1st Gun Experience

[doctor712]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Sorry PGG and others, this is a gun thread and I check new threads daily, SO, ergo, if I see a post that is TASTELESS, I'll mention it. Why? Um, I have a right to do so.

For those of you that are on PGG's side, here goes:

Now, if PGG chooses to tell himself that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA does NOT have a gun problem, well, the evidence is above. The overwhelming evidence. To cover PGG's next argument that "guns have nothing to do with the REAL problem..." well, apparently, THEY DO. To say it another way: the gun problem is America, is related to, duh, guns.

Turn the other cheek, deny all you want, Facts are Facts. And until you fix the Mental Health issue, put a band aid on it of some sort.

So, with respect to the 26 lost souls today, I have said what I want to say, and I frankly don't care whether or not YOU feel this is or isn't a GUN CONTROL thread. Have your fun here, but today? No. And if you do, you'll hear about it from me.

Just as I promised PGG I would own his ass on Constitutional debate (which he never took me up on), I'll speak up accordingly.

In the memory of the 20 INNOCENT LITTLE CHILDREN KILLED TODAY -- and the 6 adults - stand up for something bigger than yourself for once PGG.

Look at that image and deny deny deny, it will only make you seem more small minded and narcissistic.

Good night all. Have CT in your prayers tonight.

D712

 

[doctor712]

This dude is psychotic, not evil.

There are psychotic people in every country.

The reason this **** happens in the US is because there are so many guns.

Pretty logical logic to me, PGG.

Amen.

D712

 

[doctor712]

And truth be told, I understand this is a GUN THREAD, so have your fun with it.

But tonight, I'll call you out for a TASTELESS POST in the face of the massacre in CT today.

D712

 

[jwk]

Enough is enough with this crap.

Every gun needs to be registered, there need to be penalties against the owner if their gun is used in a crime, and all those who seek to own guns need a background check and psych eval.

How many innocent people have to die before you're willing to compromise on this ridiculous notion that everyone no matter how sick should be allowed easy access the tools for mass murder? When will it be enough for you? A shooting in a nursery school, a hospital nursery?

Your proposal is totally unreasonable and unworkable, and will do absolutely nothing to prevent tragedies such as the one that happened today. Yours is a typical knee-jerk reaction from the gun control crowd. Do something - ANYTHING - just SAVE US from the evil guns.

If you can figure out how to keep the guns away from the nuts and the criminals, as well as keep them available for law-abiding citizens such as myself, then by all means do something. And in the meantime, go read the Constitution, and try and figure out why we, the people, have the RIGHT to own guns. And think about what a shame it is that someone in or near that school didn't have a gun handy and was willing to use it appropriately.

 

[pgg]

How many innocent people have to die before you're willing to compromise on this ridiculous notion that everyone no matter how sick should be allowed easy access the tools for mass murder? When will it be enough for you? A shooting in a nursery school, a hospital nursery?

Please don't misrepresent or misquote me.

I have ALWAYS maintained that every American, with the exception of convicted violent felons and the mentally ill, should have access to own any weapon they choose, short of those that cause actual mass indiscriminate destruction or have use only as terror weapons (ie the classic WMD, chem/bio/etc). The 'E' is the only part of BATFE that has any reason to exist, IMO.

The difficulty is that public mental health resources have been gutted over the last 4 or 5 decades, and it's had to identify mentally ill people with an instant background check via a government-maintained database, when mental health care is (rightly) a very confidential and private issue. It's a hard problem. I don't know what the solution is, and I tend to think there IS no good solution. That doesn't mean we should embrace a BAD solution like more gun control.


Every time there's a mass shooting, the gun-control advocates ask "can we have the debate now, huh?" But, we've had this debate before. 18 years ago, the gun-control side won, and we got a 10-year experiment with a federal ban. Gun control doesn't work. The data is there; most of us are trained scientists with the ability to objectively evaluate data. What's different? What's new? What reason is there to believe that banning some guns would be different this time?

Today's events could not have been prevented by banning types of guns.

Maybe free unlimited national healthcare and 100 new free inpatient mental health facilities with 1000 new free outpatient facilities could have.


Gun control is as absurd as knife control. China passed 'a regulation requiring people to register with their national ID cards when buying large knives' but 22 kids got stabbed at a school there today too.


We've hashed this out before. The truth is that gun rights in America have dramatically expanded since the federal AWB sunset, particularly in the area of individual carry rights, and there's more to come in the aftermath of Heller and McDonald. Violent crime has steadily declined.

We don't have a gun problem in the United States. We have socioeconomic and mental health problems, and the solution to those won't come from banning guns with black features or pistol grips or shoulder thingies that go up.

 

[doctor712]

Get off the pulpit doc712, there is nothing insulting about him talking about target shooting. This is not a gun control thread...take it somewhere else

It would take a gun nut to argue the 2nd amendment, on this day of all days, while asking me to give up my FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. : )

NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

Carry on.

D712

 

[doctor712]

We don't have a gun problem in the United States.

Is that misrepresentative???

Please don't misrepresent or misquote me.

I have ALWAYS maintained that every American, with the exception of convicted violent felons and the mentally ill, should have access to own any weapon they choose, short of those that cause actual mass indiscriminate destruction or have use only as terror weapons (ie the classic WMD, chem/bio/etc). The 'E' is the only part of BATFE that has any reason to exist, IMO.

The difficulty is that public mental health resources have been gutted over the last 4 or 5 decades, and it's had to identify mentally ill people with an instant background check via a government-maintained database, when mental health care is (rightly) a very confidential and private issue. It's a hard problem. I don't know what the solution is, and I tend to think there IS no good solution. That doesn't mean we should embrace a BAD solution like more gun control.

Every time there's a mass shooting, the gun-control advocates ask "can we have the debate now, huh?" But, we've had this debate before. 18 years ago, the gun-control side won, and we got a 10-year experiment with a federal ban. Gun control doesn't work. The data is there; most of us are trained scientists with the ability to objectively evaluate data. What's different? What's new? What reason is there to believe that banning some guns would be different this time?

Today's events could not have been prevented by banning types of guns.

Maybe free unlimited national healthcare and 100 new free inpatient mental health facilities with 1000 new free outpatient facilities could have.


Gun control is as absurd as knife control. China passed 'a regulation requiring people to register with their national ID cards when buying large knives' but 22 kids got stabbed at a school there today too.


We've hashed this out before. The truth is that gun rights in America have dramatically expanded since the federal AWB sunset, particularly in the area of individual carry rights, and there's more to come in the aftermath of Heller and McDonald. Violent crime has steadily declined.

We don't have a gun problem in the United States. We have socioeconomic and mental health problems, and the solution to those won't come from banning guns with black features or pistol grips or shoulder thingies that go up.

Ramble ramble ramble. At least I've enlightened some people here to the garbage you have been spewing for as long as I can remember about the US Constitution, and your precious weaponry. You have no argument. And like the Supreme Court is taking up gay rights for example, as I predicted against others' hopes, Guns will continue to get tightened and tightened. What ELSE needs to be done (AFTER THE GUN ISSUE ITSELF is handled) is all that mental health and extracurricular work to keep nuts a) from getting guns b) wanting to kill a lot of people and themselves too c) the other societal issues. But first -- GUNS.

Your thinking is antiquated, (see the gay issue for example) and will GOD WILLING, be addressed. You, I think, should make a donation to a mental health organization if you feel so strongly that that's the solution, after all -- don't you WANT A SOLUTION, PGG?

As for your gun control experiment argument, the 10 year one, did anesthesia get safe in the OR over a ten year period? Or did it take from 1846 to more modern anesthesia, until today to improve? A START MUST HAPPEN. A CHANGE MUST HAPPEN. you are a doctor, you are supposed to be EMPIRICAL, no? Look at my data, do you not see an ISSUE WITH THEM PGG? Lord.

Further:

If you can figure out how to keep the guns away from the nuts and the criminals, as well as keep them available for law-abiding citizens such as myself, then by all means do something.

I have a few ideas. Wouldn't make many at the NRA or PGG Club very happy, but we need a change. Drastic. It's time. Who thought Roe v Wade would happen before Roe v Wade? Or that the SCOTUS would find internment camps CONSTITUTIONAL (wow, hard to find that passage in the US Constitution) but insane decisions (both GOOD AND BAD - the camps being bad) have taken place on local and federal levels. It's time to make a change.

