15 Years of Ignorance
 From: "AJMD" <jstones@scican.net>
  Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:11:54 -0500
  To: <doakr@news.dmreg.com>
  Subject: Online: Editorial: One bullet, 15 years
Regarding 1/21/02 "One bullet, 
  15 years" (http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c5917686/16969333.html)
  
  If the ridiculous, contradictory, and ineffective legal principles used for 
  "gun laws" were applied in any other area, the public would be up 
  in arms (no pun intended). Unfortunately, the fear and ignorance engendered 
  in the general public by television and by antigun lobbyists results in most 
  people just shrugging their shoulders at cases like Yirkovsky's. Even so-called 
  "sportsmen" generally are willing to compromise as long as they aren't 
  inconvenienced too much regarding their hobby, leaving only the serious civil 
  libertarian, or woman being stalked, to meaningfully defend firearms ownership. 
  
Even more tragic than Yirkovsky's 
  jail time are the countless women raped and innocents murdered, due to counterproductive 
  laws which do no good other than give a few hoplophobic soccer-moms warm fuzzies 
  for having "out-machoed" the NRA by banning concealed carry. Worldwide 
  for the past 100 years, over 4,000 citizens per day have been murdered by their 
  own police and military, dwarfing "terrorism" as a cause of death, 
  yet a clamor for the same "reasonable" gun registration laws which 
  enabled such genocide goes largely unopposed by our politically correct media. 
  I hope the DesMoines Register will explore this issue further, and earn its 
  First Amendment freedoms by enlightening the public as to the Second Amendment. 
   
Permission given to print the above 
  letter, signed
Andrew Johnstone, RPh/MD
  Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws - www.dsgl.org
Indianapolis, IN 46227
  317-8xx-xxxx
P.S. Here are a few references linked 
  to which may help substantiate my statements: [Links unavailable -ed]
For matters of Constitutionality, 
  Halbrook's George Mason Univ. Law Review article is a good reference exposing 
  some of the blatant mischaracterization of Second Amendment jurisprudence in 
  the media's recent diatribe against Ashcroft. Also, the works of Stephen Halbrook, 
  including the U.S. vs. Emerson briefing, are excellent and well-referenced, 
  and many other Second Amendment scholars have published on this topic in the 
  journal literature. 
On an international 
  level, David Kopel has published extensive comparisons of gun laws versus crime 
  rates and suicide rates, revealing that unlike what HCI has gotten the mainstream 
  media to so uncritically parrot, U.S. "lax" gun laws do not correlate 
  with increased crime and suicide. More importantly, as R.J. Rummel points out, 
  genocide kills 5 to 10 times more innocents than criminal use of firearms, and 
  Jay Simkin documents that genocide has always been preceded by the seemingly 
  innocuous step of "gun registration." In the past 100 years, countries 
  with strict gun control have had an average of well over 4,000 citizens per 
  day murdered by their own police and military, and for all this carnage, there 
  is no offsetting beneficial effect documented for gun control laws - in fact 
  researcher John Lott has pointed out some compelling evidence that gun control 
  laws may actually increase domestic crime rates, and Kopel's St. Louis Law Review 
  article, Peril or Protection? - The Risks and Benefits of Handgun Prohibition 
  supports that conclusion. 
As noted by Dr. Edgar 
  Suter, in "Guns in the Medical Literature - - - - - a Failure of Peer Review" 
  from the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, and in a more in-depth 
  presentation, Kates' (et al) "Guns and Public Health - Epidemic of Violence, 
  or Pandemic of Propaganda?" article, from the Tennessee Law Review, there 
  has been a striking lack of integrity in the "public health" literature 
  on gun control, replete with distortion of data, flawed methodology, and when 
  all else fails, complete fabrication of "facts." Many physician opponents 
  of gun control are not concerned so much with the mere inconvenience to sportsmen 
  which gun laws pose, but the clear and unnecessary danger in which they put 
  ordinary citizens like our patients - as I explained in Feb. 5, 2001 Medical 
  Economics (reposted on GOA if the original link expired). As sincere patient 
  advocates who are concerned for the public health, we cannot stand by and let 
  uninformed but well-intended individuals dangerously misdirect public policy, 
  even when a naive public wonders why we won't be "reasonable" or "compromise" 
  (which the sportsmen's lobby often does, since they are mostly just concerned 
  with minimizing impact on firearms hobbies). 
Why not compromise? 
  - the events of the First Million Mom's March didn't turn out so well, and it 
  wouldn't have been possible without the "reasonable" step of merely 
  registering guns. 
Andrew Johnstone, 
  RPh/MD
To Get Your Letters Printed Here
Click here and read submission guidelines.