“States with the most gun laws experienced a lower overall mortality rate from firearms than did states with the fewest laws, researchers in Boston reported in a study published Wednesday,” CNN is reporting.
“‘States that have the most laws have a 42% decreased rate of firearm fatalities compared to those with the least laws,” said Dr. Eric W. Fleegler, an attending physician in pediatric emergency medicine at Boston Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.
“Those states with the most gun laws saw a 40% reduction in firearm-related homicides and a 37% reduction in firearm-related suicides, he said in a telephone interview.
The rest of the article is here.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Yeah, what do you expect? A study from a liberal doctor from Boston! Facts don’t mean anything, …..we support our laws here in America based on emotions, red shirts showing up at meetings, arcane outdated Constitutional ‘principles’, and lobbying efforts by gun manufacturers!
They actually had to do an offical “study” to prove this? A look at the yearly crime reports would have sufficed.
Jeff, the rise of “Patriot” groups (Oathkeepers, Constitutional Sheriffs, DefendRuleAmerica, etc.) has me concerned. It’s my understanding, using a claim of constitutional responsibility for the “health, safety, and welfare” of their citizens, that they want BOS’s to take control of natural resources within county borders. Does this mean, for instance, they could control the Tahoe National Forest and claim veto power over all Forest Service policies? Could they summarily open closed roads and end limitations to commercial exploitation? Would the drone of suction dredging again serenade the Yuba? Would logging and mining schemes start popping out of the woodwork? Would ALL user groups have a say in management, with real science moderating all?
Regarding gun control, have you read George Rebane’s paper on Par Force? He quotes Nietzsche, ”only an armed man is truly free”, and develops that idea into the position that all freedom loving American’s should be armed, now, with firepower equivalent to local law enforcement (Par Force). The purpose would be to offer some degree of resistance to a government perceived to have violated or abolished our constitutional rights, and thus to have become “rogue”. (This resistance should be of sufficient scale to allow other citizens to become aware of the nature of the grievance, thus allowing opportunity for support or rejection.) He suggests that assault style rifles and high capacity magazines would meet this test (probably the equivalent of what a SWAT team uses.) It’s spooky to think of hundreds of Nevada county individuals and families arming up this way. I think we’d be better off if you saved the $2500-3000 for weapons and ammo hoard and donated that money to free mental health services and family counseling. Stopping someone from becoming a deviant or mentally ill mass shooter is far more likely to be a benefit to society than preparing for war against our government.
Lastly, my wife and I have lived in Nevada county for two years and don’t have a good understanding of local natural resource issues. We’re considering joining the Sierra Club. Is that group the most enlightened and effective advocate? Thanks!