Only after a 9/11 do we give up insane rights to board a plane, and complain all along the way. But we give up those rights. I'm sure the ACLU screamed when they limited out liquids to 3 ozs. But for safety, we gave up the rights.

When enough MASSACRES happen, we'll make a change. And I hope it happens soon, to your surprise and PGG's surprise.

And in the meantime, go read the Constitution, and try and figure out why we, the people, have the RIGHT to own guns. And think about what a shame it is that someone in or near that school didn't have a gun handy and was willing to use it appropriately.

Jwk, with respect, the Constitution is a living document and each of the rights within have been deemed LIMITABLE. So, I've read it, and the bill of rights, dozens of times. Perhaps a better tact would be to read the US CONS and figure out a VIABLE ARGUMENT to limit gun rights further, and while we're at it, require stringent mental health tests for those wanting guns. As STEP 1 of a COMPREHENSIVE 12 STEP program to stem the blood flow...

I would be happy to see a uniformed officer present at that school with a gun handy, absolutely. It's funny, the principle of the school was within her rights to carry a weapon, so the law didn't keep her from doing so, she just didn't do so, unfortunately. That's not the solution though. The mentally deranged **** with access to a gun - easier access to a gun than in most countries - he's the problem, and we need a solution. Solutions need to be implemented.

D712

 

[jwk]

This dude is psychotic, not evil.

There are psychotic people in every country.

The reason this **** happens in the US is because there are so many guns.

If you can't see evil in this.....

 

[doctor712]

In loving respect:

Imagine it were your kids, PGG. God forbid, but just imagine...

Hug your children tight tonight Doctors, and thank God it wasn't you or yours. I did.

D712

 

[deleted480308]

Doc712, I'm not saying you don't have a right to talk but simply that there is a place for all things on this forum. This thread for talking about our shared enjoyed experiences with...and types of firearms. It's not a flame war. Start a thread for arguing all your points, pm me the link, and you can "school me" there.

 

[RemyMcswain]

Obviously this was a horrific act. Dont misunderstand me.

Everyday I see people on the street outside the hospital where I work who mumble to themselves, and display other paranoid, psychotic type behavior.

I wonder what one of these mentally Ill individuals would do if they had access to a gun.

oh wait...

 

[RemyMcswain]

By the way, isnt the traditional teaching on schizophrenia that it presents in individuals in their 20s?

Anyone noticing a trend?

 

[powermd]

The difficulty is that public mental health resources have been gutted over the last 4 or 5 decades, and it's had to identify mentally ill people with an instant background check via a government-maintained database, when mental health care is (rightly) a very confidential and private issue. It's a hard problem. I don't know what the solution is, and I tend to think there IS no good solution. That doesn't mean we should embrace a BAD solution like more gun control.

Agreed that mental health needs A LOT more funding.

Since that's never going to happen, some common sense restrictions on how one accesses firearms should be passed into law. None of the simple proposals I've seen would limit YOUR personal stash. And no, I don't think they would have prevented this disaster. But it's a start, and sends the message that we care.

 

[RT2MD]

D712,
I understand where you are coming from, but wouldn't this picture be more accurate?

http://chartsbin.com/view/1454

My input to this (extremely complicated) problem is this: if all guns in the world were disintegrated, what's to say that people wouldn't just stab each other to death?

I don't believe that guns are the problem.

I also don't know much about the events that occurred today b/c I don't think the shooter(s) deserve any of my thoughts. I have turned my back on the news b/c it is all centered around who the killer(s) were and why they did what they did. My thoughts are with anybody who was affected by the tradegy... Not the piece(s) of crap who did the shootings.

With all that being said, I was surprised to see the above pics posted today... But wouldn't telling him not to post them violate HIS right to free speech?

Not meant to be inflammatory to anybody.

-RT2MD

 

[doctor712]

D712,
I understand where you are coming from, but wouldn't this picture be more accurate?

http://chartsbin.com/view/1454

My input to this (extremely complicated) problem is this: if all guns in the world were disintegrated, what's to say that people wouldn't just stab each other to death?

I don't believe that guns are the problem.

I also don't know much about the events that occurred today b/c I don't think the shooter(s) deserve any of my thoughts. I have turned my back on the news b/c it is all centered around who the killer(s) were and why they did what they did. My thoughts are with anybody who was affected by the tradegy... Not the piece(s) of crap who did the shootings.

With all that being said, I was surprised to see the above pics posted today... But wouldn't telling him not to post them violate HIS right to free speech?

Not meant to be inflammatory to anybody.

-RT2MD

Hi RT2MD,

First off, I owe you a PM, sorry about that, sigh, but I'm really happy to have read YOUR update, and always appreciate your support for me and my medical goals. : ) 👍 Soon, very soon! : )

Well, I think we would have to agree to disagree on the Gun issue. I did look at your map, and I think, apart from Subsaharan Africa, which is a unique situation, and what looked like Venezuela, I see that the United States leads all of Europe in these stats, China, North Africa, Australia, Cuba, and is equal to Western South America, or so. We're ahead in murders/homicide of Iran, India, Afghanistan, Turkey and Libya. That's what I sort of take away. We have to be better.

I think there will always be a problem in such a compact, technological world that we live in. All I'm advocating is for a political and social climate change. And a cease to the argument that guns don't cause gun violence.

Lastly, and to remain equally not inflammatory to you - because I have a great respect for you, I didn't really tell PGG not to post his pics, and thereby limit his free speech, I just felt that if he was going to be so tasteless, I would follow my own promise (to myself and the board) to always be there when I think his Gun talk/actions are out of line. So, you can yell fire in a crowded theater, but there's a penalty for it, yes? I felt the responsibility to comment on his post, being that he's a moderator here and and should be held to a much, much much, higher standard. And also, I do believe, like every other right in the CONS and BILL that even first amendment rights have limits. And gun rights should as well. Stricter than today's limits.

But I respect your opinion and debate. I wanted to reply to you on this, but I wanna also keep to my aim of not getting into a Gun Control debate on the night of these heinous 26 murders.

Good night all, I feel I said what I had to say here tonight, RT2MD -- keep taking numbers and kicking butt over there! : )

Doc712, I'm not saying you don't have a right to talk but simply that there is a place for all things on this forum. This thread for talking about our shared enjoyed experiences with...and types of firearms. It's not a flame war. Start a thread for arguing all your points, pm me the link, and you can "school me" there.

I'm sorry sb247. The US Constitution provides me the right to talk here, and not pm you, or school you somewhere else. So, because the US Constitution provides me that right, whether or not I have good or bad intentions, I shall exercise that right until which time I am limited by SCOTUS from enjoying that right. So, please don't infringe on my precious 1st amendment rights... (do you get what I'm doin? sounds kind of ludicrous doesn't it? So do the unwavering - we have our rights, so screw everyone's safety nuts that argue 2nd amendment rights.)

D712

 

[pgg]

Agreed that mental health needs A LOT more funding.

Since that's never going to happen, some common sense restrictions on how one accesses firearms should be passed into law. None of the simple proposals I've seen would limit YOUR personal stash. And no, I don't think they would have prevented this disaster. But it's a start, and sends the message that we care.

I do appreciate your calm and reasoned and compassionate approach to the issue, though there are a few areas here where I think you're wrong.


You said that improving mental health care is something that's "never going to happen" - why is that more implausible than somehow getting rid of 100s of millions of existing firearms in private law-abiding hands? Why couldn't we do that? We used to have a pretty extensive network of government run mental health facilities, and psychiatry has come a long way since we were doing lobotomies and chaining crazy people up in loony bins.



The devil is always in the details. I don't want to address an argument you don't mean to make, so if you could clarify -

some common sense restrictions on how one accesses firearms should be passed into law

What specific restrictions would you like to see? What specifically do you think would help?

None of the simple proposals I've seen would limit YOUR personal stash

Ultimately, this isn't really about ME, but this statement is incorrect in many CURRENT and easily predicted future ways, should any of these "simple" proposals pass

- The passed (and now expired) fed AWB would limit or prohibit many of my firearms. If it hadn't expired, I wouldn't have been able to buy many that I currently own and lawfully use.

