Physicians and Gun Control

[LR6SO4]

After getting such good responses to my AMSA and work hours thread, I will start this one as well. Physicians for Social Responsibility routinely holds petitions and speakers at my med school telling students of the dangers of firearms. The AMA has released pamphlets on how doctors should deal with the problems of patients having guns in the home. Being a gun owner, hunter and enthusiast I take these to be a personal insult. Am I the only one who feels that docs shouldn't tread on this policy issue? Here's some good links, I finally found some docs supporting my argument!:
<a href="http://www.claremont.org/1_drgo.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.claremont.org/1_drgo.cfm</a>
<a href="http://www.dsgl.org/" target="_blank">http://www.dsgl.org/</a>

LR6SO4
I brake for animals...I eat them and wear their skins!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tonem]

I don't know anything about the speakers to which you are referring but I would think that responsible gun-owners (ie: gun-safety trained, storing weapons unloaded and in locked cases etc..) are not the problem. It's joe-blow that stores his locked and loaded shot-gun under the bed where his toddlers have easy access that constitutes a public health problem. That problem is right up there with smoke-detectors, car-seats, and hot-water heaters set below 120 degrees etc...

 

[smedley]

LR6SO4
I agree with you 100%. Do yourself a favor and take a look at the % of members of the AMA that are physicians. Its like 20%. They have turned into just another lobby.

 

[efs]

I'll agree with you. And I would have recommended you look at Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, but I see you already posted the link.

Gun saftey is a big issue, but the answer is not to deprive everyone of their freedom. That is much more valuable. Besides it is just not philosphically right, so you will find many people who will not comply.

 

[Fah-Q]

Gun control is a public health issue and I think physicians have a responsibility to educate the public about the dangers of firearms just as they would educate the public about the dangers of heroine use or diets high in cholesterol or smoking. These are all free choices the patient makes and they should be aware of the risks to themselves and others around them. Its a fact that having a gun in the home is a major risk factor for accidental deaths in adolescents and suicide in teens (can't quote studies but is considered to be well-established). This education might sound like anti-gun rhetoric but you have to consider the source. Who do you think sees the kids that blow their own heads off with daddy's handgun? Who do you think sees the innocent victims of acts of random violence committed with guns? Doctors. They don't see any of the postives of gun ownership, like self-defense or sense of freedom. But like i said before, it is a legitimate public health problem. I don't think anyone who trully believes in gun safety would deny that public education about the safe storage of firearms is logical and possibly beneficial.

 

[Jamier2]

Here's what I think. Physicians do have a responsibility to the public health, I agree with that. What the do not have is the responsibility to "advise" patients on every single aspect of their lives.

Should we screen patients on gun ownership? What else? Car safety? Unsafe cars, along with unsafe operation, cause plenty of ER visits, but it's not the physician's place to tell people which car they should drive, and it isn't the physician's place to tackle each and every issue that could lead to health problems.

 

[tonem]

Actually doctors do regularly screen patients on car seat use, seat-belt use, smoke detector use, helmet use (on bikes, skateboards etc...), water heater temperature, lead-based paint use, well-water use, drug use, presence of unsecured weapons in the home, etc...it's called a complete social history.

 

[efs]

There is a difference beteween screening, education etc and lobbying for control.

 

[Firebird]

What's wrong with setting your water heater below 120 degrees?

 

[Werry]

Most people whi own legal handguns are responsible law abiding people. The fact that they took the time to get a legal registered gun shows that they have some sense of responsibility. They do not need to be lectured by some know it all physician. Physicians should stick with what they do best and not try and be personal advisors or mentors. It's left wing stances like this that have the AMA in the shape it's in. They have their own agenda rather than promoting the majority of doctors agenda.

 

[mpp]

Originally posted by Firebird:
•What's wrong with setting your water heater below 120 degrees?•••

Its setting above 120 that's dangerous. Children or the elderly can easily get burned as they don't realize the water is so hot.

 

[AJM]

I don't quite understand all this fuss over physicians advising about handguns, but then again, I don't closely follow the AMA's policies.

The only physicians that I have worked with who do advise patients about having a gun at home have been pediatricians, and that has been strictly in the context of talking to parents about childproofing their homes. At no point were the pediatricians making value judgements about whether they think the parent should own a gun. Rather they would just make sure that the parent was storing the gun properly so that their toddler would not be able to get a hold of it. This is the same thing as advising parents to keep cleaning detergents and other chemicals out of a child's reach, or to keep sharp knives away from toddlers. This is all considered part of preventive care.

