currently 22,421 restrictive gun laws in force. Of those, not even one, not a single one, has resulted in fewer violent crimes, murders, or fatal firearms accidents.

The laws that have reduced violent crimes are permissive gun laws such as the "Concealed Carry Weapon Permit laws that have been enacted in the last twenty years. The Department of Justice's National Crime Survey clearly shows a 75 percent decline in violent crime in that period. The FBI reports a 49.5 decline in murder in the same period. To the point the 2011 FBI Uniform Crime Report lists just 8,583 gun related murders, on top of the 606 fatal firearms accidents counted by the Center for Disease Control.

Speaking of those 606 fatal firearms accidents, accounting for 0.5% of all fatal accidents. There were 1,406 fatal firearms accidents in 1989, accounting for 1.6 percent of fatal accidents. That is a 53 percent decline in 23 years.

If you want a total of gun deaths in 2011, counting murders, "police intervention," justifiable homicide, and gun accidents, you need count no higher than 11,550. That is down from 20,400 in 1991. And the BATFE reports Americans have purchased more than 160 million new guns in 22 years.

Bottom line? Restrictive gun laws kill.

Stranger

Dr. Yacht, you have been misinformed. Both Canada and England have higher crime and higher violent crime rates than the United States. The FBI reports 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 population of all ages. The Home Office's National Crime survey finds a violent crime rate of 4,156.6. per 100,000 - adults.

For "just crimes" the US rate (FBI) is 3,525 per 100,000 population. The official British Rate (Metropolitan Police) is 26,400 per 100,000. The official Canadian rate (StatsCanada) is 23,800. So 3.5 % of Americans, 23.8 % of Canadians, and 26.4 % of Adult Brits were crime victims. But comparing all age stats, 3.5% of Americans were crime victims in 2011, and 36.9 % (Total all age groups, British Crime Survey) of Brits were.

Homicide Rates? The UN says the US ranks 102 in the world - but while our rates have been falling every other country's has been rising.

Stranger

The US

The United States

Like any other involved in the present day medical industry complex, the MD wants to deal with the symptoms and not one of the root causes.....Pharmaceutical drugs. People keep blabbering about "mental health" and "treatment" which is infuriating because much can be blamed on the mental health treatments.

Please join us in reality Mr MD.
http://www.ssristories.com

By the way, even if guns were completely eradicated, what's to stop a crazy person from plowing a vehicle into dozens of children before or after school? How about all those people waiting outside stores for "Black Friday" sales?? They resemble a bunch of sitting ducks for a person driving a nice sized vehicle.....but don't ever think of that, simply focus on what they want to you to focus on........not reality, but triviality.

If anybody has every wondered why the MD's simply want to medicate, it started about 100 years ago with the Flexner report. Carnegie funded it and the Rockefeller's helped implement the insanity. This started the stranglehold of the medical community as a whole.

They want us to believe ALLOPATHIC medicine is the only way and the docs practicing this type are the only true docs....... well this couldn't be further from the truth.

Yep, medication is the treatment for every ailment...........including gun violence.

If you want to start learning how to actually renew your health, I guarantee the info provided on "The Bright Side" will greatly help you.
http://www.gcnlive.com/programs/brightSide/

Listen to the archives and start to change your life by allowing your own body to make the changes.....not deadly pharmaceuticals. Marc, you should listen as well.......you're never to old to learn :-)

Samuel: Good to hear from you again. Marc

The good doctors numbers are misguided, of the 31,000 deaths, 18,000 are suicides. Study after study has shown that suicides are not caused by the instrumentality of death, but by the persons mental anguish. We didn't convict Dr. Kevorkians van and machine, we convicted HIM....the person!

That leaves 13,000. Included in this still large number are justifiable homicides. Police shootings and self defense shootings find themselves in this column. The FBI spreadsheet has no column for 20 year old woman prevents rape and murder by killing two intruders.....so there is no prevented rape or prevented murder statistic....but there are two more gun deaths and the good doctors number presentation would have you weep for the intruders. I choose to celebrate the continued life of the 20 year old woman.

