FIRST ARRIVING NETWORK
First Arriving Network
Powered by the First Arriving Network,Reaching 1M+ First Responders Worldwide

Thank You, Edwin Leap

At least one physician pundit displays some common sense.

“Hi, I’m Edwin, and I own firearms!”

Right now, in the shadow of the horrors of the Sandy Hook shooting, it feels as if every gun-owner is on edge.  Some are apologizing, distancing themselves from gun advocacy groups.  Some are saying all the right words, “well, my target gun is locked in a safe.”  Like telling your Baptist Preacher grandpa, “my whisky is in a cabinet and is only for medicinal purposes, of course.”  Some are saying, “well, I like guns, but nobody needs automatic guns that can be sprayed across a room.”

The thing is, we didn’t want to talk about this. We wanted to let people grieve, to try and find solutions to unpredictable events.  The gun control crowd politicized this first. They launched into the predictable tirades against the very people who, after all, didn’t commit the crime.  So we’ve responded.

Read the whole thing.

Gun control is the complementary and alternative medicine of public health policy. It is homeopathy and acupuncture and chelation, and what little positive benefit we see from it is more wishful thinking of the placebo effect than actual results. It never fails to astound me how so many educated, intelligent people who purport to believe in evidence-based medicine can still swallow this snake oil from the hucksters and carnival barkers who peddle it.
 

Comments - Add Yours

  • Old_NFO

    Yep, well said there…

  • mpatk

    Excellent post by the doctor.

    What the majority of people on both sides of the gun control/ownership debate need to do is send the extremists back out to the fringes where they belong. IMHO most reasonable gun control advocates agree that responsible citizens
    should be able to own guns. Most reasonable gun ownership advocates
    would agree that reasonable restrictions on buying guns (e.g. ID and
    background check) are necessary. The debate is NOT between banning all guns on one side, and thinking “stand your ground” allows you to seek out a confrontation on the other side.

    Dr. Leap brings up a good point with the idea that “nobody with psychiatric problems can have guns.” I used to very firmly believe that anyone with any sort of psychiatric background, especially hospitalization, should be banned from ever owning a weapon….Then I started working on an IFT ambulance and saw some of what passes for “suicidal ideation” to psych techs; and the unfortunate souls who went looking for help and instead got locked up for 72 hours. Like everything else in this world, it’s much more complex than it looks on the surface. Except for the Wookies of course. ;-)

    • Oakenheart

      “Most reasonable gun ownership advocates
      would agree that reasonable restrictions on buying guns (e.g. ID and
      background check) are necessary.” Well, if they actually did anything I might agree. But considering the problems with the process and the meager number of people who have been prosecuted for attempting to buy a firearm, I’d say it’s a waste of money. Here: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/exec.htm Take a look at that. Now, considering the FACT that no gun law has ever been shown to reduce crime, and the FACT that gun owners have given ground since 1934, exactly why should we be reasonable. Being reasonable got us into this mess. So, as for me, I refuse to agree to any more infringements on the right to bear arms. The ones we have are patently unconstitutional anyway, whether the court agrees or not. Not like the Court has never made a mistake. No more gun control. It does not solve a darn thing, it makes it worse for the assaulted and easier for the assailant, it disarms victims and empowers criminals. I’m glad to be thought of as “Unreasonable” when people are trying to lie. There is not one thing reasonable about surrendering the ability to effectively defend yourself.

  • John

    Now returns a 404 Not Found error.

  • http://www.facebook.com/firefighter4life Kevin Strickland

    My two most bestest favoritiis parts.

    1. The thing is, I’m representative of the vast majority of America’s gun owners. Like it or not, we’re a boring, law-abiding bunch.

    Of course, those are the ones it’s easiest to regulate, I suppose.

    Even when it doesn’t help

    2. (it isn’t like voting, after all).

    Nuff said.

    SN; I am hoping to have Rudolph in Bereavement over Christmas. I want his uncle and that is THE BIGGEST reason I have me Remington 700.

    Thanks KG

  • Pingback: Derek Ward | Super Plus Quote()

  • http://everydayemstips.com Greg Friese

    Somewhere between no guns and all guns there are some solutions. I sure would like if we could talk about some of those and perhaps try some. One or two of them might actually work.

    • Oakenheart

      Wouldn’t that be great, however the fact is that no restrictions ever legislated can be shown to have reduced crime, at all. Also, the other fact that the gun owners have given up rights in every law passed since 1934. We are not stupid, when you give up something and the other side gives up nothing, that is not compromise, it is surrender. No more. I want it all back. Nothing reduced crime at all, so I want it ALL repealed. Many people like me don’t want to talk about further restrictions because the slippery slope is real. We’ve gone too far already. No more.