Now physicians making judgement call on whether their patients should even own guns is a whole other story, and something that I don't agree with at all.

 

[Vader]

Originally posted by ajm:
•I don't quite understand all this fuss over physicians advising about handguns, but then again, I don't closely follow the AMA's policies.

The only physicians that I have worked with who do advise patients about having a gun at home have been pediatricians, and that has been strictly in the context of talking to parents about childproofing their homes. At no point were the pediatricians making value judgements about whether they think the parent should own a gun. Rather they would just make sure that the parent was storing the gun properly so that their toddler would not be able to get a hold of it. This is the same thing as advising parents to keep cleaning detergents and other chemicals out of a child's reach, or to keep sharp knives away from toddlers. This is all considered part of preventive care.

Now physicians making judgement call on whether their patients should even own guns is a whole other story, and something that I don't agree with at all.•••

Yeah, I think this is the key point here. It is clear that children and guns make a deadly combination, and the role of the physician should be to promote the health of his/her patients (i.e. educating them as to safe practices). The distinction that ajm made was very apt--it is not the role of the physician to make value judgements about patients.

In a larger context, gun control clearly relates to health policy. The AMA supports or opposes policy based on the input of a majority of its members. Clearly, if guns are made safer (i.e. child locks), there will be less risk for accidental death. Laws requiring responsible gun ownership and use is not (and doesn't have to be) in conflict with the rights of those who wish to bear arms under the Bill of Rights. Can't we all just get along?

 

[LR6SO4]

Read the websites, my main opposition to the AMA denouncing guns is that it is done on bad science! A Yale (liberal) study showed that more guns=less death all over the US. Gun control is just bad policy. Same thing for Concealed weapons laws...if a state lets all residents pack heat crime rates decrease dramatically. We just got ours passed here in Michigan. Now if they only would put a gun check point outside our lecture hall!! (I can't carry inside any classroom on campus, or hospital).

 

[jdub]

violence begets violence

 

[rubyness]

Originally posted by LR6SO4:
•Read the websites, my main opposition to the AMA denouncing guns is that it is done on bad science! A Yale (liberal) study showed that more guns=less death all over the US. Gun control is just bad policy. Same thing for Concealed weapons laws...if a state lets all residents pack heat crime rates decrease dramatically. We just got ours passed here in Michigan. Now if they only would put a gun check point outside our lecture hall!! (I can't carry inside any classroom on campus, or hospital).•••

You are really scaring me. If you could, would you carry a concealed weapon with you inside the hospital? Toting it along with your notes & stethoscope in your white coat? How might your patients respond to catching a glimpse of your loaded revolver peeping out of your pocket? Who is it that you need to "protect yourself" against? I sincerely hope that you are joking.

Violence DOES beget violence.

 

[Lt. Ub]

I love my .22 - I've had 'er since I was a wee lad. Small game always tastes better in the crisp fall air.

Guns beget tasty treats.

 

[efs]

I have considered carrying. Some of the hospitals I have been to/worked at are definately not in nice neighborhoods. It can be a very prudent decision.

Violence without the ability to protect yourself can result in serious pain, injury and/or death.

 

[different strokes]

I think it is the job of the community relations department of a police department to educate people on gun control etc. After all, police are experts in this area. They have police officers that do lectures on home security, rape prevention, why not gun safety.

Police have ALWAYS been expose to people hurting one another because of the usage of a gun.

 

[LR6SO4]

rubyness,
I would not carry 'in' the hospital or classroom, but like another poster said I have some nasty neighboorhoods to walk thru to get there. If a checkpoint was provided in the hospital or on campus, I would leave my gun there. In regards to how the concealed weapons law has changed things already, I am much less scared to walk around now. The criminals don't know who is locked and loaded and who isn't. I'm sure rapes and robbings have gone way down, you can feel it just walking down the street.

 

[Stephen Ewen]

Violence does beget volence, but self-protection does not.

As one who at one time had to make his family more secure by gun ownnership in a certain residence we were in, I do not like the idea of outlawing all gun ownership.

However, I am not sure how to best deal with this issue, since I have great sympathy and concern for when guns get into the wrong hands. I am still forming on this issue.

 

[efs]

"Outlawing" or even just putting simple restrictions and registration on guns does not keep them out of the hands of criminals. THe honest and law-abiding citizens are the ones who are subjected to this. A criminal (or anyone for that matter) who buys his gun "off the streets" has no registration or restrictions to deal with (other than price).

