The oft chanted mantra that firearms are like viruses is patently untenable. Viruses are living organisms—they replicate and perform actions independently. To consider firearms alive, self-replicating and capable of independent action requires an absence of rationality.
Now, to the public health model. It is predicated on education about, then modification and eradication, of a problem. Study should begin with examining history, epidemiology, utility, and a cost benefit ratio.
Firearms are a tool designed to allow an organism to project power against another organism. That holds whether the tool-using organism(s) is a human against a predatory animal, or a group of people against another group of people. They are especially helpful for weaker organisms confronted by stronger ones. Firearms may be used appropriately or inappropriately, but that is based upon the user, not the tool.
Firearms are widely prevalent and that holds whether society accepts them or not. That is clear when we compare disparate regulations between cities within a country, or between countries. Some examples include Chicago and Baltimore in the United States, and criminal and terrorist use of firearms in countries with very strict anti-firearm regulations such as France, Mexico and Guatemala.
Firearms do exactly what they were designed to do, and they do it effectively and efficiently. For self-defense or anti-criminal use, firearms are the quintessential tool which allows a person, regardless of strength or physical ability, to defend against an individual or a group of criminals.
Individuals and groups who wish to see firearms removed from society frequently begin by proposing modifications. None of the modifications expounded by these groups would improve the utility and cost-benefit equation, or prevent criminals and terrorists from misusing them.
That leaves eradication. Those who propose eradication fail to understand human nature. Being human drives us to develop tools for specific purposes. Humankind went from being able to walk to using animals and then machinery to accomplish transportation. We went from charcoal scratchings on rock to print and electronics to accomplish communication. We went from running to throwing rocks to launching projectiles faster and farther to firearms.
Last but not least, the public health model has worked to some degree for automobile safety, and to reduce tobacco and alcohol use. But imperfectly, because the advocates fail to understand human nature. Compulsion goes only so far.
Society continues to struggling with the failure of seat-belt laws and mechanical safety devices, and the fact that people too often will not do what other people think is in their best interest. The public health model as applied to firearms issues has also been plagued by misuse of data and fraudulent science attempting to promote a predetermined end.
The American people trust the Constitution of the United States more than they trust esoteric statistics. Ultimately, the public health model fails because the proponents are ideologists, not scientists.
Robert A. Margulies, MD, MPH, FACEP, FACPM is an emergency medicine specialist, retired Navy Medical Corps captain, sworn peace officer, and firearm trainer with multiple certifications from the NRA and the Massad Ayoob Group.
This post originally appeared at drgo.us and is reprinted here with permission.
> The oft chanted mantra that firearms are like viruses is patently untenable.
No one “oft chants” this. I’m not sure anyone serious claims this. This is a straw man, and a bad one at that. I’m glad, at least, Mr. Margulies put it as the first sentence to make it clear.
The argument is that a subset of “gun violence” behaves in similar ways to infectious disease, and can be responded to effectively by adopting some of the same practices and models. It’s not necessarily “gun violence”, of course, but “normal” human violence that is made exceptionally lethal with the presence of firearms. It is the type of interpersonal, revenge-fueled, “honor” violence, often among competing social cliques and gangs.
This post is overly simplistic, reductionist garbage that pollutes the discourse and makes it harder to realize one class of approaches – one, importantly, not grounded in useless gun control – to combating a large class of the “gun violence” we see in the US.
Does this dumb twit realize he Stole The Gun From a Government Employee?
I think she’s got serious mental issues.
On the Canadian post- this was also posted to the CBC (Canada’s government broadcaster), and comments against additional gun control far outnumbered the opposing views. So much so, that if rumor is correct, the Liberal government is stepping back a bit. They are already in trouble with several scandals, and don’t want to lose any additional support. While the younger members might be ready to add more gun control, the older ones remember how bad it hit them election-wise.
I’ve shot the 45-70 rifle and own a .58 cal black powder 3 band enfield , this would have been a cannon. I wonder what the ballistics would be like compared to modern rifles?
** note the type of sights on the rifle, how would you shoot that far with the very small ramp sight??
I don’t think the owner was going for long range. I think he was probably more interested in raw stopping power at fairly short ranges.
Wow. 46 dollars in 1877 was a lot of money. Somebody was flush when they saw that gun in the shop.
.45-100. Off of sticks. And the guy doing the shooting maybe weighed 140-160 pounds.
For years I tried shooting handguns, but could never figure out how to hold them. I’d hold them this way, and that way and when I did get the gun to shoot I was never sure which direction the bullet would go. I gave up after I shot myself in the thumb. Apparently I wasn’t holding the gun the right way when that happened. With the Gripzone, I was finally able to start shooting again, as a gun company finally explained how you hold those darned things. I haven’t shot myself since. Thank you Springfield Armory.
I have read accounts of people who picked up the bison bones to sell and actually making a living doing so. I have also read some statements that the biggest cause of the loss of buffalo was brucellosis which decimated the herds. The hunters could not have shot them all as there were simply too many of them. The hunters merely finished off what the disease did not. The hunters killed many and this also contributed to a large extent to the loss of Native American way of life and survival. Disease also killed more Native Americans than the encroachment of Europeans. There were upwards of 90,000.000 Native Americans before the 1st Europeans arrived and brought the diseases which did the deed.
