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]
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
Send Firearmsregprof mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
<mailto:[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"<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
To:<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
Cc:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: JAMA -- Never a new idea.
Message-ID:<[email protected]>
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
KATHERINE L. RECORD, Georgetown University - The O'Neill Institute for
National and Global Health Law
Email:[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:<http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/firearmsregprof/attachments/20110616/6cfb985b/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Firearmsregprof mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[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 <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1513/3709 - Release Date: 06/17/11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1513/3719 - Release Date: 06/22/11