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Stste, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ••

Looks stragiht-forward to me. I don't see anything in there saying that the government can require registration, require classes, prohibit carrying, etc. In fact, it specifically says they shall not.

The AMA and these physicians for gun control spend their recources lobbying congress to do just that. And, as pointed out above, the "science" they are using as their basis, is junk.

I have no problem with physicians discussing gun saftey iwth their patients, even tot he point of preaching to them, or recommending they not keep guns in the house at all. But trying to change the law is definitely NOT OK.

 

[jdub]

i have a little scenario for the anybody who thinks a concealed gun is the answer:

lets say you are walking down a street and somebody starts giving you a hard time, starts to threaten you a bit, you feel like you might be in bodily harm, you decide to let this individual know that you have a gun (maybe you just flash it, or maybe you even pull it out). you both start yelling at each other and then all of a sudden this individual pulls a gun out on you (because he has been there before and probably doesn't give a sh!#).

now your at a crossroad, will this person shoot you, or is he just bluffing? will you shoot him, or are you just bluffing?

the bottom line about caring a gun is that it is a very deadly weapon and it could KILL someone. i just see it as making a bad situation exponetially worse . . . if you feel that vunerable, why not mace, or a taser?

 

[smedley]

I am sorry jdub, but you just described a situation involving TWO illeagle gun owners! No responsible gun owner "flashes" or even pulls his/her weapon in that situation.

I am certain someone will try to prove thier position against guns by answering an abstract with a specific, but there is no place for anyone to tell people they should ignore the only document in the world designed to protect the people from government.

 

[simpleton]

There are very strict laws regarding those who have concealed weapons. In jdubs scenario the individual with the permit would be at fault. You should only pull out your piece if you're going to use it and if you use it you damn well better make sure you don't kill anyone but the thug who's threatning your life. in my state, if you brandish a firearm to merely flaunt it you will automatically get 10 years. I am all for concealed weapons as they have proven to bring down crime. I'd rather be confronted by a thug with my piece on me than without out. The right to bear arms is an intergral part of America and shouldn't be taken lightly. Remember guns don't kill people, people kill people.

 

[Stephen Ewen]

Here are two scenarios that I find interesting:

One, a disgruntled former employee of company XYZ is ticked. Always a bit unstable, he gets hold of a gun. He plots and plans and ends up going to company XYZ. On that day, he opens fire in a big, open area. Then, he starts picking off emplyess. 18 are dead before the cops show up and shoot him.

The second is like it but with a small change. In it, after the disgruntled employees has picked off 3 employees, and takes aim another, a person watching--a regular citizen who happens to be the legal carrier of a concealed weapon--makes a difficult choice. He pulls out his gun and shoots the disgruntled employee. The cops roll in 14 minutes later. Theoretically, 15 lives were saved in the interim.

Using yesteryear's Second Amendment to straightway justify--"looks straight-forward to me"--the bearing of arms by today's non-military and non law enforcement personnel is supremely sloppy hermeneutics. We need not so ill-use the Amendement to find legal justification for the carrying of concealed weapons by some non-military and non-law enforcement citizens.

 

[EpiII]

This 'liberal' gun ownership study out of Yale that was quoted earlier is an ecological study. You most certainly cannot apply any cause and effect. In an ecological study, it is completely possible that even though the rate of crime decreased in the population studied, it actually went up in the population that had guns. Ecological studies are only to be used to explore a hypothesis. Once the exploration is done, a case-control or cohort study must be done (they have their problems as well) to begin to even try to establish causal relationships.

There is an even more significant public health problem with having guns in the home than children accidentally firing them. There are many times when folks with guns in their homes get upset and for about 2 minutes do not think clearly and end up making a decision (to use their gun) that they regret the rest of their life. They would never have dreamt of killing their spouse before or after, but in their rage, they did. This is another significant source of risk for those living in a home with a gun. If your home does not have a gun, then it is not possible for a gun to be used in anger in that home.

Just a couple of other things to toss around in this discussion.

 

[different strokes]

Originally posted by efs:
[QB]"Outlawing" or even just putting simple restrictions and registration on guns does not keep them out of the hands of criminals. THe honest and law-abiding citizens are the ones who are subjected to this. A criminal (or anyone for that matter) who buys his gun "off the streets" has no registration or restrictions to deal with (other than price).