Great advice here. I really need to start dry firing more.
Nope. Occasionally drag the bottom of ponds with a big magnet though.
Some things are more important than getting the buck.
What kind of pocket dump is that? He’s got no field notes!
I don’t get a lot of dates so…yeah….
If guns were truly like a disease, then the way to stop “gun violence” would be simple: shatter a lot of guns (liquid nitrogen would work) and hand out the pieces to everyone. They would thus be innocculated against “gun violence”.
Harvey Weinstein at rock bottom
Thanks for the reminder. I have been slacking off lately.
I don’t own an Accuracy International rifle, but I do own a Surgeon Scalpel that utilizes AI magazines, and I won’t buy any more of those any time soon.
Speaking of that, can anyone recommend a good alternative to AI magazines?
Sorry folks… I want to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but something just isn’t sitting right with me on this story. Think about it… most people are barely accurate with a pistol at 25-50 yards (range distance). I’d say you’re pretty darn good to hit your target at 100 yards.
“At 150 yards, the bullet drop increases to more than 40 inches and at 200 yards a 230-grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 900 fps drops a whopping 81.4 inches.” (Source: http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/long-range-pistol-shooting).
So we’re supposed to believe this guy thought he saw a deer 200 yards away, AFTER sunset, and took a shot and hit it? Is he an expert marksman?!
Maybe. Even the sun shines on a dog’s behind every now and then. But I can’t kick the feeling that he was a LOT closer than 200 yards. Maybe exaggerating the distance to appear more innocent? I dunno. The fact that he helped her out lends belief to the premise it was an accident — I’m not suggesting he did it on purpose. But I think he was a lot closer (and thus a lot more able to determine his target) than he’s claiming.
My thought is that he was either 1) aiming for the dog, or 2) shooting at whatever moved.
I definitely sell off the grid. Any paperwork, like a notarized bill of sale, that I keep on it can wait until a jury is impaneled.
“Nae king! Nae quin! Nae laird! Nae master! We willna’ be fooled again!”
In my opinion, your list of sellouts should include Troy Industries.
“Constitutional state laws,” they say.
There is an argument for not allowing this bill to pass simply because of jurisdiction. However, there is also the argument that the US government has the power — under the 2nd Amendment — to deal with infringements on the human right to keep and bear arms.
Depending on how the bill is written, it could be a passive aggressive move to deal with human rights infringements by using State “laws” against the States. I understand this approach can have a positive outcome by increasing the bearing of arms throughout the entire US, thus reducing crime over time, which then can be shown through statistics or studies. However, there is also the major risk that the US government can setup a nation wide permission slip scheme to exercise your human right like they do with driver licenses; then your human right becomes a privilege through law and in the minds of the populace. I much rather see a full push from the US government to get rid of all infringements on human rights that the States think is fine because they have “states’ rights.”
Some say the civil war started over States claiming to have the “right” to take away another human’s freedom and liberty. Democrats say that it was a great thing for the US government to wage war on those States. The American people still have very negative feelings whenever they see the Confederate flag and Democrats are erasing any history that remains in public view of those times. Now those Democrats are arguing States should be able to violate human rights without the US government stopping them, even if the oppression reaches the point of requiring combat to liberate those citizens.
Democrats think it’s okay/duty for the US government to get involved with marriage, education, abortion, etc. Just don’t get involved with removing human rights violations when it pertains to keeping and bearing arms.
Republicans say they are for the human right to keep and bear arms, yet they argue against it at some points and they sit on their hands when they have the ability to reverse infringements. As long as the NRA gets them votes, they will maintain the oppression and increase the militarization of police forces.
The only true power the individual can have is firepower. That is if you can keep it.
I know if a victim puts a bullet in the head of a criminal it will decreases crime as it decrease the number of criminals that will commit crimes. It won’t get rid of crime due to the fact that crime can’t be killed and there will always be someone willing to behave wrongly.
When the populace is able to defend themselves with deadly force and that ability is hidden, the amount of stress the would be criminal is going to be under might dissuade him from living such a life.
It comes down to risk reward. If the risk to commit a crime is death and the reward is tiny, the would be criminal will likely not risk it, they will look for a more rewarding target if they are willing to put their life at risk.
Even if it doesn’t reduce the amount of crime, the fact that innocent victims will have the chance of protecting their life, their family, their friends, the citizenry. etc, is a good enough reason to keep and bear arms. We shouldn’t want humans to become prey. We should give people the skills and tools to thrive.
So basically, “Accuracy International” is not a correct description of any global news organization ever.
I can predict the RINOs will bend us over a barrel and let the hate states have their way. Then the bill will come out with a shit load of riders that effectively neuter it or add a bunch of new restrictions and shitty legislation (UBC, AWB, and all the other shit the dems & RINOs want) while giving us little to nothing in return.
“Retired Generals Against National Reciprocity – Quote of the Day”
Off course they are, they don’t want “ordinary” citizens to have the ability to defend themselves…hypocrites they are…