Gun-Control Doctors

According to NRA-ILA, only two states continue to forbid Right To Carry (RTC): Wisconsin and Illinois.

In 2005, Wisconsin legislature passed a RTC bill but it was vetoed by the governor. As recently as August, 2007, Governor Doyle is still fighting hard to " ... [force] Wisconsin’s law-abiding gun-owners to forfeit their Second Amendment rights. Not since his 2001 effort to ban the possession of all firearms other than single-shot rifles, pistols and shotguns has Doyle waged such an assault on the basic individual freedoms of the citizens of the Badger State."

It's obvious that Governor Doyle is a 'one man band', determined to pursue his own agenda. Considering the long history of conflict between the governor and the legislature, one wonders what factors may have been involved in the governor's adamant stand.

One influence may be the 2-page manifesto published in 2005 by the Medical College of Wisconsin / Firearm Injury Center.

The Guest Editorial by Stephen W. Hargarten, MD, MPH, titled "Public Health Implications of Carrying Concealed Weapons: Have We Thought This Policy Through?" was published in the Wisconsin Medical Journal - 2005 - Volume 104, Number 7.

One wonders whether Governor Doyle has read this, and whether it influenced his thinking. Keep those questions in mind while we examine the contents ... which often wrong, always agenda-driven.

The policy discussion about conceal and carry laws has been largely focused on crime, with supporters arguing that personal protection with firearms lowers the crime rate. A recent report of the National Academies of Science has concluded, however, that the available body of research does not support claims that conceal and carry laws have a measurable impact on crime.

On the contrary, there is sufficient anecdotal AND statistical evidence to the effect that states with RTC laws have experienced a lowering of Major Crime (Rape, Assault, Homicide, etc.) subsequent to the enactment of RTC laws.

A main concern about the conceal and carry legislation is the potential public health risk of injury to vulnerable populations, especially youth. Wisconsin’s youth suicide rate is 36% higher than the national rate.

It is disingenuous to relate adolescent suicide with RTC, since minors are not eligible for Concealed Carry licenses in any state in the union. There is a suggestion that minors will use the firearms owned by their parents, who usually would have owned the weapon regardless of RTC laws. Also, since 96% (48 out of 50) of the states have RTC laws in some form, it's telling that "Wisconsin’s youth suicide rate is 36% higher than the national rate." If the suggested relationship did exist, Wisconsin -- which still forbids RTC -- should have a LOWER youth suicide rate.

In the event of such legislation succeeding in this legislative session, two important issues should be considered. First, what kinds of guns should be allowed to be concealed and carried? ... [T]he safety of particular types of firearms should be studied. Design defects in firearms contribute to unintended fatalities. One such design defect, exposed hammers that rest on firing pins, is present in the Ruger Blackhawk revolver, and has been associated with over 40 deaths and numerous injuries.

Wrong, and misleading. The Ruger Blackhawk (I own two, both purchased over a decade ago) features a 'transfer-bar' system. The hammer does NOT rest on the firing pin. Unless the hammer of this single-action revolver is pulled back to full-cock, and the trigger pulled back, it is not possible for the forward momentum of the hammer to impel the firing pin against the primer.

There is no reasonable justification for this erroneous statement to be included in what purports to be a scholarly essay. It not only demonstrates the ignorance (or deliberate subterfuge) of the author, the statement is apparently included to impose a 'scare factor' upon the reader.

The design and safety characteristics of firearms should be taken into account when determining the types of weapons that may be carried concealed. This is particularly important since past legislation would have immunized firearm manufacturers and dealers from liability for design negligence. Unlike almost all other consumer products, there is no national product safety oversight of firearms. Legislators may wish to limit the availability of more dangerous firearms through safety standards such as California’s “drop safety” requirement for all new handguns sold in the state.

Wrong, and misleading. "Past legislation" is obviously referring to a Federal law prohibiting civil suits against firearms manufactures for the mis-use of their product by careless or felonious users of their firearms. Armorers are as liable for 'design negligence' as are any other manufacturer, unless the manufacturer happens to be located in China.

As for the California "Drop Test" law, that was a patently obvious (and successful) attempt to drive firearms manufacturers away from the California firearms market. Many firearms manufacturers have discontinued much of their sales from that state because the law requires them to 'donate' examples of their product for destruction-testing ... with no compensation when their pistol (for example) is return after having been repeated dropped on a concrete floor from a height of six feet.

It is estimated that as many as 30,000 applications for permits will be made in the first year of conceal and carry and that as many as 100,000 permits will be issued over a 5-year period. The public health implications of tens of thousands of individuals carrying handguns with a spectrum of potential safety defects have not been adequately discussed

A spectrum of potential safety defects?

That's fairly vague. Okay, let's discuss that.

Product Liability laws apply to firearms as thoroughly as they apply to Mack Trucks. Defective products are a sure road to dissolution of a manufacturer, who will probably be obliged to sell everything he owns to pay to civil lawsuit to which he is subject. Enlightened self-interest. Enough said. End of discussion. Turn the page.

Emerging technologies, such as personalized handguns that would be inoperable to unauthorized users, should be critically examined. There has also been no evaluation of the risk that a legitimate conceal and carry permit holder could have his or her handgun forcibly taken away and used for criminal purposes. One study of law enforcement fatalities has found that 21% of officers killed with handguns while on duty were killed with their own service weapons.

• The "emerging technologies ... inoperable to unauthorized users" thing still doesn't work, and even if it does it is usually not reasonable in a self-defense context.
• Anyone who is attacked by a highly motivated predator will either be injured/killed by the predator by whatever means, or have the means to defend against said Goblin. I'm thinking, I'm more likely to be killed because I was unable to defend myself, than if I attempted to defend myself against an unarmed Goblin and failed.
• When a police officer is killed with his own weapon, it's because he or she screwed up. It certainly isn't because he or she was in possession of a weapon.
  
• What has this last bogus statistic to do with civilian Right To Carry laws?

how are we going to know if this policy has had a positive or negative effect? The National Academies of Science report recommends that more comprehensive data and analysis are essential to the development and evaluation of policies and programs that involve firearms. Currently, states like Wisconsin are unable to fully evaluate the effects of conceal and carry legislation.

How are you to know, unless you try it? Oh, wait ... could you maybe observe the results of RTC laws in the 48 states which permit their citizens to defend themselves?

Whose fault is it that "... states like Wisconsin are unable to fully evaluate the effects of conceal and carry legislation."

Could it be ... Wisconsin's fault?

Conclusion:

Failure to address the public health implications of conceal and carry policies and practices may have unintended consequences for the health of the public. Do we really need this policy implemented to address crime and homicide? Do we want loaded, defective, or poorly-designed guns in our environment? Do we have the funds and infrastructure to accurately evaluate this policy?

Answer:









Recommended reading