- California's "simple" and "commonsense" laws limit or prohibit quite a few of my firearms (and suppressors) to the point that I'm forced to store them in another state

- The firearms that California's "simple" and "commonsense" laws do permit me to possess require me to mechanically alter them so they do not function as intended

- Californias "simple" and "commonsense" magazine capacity limit forced me to leave a number of handgun and rifle magazines in another state, and purchase (to the tune of $10-60 each) <10rd versions to use

- Feinstein's proposed re-introduction of a federal AWB would either ban many of my firearms outright (forcing me to surrender them) or ban the transfer/sale of my property to another person (forcing me to give up a basic property right) or ban the acquisition of certain new firearms, which obviously limits me

- I could go on and on, but I hope you see my point: that previous and proposed laws have and will restrict me, a law abiding citizen.

Gun control advocates LOVE California and Chicago and NYC and DC, but don't seem to like to talk about what horrific abject failures all of those places are when it comes to violent crime and "simple" / "commonsense" regulation.

And no, I don't think they would have prevented this disaster.

Then what's the point? So gun control advocates can feel good about themselves and pretend they're making a difference, while ignoring root causes?

Why should any free person tolerate a restriction of the basic civil right of armed self-defense? As I've mentioned before, we have not yet had a ruling from SCOTUS on what level of scrutiny must be applied to 2A issues, but my personal opinion is that it should and will be strict, meaning any such regulation would have to
- serve a compelling government interest (debatable, given the ineffectiveness of gun control)
- be the least restrictive means for serving that interest
- be narrowly tailored

Most gun control fails all three.

A few examples of reasonable gun control that meets that standard includes (IMO)
- effective, accurate, and rapid background checking (which is unfortunately a very hard problem)
- prohibition for persons who are violent felons (presently the law prohibits ALL felons)
- prohibition for mentally ill persons, or those addicted to unlawful drugs

You won't find many gun owners who object to this kind of gun control. I don't.

The problem we have is that the gun control we get is largely feel-good scary-feature driven bans composed by people who think a barrel shroud is a "shoulder thingy that goes up."

But it's a start, and sends the message that we care.

Yes it's a start. And history has taught us that the "start" is just that ... the "start" of ever-more restrictive laws, registration requirements, transport limitations (did you know I have to file a form and ask the ATF's permission, which takes 4-6 weeks to get, to move two of my rifles across state lines? Two rifles that are indistinguishable from other unregulated rifles, except that their barrels are 1.5" and 5" shorter, respectively?), usage limitations ...

Gun control "started" long long ago, "started" to take a nice racist turn in the post Civil War years, then "started" a nice classist turn during the Great Depression (with the 1934 NFA), then "started" again with the 1968 GCA, "started" some more with the 1994 AWB. Consider all of the other "starts" sprinkled in the years between those points, and maybe you'll start to see why gun owners are so wary of people who just want to "start" something reasonable and simple and commonsense.


Since NO gun control ever works, the natural response a gun control advocate gives when their latest control fails (predictably) is that more control is needed. No matter how much of a failure a control policy is, the gun control advocate always answers that it failed because it didn't go far enough.

It's like watching Republicans lose elections and then hearing Fox News guests conclude that the problem was that they weren't far right enough.


And if you want to send a message that you care, send a card or send flowers, or ask why this apparently mentally ill person wasn't diagnosed and treated before today.

 

[doctor712]

Pgg,

Just clarifying for those who are not paying CLOSE attention to your main concern: YOU.

Ultimately, this isn't really about ME...

(CUT TO)

- I could go on and on, but I hope you see my point: that previous and proposed laws have and will restrict me, a law abiding citizen.

Be a mensch, and join the rest of the modernized world, care a little bit more about something bigger than YOU. Be willing to give a little with your personal rights for the better of your hometown, your state, your country, and the world. You'll live.

Which is more than I can say for those 26 people in CT tonight.

Again, your argument that guns are not AT ALL involved in the GUN PROBLEM, is so foolish.

D712

 

[doctor712]

Pgg,

Please make a donation, in light of your tasteless pics today and the murder of 26 innocent souls, by a gun-toting lunatic, if you have any heart in that cavity around the middle of your chest, you will do so. I did.

Can you spare the change? Maybe sell one of your gold coins? An old gun you don't need anymore...

1) https://www.bbrfoundation.org/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=1

2) https://secure2.convio.net/mmm/site/Donation?ACTION=SHOW_DONATION_OPTIONS&CAMPAIGN_ID=1202

3) http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/connect-with-nimh/contribute-to-the-gift-fund.shtml

4) https://secure2.convio.net/nmha/site/Donation2?df_id=1240&1240.donation=form1

5) https://co.clickandpledge.com/sp/d1/default.aspx?wid=42378

6) https://www.imhro.org/get-involved/donate

In case you are still conflicted, just remember, donating to a 501c3 org allows you to donate and also claim the tax deduction, so, ya know, it serves YOU too.

D712

 

[periopdoc]

...most of us are trained scientists with the ability to objectively evaluate data.

d712 isn't, and he reminds us every time this debate comes up and he comes on here and blasts us with his propaganda.

- pod

 

[K31]

Well, I think we would have to agree to disagree on the Gun issue. I did look at your map, and I think, apart from Subsaharan Africa, which is a unique situation, and what looked like Venezuela, I see that the United States leads all of Europe in these stats, China, North Africa, Australia, Cuba, and is equal to Western South America, or so. We're ahead in murders/homicide of Iran, India, Afghanistan, Turkey and Libya. That's what I sort of take away. We have to be better.

The US homicide rate has always been higher than Europe. Compare the US to the UK back to 1900 (ie when neither country had any gun control to speak of). The two rates follow the same trend over the last 100+ years, but the US rate is always ~5x higher than the UK.

Sorry for no cites--I'm on my phone but all of this is easily googleable.

 

[pgg]

Be a mensch, and join the rest of the modernized world, care a little bit more about something bigger than YOU. Be willing to give a little with your personal rights for the better of your hometown, your state, your country, and the world. You'll live.

Ok, this is the last time I'll respond to you, really, for sure, absolutely. I think. Christ you are tiresome.



The reason I was firing that machine gun this morning is because I'm in the final days of a condensed Army combat training course before I go to Afghanistan, where I'll be on duty 24/7 for the better part of a year, sharing a room in a dormitory with a reinforced concrete roof thick enough to stop mortar rounds or rocket hits, waiting to take care of anyone (anyone, whether ours or theirs) who gets sick, injured, or wounded.

And I'll be grateful for the lousy accommodations because they're quite nice compared to how most of our people live over there.

The Navy pays me roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of what I could get in private practice. I have turned down multiple PP job offers, and six days ago I signed a four-year extension contract to stay in the Navy, largely because a patient population of sailors, Marines, soldiers, and airmen deserves the best our country has to offer. And I think I'm a good doctor and can be part of that.

I've lost count of the holidays, family events, and days of my kids' lives that I've missed while serving in various foreign holes so that some 19 year old enlisted Marine would have a good doctor nearby if he got shot.

Not that I'd really expect some stream-of-consciousness pontificating TV sitcom writer to really understand the first thing about duty or sacrifice. So please, enough with the crap about my selfishness, and what I should give, or who I should give it to, to meet your approval.

 

[Stank811]

Don't see how any gun control measures outside of banning the ownership of guns would have prevented this tradegy....he used his mother's guns so background checks and mental health exams would not have prevented this unspeakable act.

 

[doctor712]

The reason I was firing that machine gun this morning is because I'm in the final days of a condensed Army combat training course before I go to Afghanistan,

Thanks for your service. 👍 Did I have a problem with you firing a gun this morning? Did I ever state that. Analyze the data, Doc.

where I'll be on duty 24/7 for the better part of a year, sharing a room in a dormitory with a reinforced concrete roof thick enough to stop mortar rounds or rocket hits, waiting to take care of anyone (anyone, whether ours or theirs) who gets sick, injured, or wounded.

👍👍

Is this going to get to the point about posting gun shots after a national gun tragedy at any point soon?

And I'll be grateful for the lousy accommodations because they're quite nice compared to how most of our people live over there.

As was my sister and father who served overseas (the former in Iraq, 2003) in our military, and my Uncle, and Grandfather, and brother in law...your point?