Again, its not the job of a doc. Police know about gun safety. They have expertise training in it.

 

[different strokes]

There are other more effective self-defense measures than the use of a gun. Be aware, use common sense, know your limitations, and find what is useful in your environment. Just some stuff I learned in martial arts training.

 

[dtreese]

I disagree. A .45 caliber bullet is much more effective at stopping an attacker than a couple of well-placed punches. Moreover, people cannot outrun bullets, despite what Jet Li does in the movies. I am rather strong and well-trained in fighting, but given the choice, I'd rather take a gun to a knife fight than take a knife to a gun fight.

 

[different strokes]

Originally posted by dtreese:
•I disagree. A .45 caliber bullet is much more effective at stopping an attacker than a couple of well-placed punches. Moreover, people cannot outrun bullets, despite what Jet Li does in the movies. I am rather strong and well-trained in fighting, but given the choice, I'd rather take a gun to a knife fight than take a knife to a gun fight.•••

I am talking about not even engaging in the fight. Remember your weapon can always be used against you.

 

[different strokes]

A man broke into a woman's home. She had no weapon and no training in self-defense. But, she used her common sense by yelling, "hun, get the gun there is a man in the house." The man ran out and she was safe. Her husband had been dead for ten years.

My point? She had no weapon and used her common sense. This happened to my karate instructor's mother.

 

[dtreese]

Sometimes, no matter what you do, the fight comes to you. Sure, there are things you can do to discourage the violence, and I think you should. But some people just won't listen. And if there weren't people who had guns, how well do you think the "get the gun, hun" tactic would work? Better to actually have a gun. If saying, "I have a gun" doesn't work, seeing the gun just might stop the attacker. And if that doesn't work, well, that's the criminal's problem. A firearm SHOULD be a last resort, but it's a better last resort than a fist.

 

[efs]

These posts seem to focus on the practical day to day reasons that people might need a firearm. That could be seen as a reason the government should not be involved in gun control. I do not think that is what the framers of the constitution had in mind though. The reason for the second amendment is for the citizens to be able to protect themselves from (and overthrow - if neccessary) a corrupt government. This is some of what they were facing at the time.

 

[smedley]

efs, you are exactly right. The framers did mean for us the be able to protect ourselves from ther government, but you gotta agree, anyone attacking my wife should be shot. Even if you dont, but you are in my home at night-----I will shoot you dead. That is my right. --- DEAD.

 

[smedley]

efs, you are exactly right. The framers did mean for us the be able to protect ourselves from ther government, but you gotta agree, anyone attacking my wife should be shot. Even if you dont, but you are in my home at night-----I will shoot you dead. That is my right. --- DEAD. Of course, there would be allot of dry-cleaning involved.

 

[efs]

I fully agree with your right to protect yourself and your home. My main point was that the framers did not intend for this to be the primary purpose when they wrote that all citizens have a right to keep and bear arms.

For the AMA to decide that the "protection" of children is the most important thing is ridiculous. Sure, if there are no guns, then there will be no gun "accidents". But, this is like trying to treat symptoms rather than the underlying pathology. Doesn't work. It is also a bit short-sighted. It only considers a focused problem and does not consider the big picture.

(Sarcasm coming.) Lets all advocate for total gun control. Only the "government" can have access to guns. That *MIGHT* reduce gun accidents. Of course we all know how WONDERFUL and GREAT govenment programs work. Everything will be fine. Trust BIG BROTHER. The "government" knows what is best for you.

Done with this rant.

Have a nice day.

 

[Werry]

Give poeple a fighting chance...so a trick like that works once out of every 20 times, what about the other 19? Odds are if a woman is attacked and raped, she's gonna get killed anyway...at least this way she gets a fighting chance...and who's the fastest growing group of gun owners...women...Criminals are going to have guns one way or another...there is always going to be an alternative market...stand up for honest law abiding people who want to go through the legal process of attaining a weapon...in the long run maybe MORE innocent lives will be saved...people will be less likely to attack someone if they may have a gun on them and at least their would be an even playing field. Many states have laws allowing people to carry firearms and there have been no problems from it.

