Posted on 03/13/2013 6:32:31 PM PDT by marktwain
The head of a pro-gun-rights physicians’ organization today blasted the findings of a research project published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that intimated states with more gun laws have a lower rate of firearm fatalities.
The JAMA report was first publicized by NBC News, which also has been blistered by a National Rifle Association official for an unrelated story yesterday that suggested the NRA was ready to make a behind-the-scenes deal on a national universal background check bill.
BULLETIN: Breitbart is reporting that Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn wants the state attorney general to appeal a ruling by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that found the state’s ban on concealed carry to be unconstitutional. That appeal would be to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case, Moore v. Madigan, was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation. A related case, Shepard v. Madigan, was filed by the National Rifle Association.
Dr. Timothy Wheeler, director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership – a project of the Second Amendment Foundation – faults the report, done by Harvard medical researchers, as biased. He uses an unlikely source to support his arguments, Dr. Garen J. Wintemute with the University of California, Davis, who has been associated with other anti-gun research.
According to NBC News, Wintemute faulted the study’s conclusions, contending, “Correlation does not imply causation. The plain English way of saying this is: Just because two things exist at the same time, that does not mean one thing caused the other. That's what's being implied here. All they counted in that analysis was the number of laws in each state, not which laws. There's no information in this study on the specifics of the (state) laws and whether they were enforced or not."
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
It is just an exercise in semantics to give justification to leftist policies.
Rule 22. “Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.”
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
OF HOLOCAUSTS AND GUN CONTROL, Washington University Law Quarterly, Volume 75, Number 3, Fall 1997 (pp. 1237-1275) (PDF of article)
The JAMA report was first publicized by NBC News, which also has been blistered by a National Rifle Association official for an unrelated story yesterday that suggested the NRA was ready to make a behind-the-scenes deal on a national universal background check bill.IOW, that unrelated story was more liberal BS from the Partisan Media Shills.
***Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership***
I’m going to find out if such an organization exists in my area and if so see if I can get a full listing of such medicine men.
I’ll have no qualms about reaching into my own pocket in addition to what insurance covers to make these guys MY family doctor, and/or specialist, and/or dentist if need be.
Ain’t America a great country?
did they mention that Vermont has virtually NO gun laws and about the same amount gun crime as it has laws
Your posters/posts are very thought provoking.
Thank you for your efforts.
2nd Amendment bump for later........
Hello,
Have been contemplating some thoughts from Clausewitz on disarmament - for the uninclined, fortunately in the very beginning of the book:
WAR THEREFORE IS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE INTENDED TO COMPEL OUR OPPONENT TO FULFIL OUR WILL.
Violence arms itself with the inventions of Art and Science in order to contend against violence. Self-imposed restrictions, almost imperceptible and hardly worth mentioning, termed usages of International Law, accompany it without essentially impairing its power. Violence, that is to say, physical force (for there is no moral force without the conception of States and Law), is therefore the MEANS; the compulsory submission of the enemy to our will is the ultimate object.
***In order to attain this object fully, the enemy must be disarmed, and disarmament becomes therefore the immediate OBJECT of hostilities in theory. ***
It takes the place of the final object, and puts it aside as something we can eliminate from our calculations.
3. UTMOST USE OF FORCE.
Now, philanthropists may easily imagine there is a skilful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the Art of War. However plausible this may appear, still it is an error which must be extirpated; for in such dangerous things as War, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are the worst...
Clauswitz. On War. Introduction, section 2 ff.
http://www.gutenberg.org/zipcat2.php/1946/1946-h/1946-h.htm#link2H_4_0007
The ***bolded*** part is something for us to consider. By the very definitions of terms, a person you seek to disarm is your enemy. As evidence of this, Schumer et al, do not wish to disarm their select bodyguards, police forces with whom they agree (a few sheriff’s offices maybe), themselves, or the United Nations, among others. Nor do they actually seem as though they are seeking to disarm specific criminal individuals or even the Muslim Brotherhood, forthat matter. Their actual actions seem aimed at disarming the Public.
Now we have a logical puzzle here, if elected “public” officials consider the public to be their enemies, how can they be representatives of the people? How can a government which exists at the will of the people declare the people its enemy? If anyone or the whole does so, does it not declare himself or itself illegitimate? Should we not immediately call for the resignation or impeachment of any public official who declares himself the enemy of the people by saying he wants to disarm them?
I included some portions around it just for context, and the last line for our self declared enemies (I did not declare them thus, by these definitions) - these “philanthropists” are greatly, and gravely, mistaken in their opinions of their own wisdom and the nature of the conflict they are seeking to commence.
Vermont was not one of the states they included in their “study”.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
i wonder why... NOT!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.