The Navy pays me roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of what I could get in private practice. I have turned down multiple PP job offers, and six days ago I signed a four-year extension contract to stay in the Navy, largely because a patient population of sailors, Marines, soldiers, and airmen deserves the best our country has to offer.

Good for you, you're showing some nice qualities! 👍👍

And I think I'm a good doctor and can be part of that.

I think I'll be a great doctor shortly, and will love to "be a part of that".

I've lost count of the holidays, family events, and days of my kids' lives that I've missed while serving in various foreign holes so that some 19 year old enlisted Marine would have a good doctor nearby if he got shot.

Again, thanks for your service. Sadly, your service to our country is not directly proportional to your personal taste in gun control, knowledge about the US Constitution, and common sense. but you can't win them all!

Not that I'd really expect some stream-of-consciousness pontificating TV sitcom writer

I'll tell all the MD television writers that I know what you think of their career choices. Label me all you want Doc, I'll be an MD sooner than you wish, no doubt. And if you think making people laugh or cry by evoking emotion using paper, i.e. authors, movie writers, tv writers, is worthless, than I disagree. It's not completely worthless, just considerably less valuable than Medicine. Which is why, precisely, I'm changing careers. So, we're on the same page, Mr. Do-Good. Question is: if you weren't happy at 39 years old, would you have the balls to make a change like me?

to really understand the first thing about duty or sacrifice.

I see, you have to be in the Navy to understand about sacrifice. Not, live 2500 miles across the country and fly home every Friday night to see your children for 2 years (104 Friday nights and weekends) to support them, in order to understand sacrifice. So, now you're a stream-of-consciousness pontificating anesthesiologist who isn't making much sense, kudos, Tiger. So, other than MDs and the Military, sacrifice is off the table. Gotcha. I've spent 1000s of hours in the hospital and OR and lab away from my loved ones in order to give myself and them a better life YEARS from now. Yeah, I know nothing about sacrifice.

So please, enough with the crap about my selfishness, and what I should give, or who I should give it to, to meet your approval.

I doubt you'll ever meet my approval as a human being. You're a US G military man 👍 who is in medicine 👍 and you have half-assed backwards thoughts about your own rights, versus the well-being of others. So, despite what you think about my current tv writing career - (im not a sitcom writer currently, i'm a drama writer) i'm on my way to MD school with the support of PDs, Chairman, physician scientists, residents, fellows and attendings, Deans, Vice Chairs and so forth. So, stop stating I'm not a scientist and cannot interpret data simply because I don't have MD next to my name, yet, that's ****ting on all the Political Scientists out there not to mention Scientists in basic science labs, (anesthesia currently) who like myself, analyze data, create Ramachandran plots and who have published more this year than you have probably published in your entire career, Doctor.

Go overseas, be safe, thanks for your service both in the OR and in the Sandbox (and you know I mean that genuinely), and realize I still think you are on the low tier of the ladder as a human being as evidenced by your utter stubbornness today. Your most recent post above shows you desire sympathy and empathy all the while trying to peg me into a neat square, which, we both know, boobala, you could never do. See you at ASA and IARS soon enough. I don't blame you for not being able to turn your back on a mouthy television writer slash anesthesia researcher-goes-soon-to-be medical doctor, who you cannot, for the life of you, despite your degrees, trump on the page if your life were dependent on it. Which is all to say, clearly, why you keep responding when you wish you could stop. You're even more tiresome, Doctor. Be safe.

Frankly, PGG, you lack nspiration and mostly, creativity. I can learn anything in a book you place in front of me, despite my fervent hatred of Organic Chem, ick, but one thing I can NEVER teach you is creativity. And I think, in part, that's why you are so undeniably shortsighted when it comes to a) interpreting the US CONS and b) in general, gun rights vs freedoms and c) lastly, and most importantly, probably, your perception of the world around you at large. It's a shame.

D712

 

[excalibur]

Pgg,

Your posting a smoking machine gun with 800 rounds of ammunition below your quote of "I had an enjoyable morning" on the same day where in the morning the deadliest elementary through high school mass shooting in US history occurred was in terrible taste.

 

[doctor712]

Pgg,

Your posting a smoking machine gun with 800 rounds of ammunition below your quote of "I had an enjoyable morning" on the same day where in the morning the deadliest elementary through high school mass shooting in US history occurred was in terrible taste.

Excalibur,

Perhaps, from your lips, as his colleague, PGG will see the light. I am clearly not on his level in society, being a mere writer but maybe PGG will come around hearing from a MD/DO. It's all
about letters to him, seemingly... you're not a FMG god-forbid, right? GASP.

👍

D712

 

[doctor712]

Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg:

"With all the carnage from gun violence in our country, it's still almost impossible to believe that a mass shooting in a kindergarten class could happen. It has come to that. Not even kindergarteners learning their A,B,Cs are safe. We heard after Columbine that it was too soon to talk about gun laws. We heard it after Virginia Tech. After Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek. And now we are hearing it again. For every day we wait, 34 more people are murdered with guns. Today, many of them were five-year olds. President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem. Calling for &#8216;meaningful action' is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership &#8211; not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today. This is a national tragedy and it demands a national response. My deepest sympathies are with the families of all those affected, and my determination to stop this madness is stronger than ever."

Mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino:

"As a parent and grandparent, I am overcome with both grief and outrage by the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. This unspeakable act of violence will forever imprint this day in our hearts and minds. My heart goes out to the families impacted by this senseless tragedy and the many others we have recently witnessed across the United States. As a Mayor who has witnessed too many lives forever altered by gun violence, it is my responsibility to fight for action. Today's tragedy reminds us that now is the time for action. Innocent children will now never attend a prom, never play in a big game, never step foot on a college campus. Now is the time for a national policy on guns that takes the loopholes out of the laws, the automatic weapons out of our neighborhoods and the tragedies like today out of our future."

Chairman, News Corp. Rupert Murdoch:

"Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy."

Former NASA Astronaut, Mark Kelly:

"We must sound a call for our leaders to stand up and do what is right...This time our response must consist of more than regret, sorrow, and condolence," he said. "The children of Sandy Hook Elementary School and all victims of gun violence deserve leaders who have the courage to participate in a meaningful discussion about our gun laws - and how they can be reformed and better enforced to prevent gun violence and death in America. This can no longer wait."

Carolyn McCarthy D-NY:

"We owe it to our children to work harder to reduce gun violence... The Second Amendment is the law of the land but it was never intended to allow murderers to take the lives of innocent kids. It's our moral obligation as policymakers and as parents to do more to save lives."

THE NRA:

Contacted for comment, the National Rifle Association told CBS News: "Until the facts are thoroughly known, NRA will not have any comment."

PGG:

"We don't have a gun problem in the United States..."

D712

 

[pie944]

Ramble ramble ramble. At least I've enlightened some people here to the garbage you have been spewing for as long as I can remember about the US Constitution, and your precious weaponry. You have no argument. And like the Supreme Court is taking up gay rights for example, as I predicted against others' hopes, Guns will continue to get tightened and tightened.

I haven't been enlightened at all by you, but I do hope it occurs. Even if I disagree with your view point I can still acknowledge you have made a strong counter argument, but as of now I can't do that.

What is your argument, excluding emotional comments and pictures? What are your ideas, specifically? Furthermore, how will these ideas prevent the most recent incidents that have occurred in this country?

Why will guns continue to get tightened and tightened as you say? Is that based on the results of DC versus Heller? McDonald versus Chicago? Or the most recent MICHAEL MOORE, et al., and MARY E. SHEPARD, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants ,v. LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, et al.?

What you suggest the courts will do versus what is occurring seem to be at odds with one another, no? Why do you think future laws will be treated differently?

Your thinking is antiquated, (see the gay issue for example) and will GOD WILLING, be addressed.

Why is his thinking antiquated? See the recent rulings above.

As for your gun control experiment argument, the 10 year one, did anesthesia get safe in the OR over a ten year period? Or did it take from 1846 to more modern anesthesia, until today to improve?

I'm not sure I understand this statement or how it applies to the argument for more gun control.

Yes, to answer your question, anesthesia has shown improvement in safety over durations of ten years or less with ideas. Ideas that don't show improvement in medicine are only kept around due to ignorance of the physicians utilizing them(dopamine for renal protection), similar to politicians and current attempts at gun control in my opinion. What's worse is that because people can't acknowledge the failure of one idea, often other ideas which could lead to improvement are not discovered.