 

[Slingblade the Surgeon]

Lets not begin to use the privileges of respectability and patient confidence as a bully pulpit. Lobbyists and politicians look for every angle to sway the public into action for their cause. Let us not begin to become puppets for these groups. We are concerned for the well-being of our fellows but ours is not to dictate matters that belong in the high court. Health policy can be part of our goals, but our primary focus is and should be to treat and prevent disease. Guns ar not diseases, the people who freak out and kill others with them are diseased. There are more creative ways to kill someone than I have time to illustrate here, and it would be stupid to attempt to legislate against every possible type of murder weapon. The responsibility lies with the individual in this country as it should. Lets keep it that way!

 

[Slingblade the Surgeon]

One of Adolph Hitler's first actions was to disarm the Jews...Gee I wonder why. He told them it was for their own protection, to reduce crime. hmmmm

The Taliban people immediately disarmed everyone when they took over. Hmmmm I wondeer what they had planned? Oh I kow...it was so they could be safe from harm.

There are others including Stalin, Milosevic, and that Chinese dude.

Australia disarmed its people (they sheepishly allowed it) and now it has backfired because their violent crime rate has doubled since the criminals now know that the people have no way of defending themselves.

Do you recognize a pattern here? If not, perhaps you are stupid.

 

[dtreese]

Slingblade brings up a good point that, if I remember correctly, John R. Lott addresses rather thoroughly in his book, "More Guns, Less Crime." To say that gun use is a public health issue, aside from the obvious bias it immidiately shows, is absolutely incorrect. Gun use is a social issue. Gun use, despite what some might say, is not contagious or genetic, and guns are not biologically active agents that alter the user's physiology. Guns are tools. Granted, they are tools that kill when used as intended, but labeling gun use as a public health issue is merely an attempt to hijack the respect afforded to a profession in order to further a socio-political agenda.

 

[Vader]

Originally posted by dtreese:
•Slingblade brings up a good point that, if I remember correctly, John R. Lott addresses rather thoroughly in his book, "More Guns, Less Crime." To say that gun use is a public health issue, aside from the obvious bias it immidiately shows, is absolutely incorrect. Gun use is a social issue. Gun use, despite what some might say, is not contagious or genetic, and guns are not biologically active agents that alter the user's physiology. Guns are tools. Granted, they are tools that kill when used as intended, but labeling gun use as a public health issue is merely an attempt to hijack the respect afforded to a profession in order to further a socio-political agenda.•••

I respectfully must disagree here. Health problems do not have to be contagious, genetic, etc. to be an issue. I can give you a host of examples, most obvious victims of trauma (not just GSWs). Tools (of any type) have the potential of being hazardous. A bullet wound will most certainly alter your physiology, as will a knife wound, clubbing with a baseball bat, punch in the eye, etc. The use of guns is a psycho-social issue that has profound health consequences. Aside from any protection they may or may not provide, they have the potential to and clearly often do cause harm.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I wholeheartedly endorse programs like "DOC" [Doctors Ought to Care] that go out into the community and educate children and adults on public health and safety issues, as well as a myriad of other groups that make similar preventative efforts in the community, but like many of you that have already posted, I don't support groups like the AMA that lobby misguided political agendas. I don't disagree with their right to "make a fuss" or even endorse a particular position, I personally just don't support them.

In my mind, it comes down to education about responsible ownership and proper training. Cars kill more people than guns, but we don't outlaw those. We do, however, invest efforts in defensive driving classes, etc. Gun imagery in the media and in movies underlies a lot of the emotional responses anti-gun advocates are often seen wearing on their sleeve, but they don't see the true historical significance of the gun in our society or its documented role in reducing crime.

Personally, I think we have some great gun legislation on the books. We have created an atmosphere of responsible ownership and appropriate prevention when it comes to felons and other high-risk individuals. The problem is that we don't enforce the laws that have already been crafted. I'd like to see a little more effort in the enforcement department and a little less campaigning for the removal of my constitutional right to own and carry.

If you don't think people can responsibly own a gun, you know yourself better than anyone else, go ahead and defer your right to own one. As for me, I'll keep mine thank you very much. dh

 

[smedley]

You know ladies and gents, I am pleasently surprised at how this thread has continued intellegently with both sides, without degrading into a "yelling" match. Pretty impresive.

 

[Werry]

Should doctors also get involved with chainsaws, baseball bats, axes, candesticks, crowbars, plungers, and screwdrivers? These could also "alter someone's physiology" if misused just as a gun could. It's funny how doctors should be soooo concerned about children at the home and how parents conduct their houses when they look the other way when millions of children are murdered every year by their collegues.

