PDA

View Full Version : Gun Control Laws Have No Discernable Effect On Crime



mlk_man
01-30-2006, 11:24 AM
Who's "standing guard" over your health care rights?

I'm going to get some flack for this one, but I don't care. I just can't resist the opportunity to point out when our bloated, meddling, paternalistic government falls flat on its face...

Get ready to love me or hate me all over again, because here's what I've got to say, and I'm shouting it loudly:

GUN CONTROL LAWS HAVE NO DISCERNABLE EFFECT ON CRIME.

So says a master summary of more than 50 studies reviewing the hundreds, maybe thousands, of gun control laws enacted since the mid-1970s.

Now before you go assuming that these findings were compiled by the National Rifle Association or some far-right wacko cult, know this: This was the conclusion of the Center for Disease Control, a FEDERAL AGENCY controlled by the undeniably gun-hostile Department of Health and Human Services...

Believe me, if there were any way in the Universe that this data could have been spun, twisted, phrased, and presented in a way that looked favorably on all the paper, ink, time, money, energy, grief, heartache, and infringement of personal liberty these laws have consumed and caused, it WOULD HAVE BEEN. But there was no such way - because all these laws have added up to is a whole lot of nothing...

In fact, there are many reliable, unbiased studies out there that indicate violent crime INCREASES as more gun control regulations are implemented!

Now don't read me wrong, here. This Big Brother craziness is BIGGER than simple six-shooters. I'm writing this to you today so that you'll realize that the very government you depend on to protect some group of rights you DO believe in (especially when it comes to your healthcare freedoms and medical options) could turn on you in a second....

And when they do, you'll regret not having spoken up about your Second Amendment rights when you had the chance - whether you're a gun owner or not...

Why? Because if the government is allowed to arbitrarily regulate even this most fundamental of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms under the guise of "public health," imagine how easily they could take charge of everything else. Imagine every aspect of your life being restricted in the name of what THEY think is best for your health: Your cars, TV shows, foods, medicines, homes, property, and on and on and on...

Somehow, I think the Founding Fathers intended that YOU should make these choices for yourself. Because as this example so clearly shows, when the government gets involved in things, we get only waste, fraud, deception, deceit, and an ever-tightening fist around every freedom we take for granted.




There's too much dementia-inducing mercury in the water - on Capitol Hill!

There is only one thing that boggles my mind worse than the government's ability to ignore obvious public health issues...

That's their ability to do the WRONG THING once they do know about them.

It's a good thing you're sitting down for this one (I hope you're not reading your e-mail standing up), because the astonishing lapses of legislative logic and regulatory reason I'm about to expose are truly dizzying. Even if you are in a seat, brace yourself - I don't want to lose a reader when you slip out of your chair in either a fit of hysterical laughter or a resigned, tearful slump at the state of our State...

First, a little background:

If you've been reading my newsletter (or the Daily Dose) for more than a few months, you may have heard me sounding off about the shameless use of toxic mercury in dental fillings. It's a practice which has gone on for years, with nary a whimper in the mainstream media about the possible public health ramifications - specifically, the horrifying specter of mercury poisoning.

But get this: Even though no agency of the government has ever (to my knowledge) made a move toward banning mercury amalgam for implantation in our mouths, the Environmental Protection Agency is now recommending that dentists tighten their self-imposed safeguards against allowing these same mercury-based substances from reaching common wastewater...

For fear that a small amount of this discarded mercury could end up being ingested by fish - which would then POSE A PUBLIC HEALTH THREAT IF EATEN!

That's right - according to the Fools on the Hill, it's perfectly healthy to permanently install large chunks of a known toxic metal in your mouth, but it's a hazard if you eat the fish that swim in the same billion-gallon lake that a few of these same fillings might have flushed their way into...

Insane, isn't it? I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried!

The only other possible explanation is that the EPA is more concerned about the possibility of fish getting mercury poisoning than human beings...

And even I'm not jaded enough to think that - yet.

"Filling" you in,

William Campbell Douglass II, MD

bkrownd
01-30-2006, 07:33 PM
The only other possible explanation is that the EPA is more concerned about the possibility of fish getting mercury poisoning than human beings...


As they should be.

dell
01-30-2006, 09:44 PM
I do a lot with the CDC here in Atlanta and it seems to me a study of guns does not fit within their jurisdiction as it pertains to viral and bacteriological infectious diseases. Could you provide the name and date of the study and the author? I would like to read it.

Thanks - Dell

mlk_man
01-31-2006, 07:05 AM
I do a lot with the CDC here in Atlanta and it seems to me a study of guns does not fit within their jurisdiction as it pertains to viral and bacteriological infectious diseases. Could you provide the name and date of the study and the author? I would like to read it.

Thanks - Dell

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

dell
01-31-2006, 06:34 PM
Thanks for the link. However, I differ with your conclusion(s). What the report states, in several places, is there is "insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion" one way or the other. In my opinion, a typical waste of money. At least this is an INDEPENDENT research group that conducted the study which was published by the CDC.

Brett
04-03-2006, 01:57 PM
You disagree with Mlk Man because the report says "insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion". Well, it seems to me that what means is "No Discernable Effect On Crime". As a law abiding citizen, I feel a little safer with a "heater" in my pocket when walking the streets of Baltimore.