Comments on: Wintermute is back http://gunnuts.net/2008/04/03/wintermute-is-back/ Gun info by shooters, for shooters Thu, 17 May 2012 06:33:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Kalium http://gunnuts.net/2008/04/03/wintermute-is-back/#comment-3014 Kalium Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:07:22 +0000 http://www.nrahab.com/2008/04/03/wintermute-is-back/#comment-3014 Possibly, but it's not their job to pass moral judgment on large swaths of the public. That's what clergy are for. Possibly, but it’s not their job to pass moral judgment on large swaths of the public.

That’s what clergy are for.

]]> By: Caleb http://gunnuts.net/2008/04/03/wintermute-is-back/#comment-3018 Caleb Fri, 04 Apr 2008 05:26:23 +0000 http://www.nrahab.com/2008/04/03/wintermute-is-back/#comment-3018 Perhaps we are spending too much time caring about those elements. Perhaps we are spending too much time caring about those elements.

]]> By: Kalium http://gunnuts.net/2008/04/03/wintermute-is-back/#comment-3017 Kalium Fri, 04 Apr 2008 05:02:25 +0000 http://www.nrahab.com/2008/04/03/wintermute-is-back/#comment-3017 Public health means worrying about <i>all</i> of the public. Not just the parts you approve of. Public health means worrying about all of the public. Not just the parts you approve of.

]]> By: JJR http://gunnuts.net/2008/04/03/wintermute-is-back/#comment-3016 JJR Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:31:44 +0000 http://www.nrahab.com/2008/04/03/wintermute-is-back/#comment-3016 Not all physicians agree with the anti-gun position, there is Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership http://www.claremont.org/projects/projectid.12/project_detail.asp One of the ER doctors I used to work for in my last job in the insurance industry was a Texas CHL holder and a really cool dude, as was one of our Staff Paramedics. Stuff like this is why I also love Xavier's "Nurse with a Gun" blog. Not all physicians agree with the anti-gun position, there is Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership

http://www.claremont.org/projects/projectid.12/project_detail.asp

One of the ER doctors I used to work for in my last job in the insurance industry was a Texas CHL holder and a really cool dude, as was one of our Staff Paramedics.

Stuff like this is why I also love Xavier’s “Nurse with a Gun” blog.

]]> By: Turk Turon http://gunnuts.net/2008/04/03/wintermute-is-back/#comment-3015 Turk Turon Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:02:21 +0000 http://www.nrahab.com/2008/04/03/wintermute-is-back/#comment-3015 There’s a profound philosophical difference between public-health researchers and the rest of us. “They” don’t care who lives or dies, as long as the total number of deaths comes down. “We” care very much who lives or dies; we want the innocent to live and the wicked to die and we don’t care about the total death count. For example, let’s say that there are 10,000 firearms homicides annually in the U.S. Criminologists tell us that about 70% of homicide victims have criminal records, so let’s call those 7,000 slayings the “Bad Guys”. And the other 3,000 victims would be the “Good Guys”, i.e. innocent victims of murder. If we could pass some kind of gun-control legislation that would reduce the “Bad Guy” death toll from 7,000 to 5,000, while at the same time the “Good Guy” deaths rose from 3,000 to 4,000 the public-health community would be thrilled! “Wonderful news!” they would say. “We’ve reduced the gun homicide toll by ten percent! From 10,000 annually to 9,000. What a victory for public health!” “We” would consider such an outcome to be a disaster, a perversion, an outrage, an atrocity. But the NEJM would consider it a triumph of “common-sense gun laws”. I would like to put this question to the NEJM editors: “Would you advise women to stop shooting rapists because it adds to the annual “death toll” from guns?” Even hypothetically conceding the point that many people who own guns get murdered, raped or robbed in spite of that, I would still say that if even one woman is able to shoot a rapist, then it’s worth it. There’s a profound philosophical difference between public-health researchers and the rest of us. “They” don’t care who lives or dies, as long as the total number of deaths comes down. “We” care very much who lives or dies; we want the innocent to live and the wicked to die and we don’t care about the total death count.

For example, let’s say that there are 10,000 firearms homicides annually in the U.S. Criminologists tell us that about 70% of homicide victims have criminal records, so let’s call those 7,000 slayings the “Bad Guys”. And the other 3,000 victims would be the “Good Guys”, i.e. innocent victims of murder.

If we could pass some kind of gun-control legislation that would reduce the “Bad Guy” death toll from 7,000 to 5,000, while at the same time the “Good Guy” deaths rose from 3,000 to 4,000 the public-health community would be thrilled! “Wonderful news!” they would say. “We’ve reduced the gun homicide toll by ten percent! From 10,000 annually to 9,000. What a victory for public health!”

“We” would consider such an outcome to be a disaster, a perversion, an outrage, an atrocity. But the NEJM would consider it a triumph of “common-sense gun laws”.

I would like to put this question to the NEJM editors: “Would you advise women to stop shooting rapists because it adds to the annual “death toll” from guns?”

Even hypothetically conceding the point that many people who own guns get murdered, raped or robbed in spite of that, I would still say that if even one woman is able to shoot a rapist, then it’s worth it.

]]>