 

[Slingblade the Surgeon]

Hehehehe. Cool Headline!
Malicious Plunger Attack Kills Man In Upper East-Side Yesterday

 

[Werry]

Well, I was referring to the NYPD assaulting/sodomizing someone with a plunger about 4 years ago.

 

[Kimya]

Interesting topic.

I first shot a gun when I was about ten years old I think. We went to both shooting ranges and remote areas to shoot glass bottles, beer cans and the like. When I was ten, I was also responsible for how to both clean the gun/shotgun/whatever and put it away. We absolutely COULD NOT point the gun at anyone, ever- even while cleaning it. My family stored most of the guns in the safe but there was one loaded gun that was not. We all knew where it was.

However, I do have some issues with how guns are being used today. One of them seems like a societal shift. I don't have a problem with people having guns if they are trained to use them and use them on a regular basis. However, I do have a problem with people who are buying guns because of what they watch on the movies, TV or promotional literature. Guns are not toys. And buying a gun and going down to the shooting range a couple of times is not going to turn you into Dirty Harry. Shooting a gun in your house or on the street at a live person is a whole different story. And if the other person has a gun, you better damn well know how to use yours and use it fast, because if they see you have one it ups the ante considerably. Who's going to be able to use the gun better (put aside the hero movies for a second)- the homeowner who has maybe killed some animals for hunting or the criminal who is holding you up, who might have shot and killed several LIVE PEOPLE already?

I don't have a gun in my apartment right now for that reason. I am out of practice and feel it would be irresponsible to have the gun around. If I ever was to decide to buy one, regular practice and safety training would be critical for me, and I think should be for everyone. Just like you have to get training in driving for a driver's license, I think you need training (and mandatory ongoing training) if you want to own a gun.

 

[phd2b]

First, here are just two fairly political websites that are representative of both sides of the so-called 'gun-control' arguments:

1.) For gun-control: <a href="http://www.bradycampaign.org/" target="_blank">http://www.bradycampaign.org/</a>

2.) For gun-ownership: <a href="http://www.nra.org/" target="_blank">http://www.nra.org/</a>

Read them both carefully, sift through the BS, and then ask questions.

Second, back to the original question, however, 'Should the AMA, and physicians, be involved in advocating gun-control in their patients?'.

It would seem that the medical profession should focus on low-lying fruit first, ie, we should be focusing on preventing accidental deaths in our hospitals!

The number of people who die b/c of medical mistakes dwarfs the number of people who are accidentally killed with firearms.

Man, just think if we could reduce the annual mortality due to preventable medical mistakes down to the level of accidental gun deaths in the U.S.?! That would be awesome! Back off of my soapbox...

Third, check out NCHS for some interesting data:
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_12.pdf)

It seems that the total number of accidental deaths due to firearms discharge in 2000 was 808, or an age-adjusted rate of 0.3/100,000 persons.

Contrasted with MVA's, (41,804 and 15.2/100K, respectively), firearms accidents are an afterthought.

Even compared with accidental falls (12,604 and 4.6/100K), gun accidents aren't really on the radar.

For that matter, accidental drowning is a much bigger problem (3,343 and 1.2/100K)!

The list goes on (accidental exposre to smoke, poisoning, etc).

Self-inflicted or intential injuries would seem to be in a different category altogether, imo. The homicide numbers are potentially misleading insofar as these data don't seem to differentiate between self-defense and outright murder. How many 'homicides' were, in fact, self-defense?

(If the NRA is to be believed, there are more deaths due to willful use of firearms by potential victims of violent crime against their assailants every year than are caused by the police against criminals. If common citizens did not have access to firearms at home, I doubt that claim would stand.)

All in all, it is not a straight-forward argument. That said, it is hard to deny that the rate of violent crime has declined in places like FL since they adopted a concealed-carry law, but has risen in places like Chicago, NYC, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, etc when they began outlawing common handgun ownership (which only affects law-abiding citizens).

It could just be a coincidence, but I'm not convinced that there might not be some causal pathway between concealed carry laws, for example, and lower violent crime rates.

Just an epidemiologist's point of view...don't trust me, however, go to the data!

This has been one of the more civilized discussions of this topic I've encountered.

 

[DarePimpMe]

I just got to spend Thanksgiving shooting. Shot skeet right after the big meal - 12 and 20 gauge. Also helped sight in my friend's .270 and .243 deer rifles for the upcoming hunting season. Now those are some good times! Highlight of my blasted inpatient medicine rotation.