Agreed: The JAMA publishes a lot of trash research on the gun issue. Peer review is, IMHO, very weak in this area. See also
http://www.secondamendmentlibrary.com/10/KESSLER.htm Dr. Ray Kessler Prof. of Criminal Justice P.S. Please feel free to check out my blog at http://crimelawandjustice.blogspot.com/ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jamie Fraser-Paige Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 9:46 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 88, Issue 2 I have been at a loss as to why doctors seem to think they have the answer to the whole issue of violence. Their psychiatric branch does a poor job predicting, even with years of study, the potential for violence in individuals. So, they want all of us to give up our rights and freedoms. It's the old kindergarten approach. "Johnny eats paste. No one may use paste." Heck, punish or treat Johnny and leave the rest of us non-paste-eaters the heck alone. The 2nd Amendment uses the "S" word: Shall not be infringed. Even the kids in Johnny's kindergarten class can probably figure out what that means. So, why do doctors have so much trouble with it? Jamie Fraser-Paige Albuquerque, NM On 6/16/2011 13:01, [email protected] wrote: Send Firearmsregprof mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Firearmsregprof digest..." Today's Topics: 1. JAMA -- Never a new idea. (Joseph E. Olson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 06:08:18 -0500 From: "Joseph E. Olson" <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> To: <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: JAMA -- Never a new idea. Message-ID: <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" "Dangerous People or Dangerous Weapons: Access to Firearms for Persons with Mental Illness" JAMA, Vol. 305, p. 2108, 2011 Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 11-70 LAWRENCE O. GOSTIN, Georgetown University Law Center - O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law Email: [email protected] KATHERINE L. RECORD, Georgetown University - The O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law Email: [email protected] The recent attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has once again focused the nation?s attention on the danger of the wide availability of firearms. The Supreme Court has ruled that gun restrictions may only be imposed on those deemed ?prohibited persons? under the Gun Control Act of 1968. Although some are easily identifiable (e.g., children, convicted felons), one widely inclusive group is not ? the mentally ill. The current system designed to bar the mentally ill from purchasing or possessing firearms is ineffectual due to a lack of reporting and the existence of loopholes. What?s more, no state has developed the capacity to remove firearms from gun owners deemed dangerous post-purchase. As the nation has seen time and time again, categorical gun restrictions do not systematically keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous mentally ill persons. Moreover, these restrictions infringe on individual rights. Attempts to forecast violence not only frequently fail, but also force patients to disclose health status on purchasing forms, thereby compromising confidentiality designed to foster candidacy in seeking treatment. The Supreme Court?s interpretation of the Second Amendment requires that Congress and the states regulate people, not arms. We argue that such an approach will always be problematic ? both for the public and individuals. Nonetheless, we suggest four legal changes that the Court would likely uphold, and that may reduce dangerous use of firearms: (1) ban large-sized ammunition magazines, (2) withhold state funding for incomplete reporting or inadequate privacy protections, (3) ensure more rapid and reliable background checks, and (4) close purchasing loopholes. "May" means that Constitutional rights can be restricted on the basis of mere speculation (a JAMA speciality with regard to firearms) so long as your "heart is pure." Another crock from the Obamacare people. Professor Joseph Olson, J.D., LL.M. o- 651-523-2142 Hamline University School of Law f- 651-523-2236 St. Paul, MN 55113-1235 c- 612-865-7956 [email protected] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/firearmsregprof/attachments/2 0110616/6cfb985b/attachment-0001.htm> <http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/firearmsregprof/attachments/2 0110616/6cfb985b/attachment-0001.htm> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Firearmsregprof mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. End of Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 88, Issue 2 ********************************************** ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1513/3709 - Release Date: 06/17/11
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