So now that we know that we are looking at 13,000 guns deaths with many being 100% justified, (and each of those preventing MANY FUTURE CRIMES) we can look at the next figure.

A full 41% of these gun deaths come from just five areas. New York, New Jersey, DC. Chicago, and CA. These five areas are responsible for Forty One Percent of the Gun Deaths in the nation. (non suicide)

Doctor, how do you reconcile the fact that the places with the strongest gun control have the highest levels of violence in the nation.

Finally we can examine the ultimate "gun free zone".....Prisons!

Prisons have the medical care the doctor requested, the lack of day to day stress since there are no bills to pay and no work to do. Three meals, a place to sleep....it is the basic utopian society. The murder rate in prison exceeds that on society by about 50%.

Gun stores are full of guns. Therefore the murder rate should be astronomical....but it is zero.

Lets add in alcohol as a contributing factor. Where can one find Guns, Booze, and the Law? (given that a law abiding citizen will be A REQUIREMENT for gun laws to work) That would be the local Cop Bar. Every town has one. The place where the local police gather to wet their badged whistles. The murder rate is again ZERO.

So it seems that we only have gun violence when we remove the law abiding element....not the guns.

Oh, one last fact, since we are talking about numbers......less than 400 of these deaths
Were the result of rifles. That is all rifles. Shotguns, hunting rifles, and scary looking semi automatic rifles that have been renamed as assault weapons.

So out of 31,000 gun deaths there were less than 400 wherein the actor used a rifle as the tool. Kinda makes you wonder why the government wants to ban smallest part of the problem, which so happens to be the ONLY part that keep a tyrannical government at bay.

The Doctor is likely well intentioned, but just plain wrong.

PS...nice picture of a SAW. A weapons which is not available to the citizenry.

Gary: I appreciate you comments. My gun statistics stand. They are documented. However you slice the pie a lot of people get killed in the US every year by guns. As for my recommendations for sensible gun contol - MAKES SENSE. Thanks for your comments.

They stand when not confronted with truth, but fall when challenged.

Marc, your gun statistics stand - but so do the others.

We don't ban medical treatment even though the statistics of people killed by medical mistakes and malpractice make gun homicides pale in comparison.

TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND people per year - the equivalent of TWENTY SEVEN Newtowns every single day - die at the hands of medical professionals who are incompetent or make mistakes. That statistic is documented, and the number of people killed by medical mistakes and malpractice is rising every year.

Hundreds of thousands of sick, innocent, trusting people are dying at the hands of well educated, supposedly mentally stable medical professionals - not madmen who managed to get their hands on a gun.

This is YOUR area of expertise. Why are you ignoring this shocking statistic, and instead concentrating on banning millions of guns that are safely used by one third of the population of this country, due to the miniscule number of people who die in mass shootings?

Mary: I'm glad you mentioned Doctor mistakes. Enormous efforts over the years continue to address and minimize such mistakes. Closing pill mills, more checks before surgery. Increasing oversight and of course, liability. Why sensible gun regulation translates to taking people's rights away, I have trouble understanding. Firearm safety courses will help prevent accidents - that does not take gun rights away, Minimizing magazine capacity so that when someone deranged walks into a school and starts shooting, there will be more opportunities to stop him. That doesn't take guns away. Comprehensive background checks to minimize guns in the hands of the dangerously disturbed and violent criminals along with serious punishment for those who break this law does not keep guns away from lawbiding citizens. It will minimize the injury. Removing assault weapons, a highly contentious issue, makes sense but so do arguments against removing these weapons based on appearances. Improving mental health services should not be a bone of contention. Yes, there are medical mistakes and some cost lives. The regulation has helped minimize these errors. Gun regulation will not stop unfortunate death and injury but will reduce the carnage. In my recent Blog, "The Silent Majority always Wins 2", I mention that we need to pull together and find common ground. The alternative is to continue to pull each opther apart. That direction presents a danger to our way of life.

We should limit hospitals to seven doctors.

