Essay:Medical Case Against Gun Control
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aschlafly (talk | contribs) at 03:46, January 25, 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.
Two medical organizations have submitted briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court insisting that gun control is good for public health.[1][2]
Are they right? This essay, which welcomes suggestions by others, looks at the logic and evidence of the impact of gun control on public health.
Hitler was deterred from invading Switzerland during World War II in part for the same reason.
Medical Arguments Against Gun Control
The amici curiae brief of the American Publish Health Association argues that:[3]
- While others address the legal standard that should govern this Courtâs scrutiny of the statutes at issue, amici submit the following empirical information regarding the effect of firearms, and in particular handguns, on the public's health. See, e.g., Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 494 & n.11 (1952) (empirical evidence informs constitutional analysis).
The group cites Day v. State for the precedent that a state may place restrictions on the possession of bowie knives, but the Second Amendment does not protect a "right to keep and bear bowie knives."
References
Sources
- Roland H. Beason, "COMMENTARY: Printz Punts on the Palladium of Rights: It Is Time to Protect the Right of the Individual to Keep and Bear Arms," 50 Ala. L. Rev. 561 (Winter, 1999)
- http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/edcor6.html (the benefit of firearms for public health)
- http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/comm12.html (Gun death statistics from CDC)
- http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/comm13.html (collecting cases on Second Amendment)
- http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/wheeler1.html (when pediatricians become politicians)