I think you'll find that often in medicine ideas are given much shorter duration than 10 years, in fact some ideas are praised as the second coming and taken off the market in that duration(see Activated Protein C for Septic Shock). So how long should gun control laws be given to show a benefit?

Do you acknowledge that the law implemented for the period of 1994-2004 as the CDC stated "found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence?" That no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets had reduced gun murders? In other words, what did that 10 year period accomplish? How did it succeed?

I'm not saying if you acknowledge the failure of the law for that ten year duration that you are stating all gun control will fail, but is your idea just to pass this again for a longer duration with the thoughts improvements will occur? If that's your plan, how long of a duration do you need until you admit its failure? It's a question I ask people who talk about 'fair share' with taxes, they can never define what that share is.

You criticize this short term data, what data do you bring to your argument? I saw the previous pictures you have posted, what else? If this 10 year data is inadequate, what makes your data so adequate?

Looking forward to reading your response.

 

[pie944]

Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg:

"With all the carnage from gun violence in our country, it’s still almost impossible to believe that a mass shooting in a kindergarten class could happen. It has come to that. Not even kindergarteners learning their A,B,Cs are safe. We heard after Columbine that it was too soon to talk about gun laws. We heard it after Virginia Tech. After Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek. And now we are hearing it again. For every day we wait, 34 more people are murdered with guns. Today, many of them were five-year olds. President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem. Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership – not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today. This is a national tragedy and it demands a national response. My deepest sympathies are with the families of all those affected, and my determination to stop this madness is stronger than ever."

Mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino:

"As a parent and grandparent, I am overcome with both grief and outrage by the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. This unspeakable act of violence will forever imprint this day in our hearts and minds. My heart goes out to the families impacted by this senseless tragedy and the many others we have recently witnessed across the United States. As a Mayor who has witnessed too many lives forever altered by gun violence, it is my responsibility to fight for action. Today’s tragedy reminds us that now is the time for action. Innocent children will now never attend a prom, never play in a big game, never step foot on a college campus. Now is the time for a national policy on guns that takes the loopholes out of the laws, the automatic weapons out of our neighborhoods and the tragedies like today out of our future."

Chairman, News Corp. Rupert Murdoch:

"Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy."

Former NASA Astronaut, Mark Kelly:

"We must sound a call for our leaders to stand up and do what is right...This time our response must consist of more than regret, sorrow, and condolence," he said. "The children of Sandy Hook Elementary School and all victims of gun violence deserve leaders who have the courage to participate in a meaningful discussion about our gun laws - and how they can be reformed and better enforced to prevent gun violence and death in America. This can no longer wait."

Carolyn McCarthy D-NY:

"We owe it to our children to work harder to reduce gun violence... The Second Amendment is the law of the land but it was never intended to allow murderers to take the lives of innocent kids. It's our moral obligation as policymakers and as parents to do more to save lives."


D712

What's the point of these quotes? These people would have made these same statements long before any of these recent events, so what's the purpose of quoting them? Are these quotes suppose to be for us the equivalent of Johnson loosing Cronkite?(Though this historical fact is questionable in its occurrence)

My favorite is Murdoch, because in all these situations automatic weapons have been prevalent, oh wait, not one.

 

[doctor712]

I haven't been enlightened at all by you, but I do hope it occurs. Even if I disagree with your view point I can still acknowledge you have made a strong counter argument, but as of now I can't do that.

What is your argument, excluding emotional comments and pictures? What are your ideas, specifically? Furthermore, how will these ideas prevent the most recent incidents that have occurred in this country?

Why will guns continue to get tightened and tightened as you say? Is that based on the results of DC versus Heller? McDonald versus Chicago? Or the most recent MICHAEL MOORE, et al., and MARY E. SHEPARD, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants ,v. LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, et al.?

What you suggest the courts will do versus what is occurring seem to be at odds with one another, no? Why do you think future laws will be treated differently?



Why is his thinking antiquated? See the recent rulings above.



I'm not sure I understand this statement or how it applies to the argument for more gun control.

Yes, to answer your question, anesthesia has shown improvement in safety over durations of ten years or less with ideas. Ideas that don't show improvement in medicine are only kept around due to ignorance of the physicians utilizing them(dopamine for renal protection), similar to politicians and current attempts at gun control in my opinion. What's worse is that because people can't acknowledge the failure of one idea, often other ideas which could lead to improvement are not discovered.

I think you'll find that often in medicine ideas are given much shorter duration than 10 years, in fact some ideas are praised as the second coming and taken off the market in that duration(see Activated Protein C for Septic Shock). So how long should gun control laws be given to show a benefit?

Do you acknowledge that the law implemented for the period of 1994-2004 as the CDC stated "found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence?" That no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets had reduced gun murders? In other words, what did that 10 year period accomplish? How did it succeed?

I'm not saying if you acknowledge the failure of the law for that ten year duration that you are stating all gun control will fail, but is your idea just to pass this again for a longer duration with the thoughts improvements will occur? If that's your plan, how long of a duration do you need until you admit its failure? It's a question I ask people who talk about 'fair share' with taxes, they can never define what that share is.

You criticize this short term data, what data do you bring to your argument? I saw the previous pictures you have posted, what else? If this 10 year data is inadequate, what makes your data so adequate?

Looking forward to reading your response.

Dr. Pie944,

On its face, your argument is a great sound bite, but all you're really asking is a) why I think what I think and b) if I can provide supporting evidence? As if, the burden is on me here. Before I write a dissenting opinion here, to your post, could I ask you to read the Mass Killings Thread, if you haven't already?

It will give you a firm framing of my beliefs and I don't feel like starting from scratch right now, tonight. Here's the thread:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=933784&referrerid=232585

Now, briefly, as Heller, McDonald et al, you realize that these, well at least one in particular, was really an opinion simply to incorporate the 2nd amendment to the states vis-a-vis the 14th amendment. So, um, what precisely does that have to do with my position here? I mean, you seem to be side-stepping the main problem I have with PGG's beliefs. You have many questions, please read the Killings thread, and let's go from there. Fair? Also, as for the 10 year issue and the Federal Assault Ban, again, same tactic, you seem to be leaving the burden up to me to show that this was a failure or a success. Can you say, conclusively, that a new ban, in 2012, would be a failure? With diffferent ban terms, rules, loopholes? Could you please show me data that would demonstrate this conclusive ban failure circa 2012? That's basically what you're asking me here to do, in the opposite. And that's, again, really making it seem like I should have all the solutions here, and in lieu of that, PGG's position stands, should I not have a 100% cure. That's false logic. Completely, and I don't buy into it.

You seem to be taking the side of the 2nd amendment folks here, could you elaborate your views herein, as far as where you stand, specifically, dating back to say PGG's argument, which, as I clearly recall, discussed Framer's intentions in the 1787 Federal Convention. Granted PGG admits that he stockpiled/s ammo and weapons solely to protect himself from the same US G that he will be serving overseas shortly. So, I understand where his 2nd amendment argument comes from (fear), whereas I'm not fearful of my government, rather people who want to commit mass killings.

So, a load of questions, that require data predictive of the future, right back atcha. I look forward to hearing what you think of that Mass Killings thread. So, I'm equally unenlightened by your line of questioning, and hope you can shed some light on your opinions of gun rights circa 2012.

Thanks!
D712

 

[doctor712]

What's the point of these quotes? These people would have made these same statements long before any of these recent events, so what's the purpose of quoting them? Are these quotes suppose to be for us the equivalent of Johnson loosing Cronkite?(Though this historical fact is questionable in its occurrence)

My favorite is Murdoch, because in all these situations automatic weapons have been prevalent, oh wait, not one.

Dr. 944,

The point of each of these quotes are quite self evident, and I think you know that. Yes, each of these comments is from a proponent of curtailing gun rights, is that not clear? They were, in fact, part of a larger story that I was painting with that specific quote, to in fact, shed more light on PGG's personal quote regarding the "lack" of a gun problem in America. So the technique that I used was to demonstrate current feelings from leaders in the United States, informed leaders, the Mayors more so, but others as well. THEN, what followed was a contrasting view from our beloved PGG. It's a narrative I was creating, I'm sorry you didn't see that as crystal clear as I hoped you would have. But I do believe that many of the readers on this thread heard me loud and clear!