Marc, you are using statistics that encompass suicide, gang violence, and law enforcement actions to support your argument against guns.

Statistics also show 548 unnecessary deaths are caused by medical professionals every single day of the year. Untold millions more are injured, many permanently. Statistics show gun homicides are dropping every year, while medically caused deaths are increasing dramatically. Clearly, our existing education, licensing, regulations and enforcement systems do not work! We must insist on more restrictions to lower the number of people killed by doctors and nurses!

Does that shoe pinch when it is on your foot?

You may have missed the memo, but we all DID pull together and the result was a country founded on the concept of natural rights - one being the right to own and use the SAME weapons as our "protectors" (in the vernacular of the day, the militia). Since it is a right and not a privilege, the government's ability to make regulations requiring education, licensing, or registration is sharply limited. This right has been upheld by numerous Supreme Court rulings.

The "silent majority" owns over 350,000 guns - one for every man, woman, and child in the country. According to the FBI, 65 million of those guns have been purchased since Obama took office. 250,000 people became NEW members of the NRA and close to the same number joined the GOA in the 30 days following the Newtown shooting.

THAT is a majority.

2012 murders.

Chicago. 506

Austin. 35

Care to guess which one has stronger gun control. Disarming people will not end violence, it will increase it ten fold. History is a huge teacher....read some.

I appreciate the comments - I continue to maintain that it makes sense to make our communities safer through sensible gun regulation. I am not against guns - but I am for making every effort to reduce the violence and death associated with firearms.

Even in the face of overwhelming statistics that prove that gun control causes more death. Are you just interested in reducing gun deaths even if more people die?

Please explain.

Marc believes that the "majority" wants gun control because gun control will reduce violence and deaths.

But that is not true. The statistics that Marc likes to wave around prove one thing - if you are not suicidal or a criminal, your chance of being killed with a firearm is almost exactly the same as your chance of winning a million dollars in the lottery.

The shelves of gun shops are empty and there are months-long waiting lists for basic supplies, because rumors of gun control drove hundreds of millions of people to buy firearms and stock up on ammo.

The majority is not silent. They are voting with their pocketbook.

Gary: I simply don't buy the conclusions you make with your statistics. I do know that other countries with strict gun control laws have miniscule firearm related deaths and significantly lower suicide rates. England, Canada, and central Europe. I do not advocate strict gun policy that take guns from people, just encourage sensible law that makes our communities safer. I have stated those recommendations and except for rethinking assault weaponbans, I continue those suggestions. I would also add that I fully support efforts to reduce medical error. Some will work some won't. Just like gun law. Again, in my newest blogs I mention a very simple truth, what you or I feel about gun regulation will not determine what actions are taken. The silent majority will have their say and those of us that agree or disagree with the outcomes can only sit by the sidelines and watch after doing all we can to expound our point of view. I am a gun owner who loves to go to the range. I am also a citizen that will do whatever I have to do in the way of advocacy to reduce the risk for future Newtowns especially in my own county.

But Doc, your way has been attempted and failed EVERY SINGLE TIME!

How many failures do you need before you open your eyes to the truth?

BTW, Newtown was a Gun Free Zone. Aurora, CO is a Gun Free Zone!

H-I-S-T-O-R-Y!!!!!
READ IT!

Which conclusions do you not buy?

41% of all gun deaths come from DC, CA, New York, New Jersey and Chicago!

How difficult is that to "buy"?

http://americanlivewire.com/chicago-hits-500th-murder-for-2012/

All: I appreciate the discussion. Marc, now labeled the elitist. Again thank you. MJY

Don't feign offense. I clearly said that your comments are very elitist.

Your refusal to acknowledge the opinions of others however ...........

I'm 100% certain that you are very well intentioned, but you are making decisions based on single source information streams, ie... your personal experience and emotional input and then bolstering those decisions with SOME of the facts.

Look at all the facts. Look at second and third order effects of what your remedy will entail.

In your jargon....what are the adverse side effects of your prescription.

Here is the bottom line. I am armed and well trained. I am so because I have worldly possessions that make me a target, and while I can and will replace those possessions when they are stolen, I cannot replace a family member and I cannot un rape a wife or daughter.