      • mpatk

        Just curious what you mean by “I want it ALL repealed.” You want convicted felons able to own guns? Fully automatic weapons available for cash purchase without ID? Unlicensed and unrestricted sale of explosives? Abolish the ATF? OK, the bit about ATF might be reasonable.

        Seriously, the LAST thing we need is more bulls__t rhetoric of “…wanting it ALL back.” President Obama is wrong in saying gun control will prevent further incidents like this; but your statement isn’t any more right.

        • perlhaqr

          Yes. I want all that. You can call it “BS rhetoric”, but there was a time in our country’s history when we had that very set up, and far less crime than we have now.

          You mention felons. If they’re still dangerous, they should be in jail. If they aren’t in jail, they have just as much of a right to defend their lives as anyone else. You ask about fully automatic weapons. Yes, to that too. It used to be the case that one could mail order a Thompson right out of the Sears-Roebuck catalog and have it shipped to your door, no questions asked.

          Maybe you don’t “want it all back”, but the Second Amendment says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. So I want them to stop bloody well infringing.

  • Too Old To Work

    I like the post by the doctor. I’d even be amenable to discussing the issue of gun control if only the President of the United States hadn’t gone on TV today to lie about gun control and what he wants. What he and his friends want is no guns in civilian hands.

    To achieve that end he’ll use the bodies of dead children to launch a quest for “reasonable gun control” and restrictions on guns that the he doesn’t like the looks of.

    That will be the starting point, not the end point. The AR, which stands for “Armalite Rifle” started life as a military weapon and is still in wide use. Like most military weapons the design was modified and adapted to civilian use. EVERY bolt action hunting rifle in use today is based on the designs of military state of the art weapons at the start of the 20th Century. We call them target or hunting rifles, but the anti gun people have already started to refer to them as “sniper rifles”, thus stating the terms of the next round of “reasonable gun control”.

    The short term “reasonable gun control” measures that the President wants are the start, not the end of his goals.

  • Anonymous2u

    I’ll admit it that while I’ve shot a gun or two, I don’t really know dick about guns. Do I own one? No. Will I own a gun? Don’t know– as it stands right now, no need to have one and I don’t feel compelled to buy one.

    My question is really about “assault weapons.” What IS an ‘assault
    weapon?’ How are ‘assault weapons’ used in civilian life (what
    is their purpose/what are or can they be used for)? Is it simply a question of need versus want/nice to have?

    I agree that we should have the ‘right to bear arms’ and optimally restrict the sale of guns to those incapacitated by psychiatric problems (what those are, I don’t know). Of note, most with psychiatric problems don’t wear a “CrazyAssMoFo!” sign on their forehead so they may be more difficult to spot.Don’t get me wrong, I think the Sandy Hook shooting was horrific but I don’t know that the restricted sale of guns to the ‘non-crazy’ would’ve stopped it from happening in this case. Apparently his mother was the gun owner (?) so the ‘sale’ of the weapon would’ve been to the non-crazy person– unless banning the sale of a weapon to crazy folk would then include friends or family too. In which case, pretty much all of us are shit out of luck since we all know of at least one crazy person or are related to them. Just say’n

    • Ambulance_Driver

      An assault weapon is a shoulder-fired, fully automatic rifle, or a select-fire weapon with a mode for fully automatic fire.

      Fully automatic means the weapon is capable of firing more than one round with one pull of the trigger.

      They have been out of the hands of civilians since 1934, and have been unavailable to anyone but the military and law enforcement. Those few still in private hands are NEVER used in crime. That’s not hyperbole, that’s a fact you can glean from FBI crime statistics databases. The parts necessary for conversion of a semi-automatic rifle to a fully automatic rifle have not been commercially manufactured since 1984, and it is a Federal felony to convert a weapon in such a way, or even possess the parts to do so.

      What the press and the willfully ignorant (I repeat myself) call an “assault weapon” is a semi-automatic rifle that fires only one round per pull of the trigger. These weapons use the gas or recoil generated from a fired round to power the mechanism that removes the spent cartridge and loads a fresh cartridge in the magazine.

      They are functionally no different than a Remington 11-87 shotgun, or a Remington 7400 deer rifle shown in the links provided, and far less powerful.
      http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/7964/9465558_1.jpg?v=8CCBCF8047A42F0
      http://www.remington.com/~/media/Images/Firearms/Archived/Centerfire/Autoloading/7400wd1.ashx

      They are however, often painted black or camo and have a bunch of scary-looking furniture that does not alter the basic mechanism of the weapon. For example, here’s another Remington 11-87 in scary-looking clothing. Same gun, same deadly potential in both.

      http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/shotgun/sh24/rem1187pol2.jpg

      Emphasis on POTENTIAL.