You mention that automatic weapons were not, even but once, prevalent. Have you forgotten the recent shooting in Aurora? Was that not an automatic weapon? The only quote specific to automatic weapons above was Murdoch's, no? The others were simply commenting on the Zeitgeist that is the recent (12) massacre shootings this year in the US. So, I think in fact that they surely had the Aurora shooting in mind when quoting today even - and that's when I grabbed these quotes. Again, a subtle slight of hand on your part but I think it falls flat.

I wouldn't read into my logic any more than you think you have to, it's pretty much to reply PGG's ridiculousness and that's quite evident. He wants to spew facts, than I can compare his thoughts to leaders in the US present day. It's really simple actually.

Also, lastly, to your response to my anesthesia comparison, it's simple Anesthesia is safer now than in 1846, an extreme example, but a good one, for its extreme and obvious nature. But it's also safer than in 1946. 1996? 2006? You mention evidence that some anesthesia inventions made immediate splashes on the scene and bettered the field almost immediately. But that's highly anecdotal, isn't it? I mean, for every example that you give where the BIS suddenly allowed closer monitoring of sedation/awareness, I could equally claim that it took years and years to GET to the BIS, or to give a safer induction agent, or I don't know the time frame, but, for example, older halogens, how long were those used on the cart before Des or Sevo jumped into the scene? Or Iso? Were these immediate advances, or ones that took time. If, judging by some of the initial research I see on a daily basis in the basic science (anesthesia) lab, then I would say that things take YEARS and YEARS to get from the bench to the bedside. Surely, you are not saying that anesthesia, clinical practice thereof, evolves, safety wise, discovery wise, rapidly on a year to year basis? I mean, I have an old copy of Miller on my desk, 6th edition, it was a gift, would I fail the orals if I studied IT as opposed to the 7th edition? Would I be THAT far behind with pharma, principles, local? Maybe, not my area of expertise, but I doubt it. I would say, like any other new edition, small changes to update. Whereas, if I look at Truimph Over Pain, also on my desk, 1st edition 1938, also a gift, I would say in those decades, we would see great advances.

Now, apply that to Gun Control Laws, and you have my timing argument in full... 10 years is just too short a time frame. equally, do you think a 20 year study would have been a failure? can you provide 20 year data? can you provide data that would discuss a trend? a 2012 trend?

D712

 

[IveGotTwins]

Here's some 98 year old data on making things illegal and how it affects the subsequent availability and use by those motivated to do so.

Heroin was synthesized in 1874 in England. It was first regulated in the U.S. in 1914 and then made completely illegal without a prescription in 1924.

50 million people across the world use/abuse heroin and other illegal drugs on a regular basis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2000/drugs_trade/default.stm

One could shoot heroin all day and hurt only themselves hence the phrase "victim-less crime". Obviously the consequences of using drugs are not equal for those around you when compared to guns and their use/misuse.

My point is that heroin and similar drugs have been heavily regulated to the point of illegality but it has done nothing but fill prisons and shift the production of heroin from Bayer to Afghanistan.

The same would be true for guns.

 

[pgg]

Pgg,

Your posting a smoking machine gun with 800 rounds of ammunition below your quote of "I had an enjoyable morning" on the same day where in the morning the deadliest elementary through high school mass shooting in US history occurred was in terrible taste.

Well again, sorry to have offended you.

Also again, this is a thread with "gun" in the title, and just as no one's forcing you to surf on over to ar15.com or glocktalk.com, if you think guns are responsible and don't want to see them or talk about them, maybe read a different thread.

 

[deleted480308]

I have multiple guns, carry one at all times legal and will continue to do so. Will actually shoot my glock this weekend and go to my first gssf event next month hopefully. (There will be pics)

 

[lobelsteve]

Well again, sorry to have offended you.

Also again, this is a thread with "gun" in the title, and just as no one's forcing you to surf on over to ar15.com or glocktalk.com, if you think guns are responsible and don't want to see them or talk about them, maybe read a different thread.

Recent events, remote events, the banter on the news....

Criminals and crazies will always have guns. Laws can ban objects but not ideas. Bad people will still ignore the laws.

I've never shot a pistol in my life. Guns scare me terribly. I am going to the range for the first time ever today and will be going to a gun safety class next month. At 3AM the home alarm might go off and bad people may try and get in my house and do my family harm. I do not think they will listen to reason, laws, or my golden retriever. Hoping to find a slender pistol with power to stop anyone who breaches my home. Hoping to find way over concern of guns so I can be comfortable knowing I can protect my family. I have no problem taking the life of another for that reason. We should ban criminals and crazy people. not guns. Both sides just as stupid. Thank you pgg. How about an XDs?

 

[powermd]

I do appreciate your calm and reasoned and compassionate approach to the issue, though there are a few areas here where I think you're wrong.


You said that improving mental health care is something that's "never going to happen" - why is that more implausible than somehow getting rid of 100s of millions of existing firearms in private law-abiding hands?

First, I'm not arguing for abolishing guns. Only a few common sense ideas that might better secure them. We need to do something to encourage people to better secure the guns they own so nut jobs don't steal them. That law would need teeth in order for gun owners to pay attention. Second, every gun needs to be registered, and there need to be penalties for possessing an unregistered firearm. Third, people really should go through some kind of psych eval and background check before getting access to these things. Perhaps they should be required to join and meet the approval of a local gun owners club where a few well chosen leaders could assess this person's candidacy for responsible ownership.

Second, regarding mental health. The issue is the scope of the problem. It's enormous, and no one wants to pay for all that psychotherapy and counseling. Meds alone won't cut it, and we as medical professionals know that. Just in the course of one day in my pain clinic the amount of psychopathology I see is vast.

Regarding AWB, suppressors, magazine size, transferrence rights.. these go beyond what I'm personally advocating, but I can see why one would support these measures. They are simple black and white restrictions that are easy to understand and implement widely. People who aren't gun nuts see these as reasonable compromises on the second amendment.

Regarding what's the point.. obviously it's impossible to prevent every tragedy. Who knows, maybe the next psycho will choose a home made bomb as his weapon. Or a knife like the guy in China. It's all about reducing the risk and balancing that with people's desire to own firearms.

As Steve said/implied, we can't ban crazy people or criminals. So we have to start somewhere.

Yes it's a start. And history has taught us that the "start" is just that ...

You're not going to get much sympathy from me if your best response is "do nothing because I'm afraid of the slippery slope".

Like it or not, easy access to guns is a big part of this problem. You, as a responsible gun owner, would do well to lead the charge toward reasonable gun control laws.

Since NO gun control ever works..

Let's try to do it intelligently and find out if this is really true.

And if you want to send a message that you care, send a card or send flowers, or ask why this apparently mentally ill person wasn't diagnosed and treated before today.

You are pathetic if condolences and blame shifting are all you have to offer. A crazy kid was one part of the equation, the other part was easy access to the tools of mass murder. Please consider becoming an advocate for solutions to the latter.

 

[scudrunner]

This dude is psychotic, not evil.

There are psychotic people in every country.

The reason this **** happens in the US is because there are so many guns.

This was pure evil superimposed on psychosis. I cannot imagine a more evil thing.

Controlling guns is just treating a symptom. The root of the problem lies within our amoral, self-centered, dog eat dog culture. I also blame the media for increasing the in incidence of these hainous crimes by dedicating days upon days of 24/7 coverage. They need to squash it, but they have no moral fiber either, they just want people to watch.

 

[powermd]

The root of the problem lies within our amoral, self-centered, dog eat dog culture.

Our culture values cash over everything else, and business and political incentives are structured to promote and promulgate this value. Most of our societal problems are symptoms of this disease.

 

[doctor712]

Well again, sorry to have offended you.

Also again, this is a thread with "gun" in the title, and just as no one's forcing you to surf on over to ar15.com or glocktalk.com, if you think guns are responsible and don't want to see them or talk about them, maybe read a different thread.

What a half-assed, and phony apology. I liked your first half-assed apology much better.
So, again, what you're stating is that this is a gun thread, so ANY pics or postings are a-ok on the day of the largest elementary school gun shooting in US history?

What an as$ clown.

Here's an idea, last night, Paramount Pictures cancelled Tom Cruise's movie premiere in light of the shootings. I imagine the movie dealt with sensitive material. FOX pre-empted Family Guy for the same reasons.