I refuse to be victimized! I refuse to be a useful idiot!

BTW...the first two sentences were in jest...don't be offended.

We are after all......Neighbors!

Gary

This is the blog that will not die! No offense taken. If I am being called an elitist, I have been called much worse! Let me clear the dust a little. When something like Newtown happens or the theater incident. You have to look beyond the numbers and stats and consider the impact on that community and all the rest of us. I have never suggested that guns be taken away. If three issues remain a priority for me, it would be improved background checks (already happening), gun safety courses (available), and magazine capacities (contentious). A forth related issue is Mental Health funding and the re-establishing of our State Mental Health system (soft issue little disagreement). Issues such as registration, banned guns, and selling retrictions are very contentious and criticised on the well documented arguments you and Mary have presented. No easy answers here and maybe some wiggle room for agreement. The politicians who rarely do things for the right reasons will call the shots on how this whole business will play out. It's a wait and see.

mary- could you direct me to a source for the statement that everytime a gun is used in a homicide/suicide there are 80 uses in self-defense?

i agree that the numbers are overinflated by suicide and criminal activity and should not be used to disarm the citizenry... but that's not what i hear being advocated. there is plenty of room for gun regulation that has no effect on limiting the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

KT: Thank you, well said.

kt, americangunfacts.com

Every year, guns are used over 80x more often to protect a life than to take one!*

* Based upon Kleck & Gertz estimates of 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year (see source #2). A similar study in 1994 under President Clinton (Source) found this number to be 1.5 million, which would result in guns being used over 47x more often to defend a life than to take one.

2. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995): http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm

kt, there is plenty of room for gun regulation that has no effect on limiting the rights of law-abiding gun owners

With 20,000+ existing laws on the books there is not "plenty of room". The laws being considered in many states now are so restrictive and unconstitutional Sheriffs are making statements saying they will not enforce such rules in their jurisdictions. See: http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/ for a list. Other law enforcement agents and members of the military are also saying they will not fire upon or disarm American citizens: oathkeepers.com

I have to add a big thanks to Sheriff Nocco, who is standing with EVERY OTHER SHERIFF in Florida, making Florida the First State to have 100% of their Sheriffs sign a pledge "that they will not enforce laws that violate the Constitution or infringe on the rights of the people to own firearms".

Forgot the url:

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/02/23/all-67-florida-county-sheriffs-sign-pledge-to-protect-the-right-of-citizens-to-bear-arms/

What is interesting is those sheriff's are refusing to pass potential laws that they swear to uphold. Add to that the increased risk for the patrolmen they should be protecting when refusing to address ending military style weapons with high capacity magazines in the hands of killers and the insane. I look forward to the first police chief being removed from office for refusing to obey the law. Also I congratulate the Governor of Colorado for signing the gun bill and standing up to the irrational arguments to allow a gun crazy country to face a start for rational gun policy. I might add, thank you for keeping this blog alive. Good to hear from you Mary.

As for Sheriff Nocco, who I have a lot of respect for; he has been an excellent sheriff and followed Bob White who I had occassion to work with when I was health officer. He also was a favorite and wore his badge honorably. Unfortunately, politics often get's in the way of their efforts. If a law were passed by the Florida legislature (unlikely) or the county to address sensible gun control, I am sure Nocco would enforce those laws. However, he needs to be reelected so he plays to constituents like you and others who stand firm against any rational gun policy. Pasco Commissioners would not even allow rational discussion at a meeting. They canceled the item on the agenda. Not a proud moment for them. A flag waving Jack Mariano wanted a vote to support the constitution. Go Jack!!! However, the wall is cracking and Colorado and other states are moving legislation through. Gun-nuts should fear another Newtown-like tragedy and it will happen without sensible enforced laws. Harry Reid is between a rock and a hard place pushing gun policy but something will come out of the senate and that is good. I am not against guns; I have them. I am against the irrational defense against sensible gun law. I have stated those recommendations in the blog.