Could Paramount and Fox have said, "Feel free to stay away from our networks because, after all, we make entertainment with guns and shootings all the time..." Sure. But they chose a more wise alternative: cancelled the screenings. There's a difference between having the RIGHT to say and do something, and having the COMMON SENSE to know when NOT to. Spoken by a WRITER.

Your response is "it's a gun thread, if you are easily offended flip the channel." 1) I'm not easily offended. 2) Yours was ABJECTLY IN POOR TASTE, forget who took offense. 3) You're like a religious zealot (which is strange for an atheist like you), you will take ANY MEANS to justify your views when it comes to guns. ANY MEANS. 👎thumbdown
You also say, "nobody forced you on a gun thread..." Well, have you thought of this pearl... maybe we don't mind the gun debate??? Maybe we feel guns shouldn't be vanquished but regulated as with a larger bigger social program (mental health included)??? And that even though we weren't forced to read this thread, when we did, and found something
SO UTTERLY TASTELESS, that we, or at least I WILL, call you out for your PATHETIC LACK OF TACT??? ESPECIALLY when you open a thread with, "I had a great morning..." In the midst of 20 kids being shot, and 6 adults.

What is with the bug up your ass that you cannot simply say the words, "Yes, I love my guns and yesterday was NOT the day to go bragging about their lethal power or show off steaming barrels in light of the GUN MASSACRE." What is your issue? There is a) freedom b) common sense and c) TACT. Do you have A SINGLE MINUTE DOSE of the latter two?
Are you THAT self-****ing-centered??? Cut it and paste it, yeah, that'll scream sincerity.

Let's hope your medical ethics are more aligned with reality, I'm sure they are, as I doubt you bring your Glock and AR-15 to the OR. Though I'm sure you would if you could...
I'm SO happy your little gun pictures didn't get the kudos and bravos and rousing attention that you SO wish. Take em to Afghanistan, where they were MADE TO BE USED.

D712

 

[doctor712]

(re: PGG) You are pathetic if condolences and blame shifting are all you have to offer. A crazy kid was one part of the equation, the other part was easy access to the tools of mass murder. Please consider becoming an advocate for solutions to the latter.

Amen.

 

[doctor712]

Here's some 98 year old data on making things illegal and how it affects the subsequent availability and use by those motivated to do so.

Heroin was synthesized in 1874 in England. It was first regulated in the U.S. in 1914 and then made completely illegal without a prescription in 1924.

50 million people across the world use/abuse heroin and other illegal drugs on a regular basis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2000/drugs_trade/default.stm

One could shoot heroin all day and hurt only themselves hence the phrase "victim-less crime". Obviously the consequences of using drugs are not equal for those around you when compared to guns and their use/misuse.

My point is that heroin and similar drugs have been heavily regulated to the point of illegality but it has done nothing but fill prisons and shift the production of heroin from Bayer to Afghanistan.

The same would be true for guns.

Faulty logic: heroin users are taking an addictive substance. It is forced into their veins by themselves despite any logic/power/control etc. It ruins lives, families, etc, all in the name of getting a high. (I'd say it's hardly victim-less). Thus, it is EXTREMELY hard to keep users from using. Agreed?

Guns, even though PGG demonstrates a near addiction to his, are not medically and physiologically addictive in the same fashion as heroin. Unless, I suppose you are a serial killer. You docs can argue that point.

They are two distinct battles that need to be handled differently, with the ONLY similarity being mental health assistance. Sure, I understand your point about production going overseas. I'm talking about ownership, and rights thereof, and ease of access to weapons.

Is it easier to score a pound of heroin in the US or buy a Glock? 1) the heroin cannot be thrown around in a classroom and kill 20 kids. 2) if that's the case, then LET it be easier, yes? 3) currently, it's easier to get a Glock. I could leave my house right now, and be back with a gun, when, in an hour? Actually, I just have to call my neighbor and ask to use his. 5 minutes. That's a problem. A HUGE problem. The gun activists stand on the Constitution, with NO other moral grounds. It's sad.

D712

 

[IveGotTwins]

I could call my cousin and get heroin and guns. He enjoys both immensely.

I can't comment on wether or not using a gun is "addictive" as I don't own guns. My father owns about 20. He taught my brother and myself how to use and respect them. My brother and my father both hunt and go to the shooting range together. I'm just not interested I guess.

Even so, I'm not sure the difference in addictive potential has any real effect on the availability. It just drives heroin users to get heroin despite the law. No doubt the ramifications of drug use and abuse can create victims. Spouses, children, friends etc. The purchase and use of the heroin alone are victim-less though. The actions and behavior of the addicted to obtain more heroin is usually what creates the "victims". But, being the spouse, relative or friend of someone addicted to drugs can hardly be compared to being murdered.

If you want a gun and can't get one legally you can get one illegally now if you are so inclined. The illegal means to obtain a weapon would still exist if the legal method was made illegal or made arduously long and difficult.

The overarching point is that drugs are illegal but you can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone who hasn't used illegal drugs at least once.

If we created a WAR ON GUNS similar to our WAR ON DRUGS it would be just as unsuccessful. All we would have is criminals getting rich from manufacturing, trafficking and implementing them; much like drugs today.

Did prohibition create a country of teetotalers? No.

 

[doctor712]

I don't think you can compare the two (drugs and guns), and lessening the argument to sound bites like WAR ON DRUGS and WAR ON GUNS, gives short shrift to all those who believe a solution is possible. In other words, the current gun regulations are not working and are definitely part of the problem.

But I hear your opinion loud and clear.

D712

 

[IveGotTwins]

You are right. Current gun regulations are not limiting gun violence. Ratcheting these up won't change that.

I'm sure people once believed that a solution was possible for the "problem" of alcohol consumption. It became the 18th amendment. The ultimate solution! Our constitution was changed in order to prevent the sale and consumption of alcohol and thereby it's perceived negative effects. Alcohol consumption as a whole went down among the law abiding but it did little to change those who did not follow the law. Al Capone certainly benefited from this "solution". Then we learned that we cannot legislate good behavior; only punish bad. The 21st amendment repealed the 18th. I am certain you are completely aware and probably more knowledgable on this topic than myself.

Do you think an outright ban on guns like the prohibition experiment would decrease gun violence among those who are likely to commit violent acts and likely to break the law regardless?

I fear such changes would only give the cartels something else to sell.

If this person had been drunk when committing these heinous acts I doubt people would again be calling for prohibition of alcohol because it was "part of the problem". If he had chosen to drive his car into the building would we be calling for harsher limits on cars? If he had made a bomb would we be asking for fertilizer to be more heavily regulated? Of he had burned down the school would gasoline be to blame? Of course none of things are true.

This man was mentally unstable. He did this with his tool of choice. End of story. He chose firearms to carry out his plan rather than a bomb like Timothy McVeigh, a knife like Jack the Ripper or poison like George Chapman. The choice of a gun probably ended with more deaths compared to that of a knife, but less than that of a bomb or even gasoline.

This is my opinion.

 

[doctor712]

Actually, in response to Twins and Dr. 944, here is a nice piece of research out of Harvard Medical. It correlates more guns to more gun homicides (big stretch, right?). I know 944 wanted more data, here you go:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

Secondly, STRICTER GUN CONTROL LAWS lead to less gun deaths in the US (from today's Washington Post)...written by primarily, writers outside the television sitcom world.

"9. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.
Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive: (MAP NOT VIEWABLE, SORRY)

"The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state," explains Florida. "It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place &#8211; assault weapons' bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48)."

So, all you peeps out there saying more regulations don't and wouldn't help, here's some evidence, recent, new and reliable, to state the FACTS.

D712

 

[doctor712]

This man was mentally unstable. He did this with his tool of choice. End of story. .

Actually, he chose 4 weapons, one an assault rifle, made not for hunting (sorry PGG), but to be offensive or defensive with a weapon aimed at another human.

Easy access, lots of guns, mental illness --- > massacre. INTERVENTION IS NEEDED, MULTI-PRONGED.

INCLUDING: STRICTER GUN CONTROL.

The names of all the children (aged 6 and 7) were just released. Killed with the ASSAULT RIFLE. Using between 3 and 11 shots per innocent child.

D712

 

[chocomorsel]

PGG, How many,of those little Chinese kids died from their knife wounds?
And why is it you are out there trainimg for the military w an automatic weapon insteadd of a machete or a bayonette?

The answer is simple. Guns are much more effective at killing than knives or other hand held tools. For you and your supporters to keep arguing that guns arent the problem is ignorant and arsenine.

Not to mention disgustigly self centerd. Please go tell that to the more than 20 familis in mourning in CT right now see if you dont get slapped a few times.
[/B]

Please don't misrepresent or misquote me.

I have ALWAYS maintained that every American, with the exception of convicted violent felons and the mentally ill, should have access to own any weapon they choose, short of those that cause actual mass indiscriminate destruction or have use only as terror weapons (ie the classic WMD, chem/bio/etc). The 'E' is the only part of BATFE that has any reason to exist, IMO.

The difficulty is that public mental health resources have been gutted over the last 4 or 5 decades, and it's had to identify mentally ill people with an instant background check via a government-maintained database, when mental health care is (rightly) a very confidential and private issue. It's a hard problem. I don't know what the solution is, and I tend to think there IS no good solution. That doesn't mean we should embrace a BAD solution like more gun control.


Every time there's a mass shooting, the gun-control advocates ask "can we have the debate now, huh?" But, we've had this debate before. 18 years ago, the gun-control side won, and we got a 10-year experiment with a federal ban. Gun control doesn't work. The data is there; most of us are trained scientists with the ability to objectively evaluate data. What's different? What's new? What reason is there to believe that banning some guns would be different this time?

Today's events could not have been prevented by banning types of guns.

Maybe free unlimited national healthcare and 100 new free inpatient mental health facilities with 1000 new free outpatient facilities could have.


Gun control is as absurd as knife control. China passed 'a regulation requiring people to register with their national ID cards when buying large knives' but 22 kids got stabbed at a school there today too.


We've hashed this out before. The truth is that gun rights in America have dramatically expanded since the federal AWB sunset, particularly in the area of individual carry rights, and there's more to come in the aftermath of Heller and McDonald. Violent crime has steadily declined.

We don't have a gun problem in the United States. We have socioeconomic and mental health problems, and the solution to those won't come from banning guns with black features or pistol grips or shoulder thingies that go up.

 

[Renaissance Man]

Please don't misrepresent or misquote me.

I have ALWAYS maintained that every American, with the exception of convicted violent felons and the mentally ill, should have access to own any weapon they choose, short of those that cause actual mass indiscriminate destruction.

Perhaps like the type that can massacre rooms full of children in minutes?

I don't care that you shot a machine-gun or that you own guns. I was offended that you wrote "I had a great morning" under a picture of a smoking gun when you knew full well what had happened that day. As a moderator, as a doctor, as a human I would expect something better. I know this is a thread about owning guns, but sometimes circumstances are bigger than that. Did you see how sports writers, politicians, and the entertainment industry all adjusted yesterday? Poor form, IMO.

Furthermore, knowing that you have offended multiple people you could just delete your post, or reword it, but you haven't. I am just a medical student, so I won't probably be taken very seriously but just my two cents.

 

[countingdays]

Perhaps like the type that can massacre rooms full of children in minutes?

I don't care that you shot a machine-gun or that you own guns. I was offended that you wrote "I had a great morning" under a picture of a smoking gun when you knew full well what had happened that day. As a moderator, as a doctor, as a human I would expect something better. I know this is a thread about owning guns, but sometimes circumstances are bigger than that. Did you see how sports writers, politicians, and the entertainment industry all adjusted yesterday? Poor form, IMO.

Furthermore, knowing that you have offended multiple people you could just delete your post, or reword it, but you haven't. I am just a medical student, so I won't probably be taken very seriously but just my two cents.

Unrelated things are unrelated.
I don't know pgg but I'm sure he'd skip the target practice if it would save those kids. Obviously it wouldn't because his target practice had nothing to do with that psycho's actions.
If I were inclined to be easily offended, I'd be offended by the gun control advocates' using this tragedy to score political points.

 

[pgg]

What can I say? I got off the range at the end of a long day, dropped my gear, got on SDN to relax and opened a long-running thread where I and other gun owners share our enjoyment of shooting sports.

I am curious why people who are offended by my post opened a thread about guns in the first place. It almost appears that they went looking for something to be offended by.



The picture was of a .50 caliber crew-served machinegun on an Army training range. People don't carry these things around, and one has never been used in any crime. There are probably a bare handful in private ownership in the United States. This gun is no more relevant or related to this school shooting than a picture of a Civil War cannon or F-22 jet is.

If you were offended, please accept my apology.

 

[pie944]

This is in response to doctor712 posts #129 and #130, I'm too lazy to quote.

I'm glad you think my argument is a great sound bite, I'll take that as the compliment it wasn't meant to be.

To be honest I don't need to know why you think what you think, I'm sure you have your reasons behind the positions you hold. I do want to know what you think and why you think these things will prevent events similar to ones that have occurred over the past few years. I am interested in trying our best to prevent these events, but to create laws that wouldn't have prevented one of these commonly cited events from happening seems pointless to me. If an event is the basis for creating new laws, shouldn't these laws be aimed at preventing similar events in the future?

I read the thread you cited in the past and I reviewed your posts over the past day. What I believe the positions you hold are the following, but correct me if I'm wrong. I found varying positions based on certain posts in terms of how broad of control you want to implement.


1. Only handguns should be construed as 'arms.' That seemed to be the most broad sweeping statement.

2. Ban any gun that can be converted into an automatic weapon, you cited AR-15s as an example in posts.

3. Limit the 100 round magazines.

4. Ban any gun that can hold 30 round magazine or greater

5. Turn every state into NYC

6. Require a colonoscopy for each and every bullet purchase?(I think this one was humor, just wanted to include it so we don't lose our sense of humor)

We disagree on gun control. I don't expect to convince you and I'm sure you don't expect to convince me. In terms of my position on this issue you can put me with pgg, periopdoc, and BLADEMDA.

I cited the court rulings because I thought you implied that the judicial branch will soon support more gun control. If I misread your post I apologize, but my point in citing these cases was that none of the recent judicial rulings over the course of the past few years has supported this belief of yours.

I'm not leaving the burden on you to show that the Federal Assault Ban was a failure, I know it was. I just wanted to know if you considered it a failure or not.

One of our arguments is if the Federal Assault Ban was extended would it have been successful. We also incorporated the discussion of advances in anesthesia/medicine as a comparison, showing that success does not happen over a short defined period, but rather takes long periods of trial and error in many cases.

I agree with you, especially with your example of inhaled anesthetics that it did evolve over the years. In fact, I'll agree with you that it is still improving and this will also occur over a long duration. I don't agree with you that this argument can be used in support of why a longer duration on the 1994 law would have led to its success. This is because halothane and prior inhaled anesthetics accomplished their main goal, which was to anesthetize a patient. The problems that remained were associated with non ideal pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and side effects. However, the main purpose of Halothane and other inhaled anesthetics was achieved.

Now the Federal Assault Ban did not achieve it's goal and I don't believe if the law had been extended would have achieved it's goal. I think it was a failure and if passed in the same setting would continue to fail. What has changed that would make you think the same exact law would succede this time? So I believe based on prior evidence that in 2012 passing the same or a very similar ban would not prevent these events from occurring, nor make it more difficult for individuals to initiate these events. Why would it?

When you talk about a different a ban with different terms, rules, and loopholes do you mean a law that would consist of the points I cited from your posts in the previous thread? If not those, what other terms, rules, and loopholes do you mean?

As for the post with all the quotes, I see the narrative you were making, I just don't get the need for it. People are not exactly trying to crowd around the middle of the spectrum in this thread. I think people reading this thread realize where each individual stands.

I know the automatic weapons quote was Murdoch's, that's why I referenced him at the start of that sentence.

No, automatic weapons were not used in Aurora, those were semi automatic weapons.

I appreciate the posts today with the data, it'll take time to read over and analyze.

The two big questions seem to be

1. Is Gun Control appropriate?
2. Will gun control lead to prevention of gun associated crime, specifically events like the one this week?

In the end, you believe that gun control is appropriate and that it will lead to improvements. I don't believe gun control is appropriate in the ways people are discussing and I don't believe it will prevent these events in the future.

Thanks for the time taken replying to my posts.