There seems to be a general consensus in Gun-control Nation that the most effective way to deal with gun violence is to take a ‘public health approach.’ What this means is that we first define gun violence as a public health ‘threat, then we try to figure out which populations are more susceptible to the threat, then we figure out why the threat occurs, and then we come up with a plan which takes all those issues into account.
Isn’t this what we did with Covid-19? First, we learned that a lot of people were getting sick, and the sickness was a serious medial event. Then we learned that the most vulnerable populations were the seniors. Then we figured out that the disease spread mostly through close contact between hosts and potential hosts. Then we developed a vaccine and tried to get everyone to take the shot.
Last year, probably 130,000 people were victims of gun violence. This year, it looks like the number will be more. So, what have we learned about how to deal with this problem using the ‘public health approach?’
First, we have learned, and we have known this for many years, that most of the people who are both victims and spreaders of this particular health threat are males. We also know that with the exception of suicides, most of the victims and spreaders of gun violence are between the ages of 16 and 35. We also know that most of the victims and spreaders had some degree of contact before the outbreak of the violence itself. Finally, we also know that most of the victims and spreaders are located in high-crime, inner-city neighborhoods, and a disproportionate number are non-White.
All the foregoing information can be found in a new book, Gun Violence Prevention, A Public Health Approach. The book, co-edited by our good friend Linda Degutis, was just published by the American Public Health Association, and is designed as “both a primer and a handbook for public health practitioners, advocates, students, policymakers and the public, and will make information about the public health approach to gun violence accessible.”
The book is a collection of well-referenced articles covering just about all the relevant topics for which the public health approach should be understood and used – homicide, suicide, intimate partner violence, social justice, media, advocacy – the works.
I applaud Linda Degutis and her co-editor, Howard Spivak, for putting together a fairly comprehensive analysis of how public health research and methodologies can be brought to bear against the violence caused by access to guns. There is, however, one little problem with the ‘public health approach’ to gun violence, which the co-editors mention at the very beginning of the text, but do not actually see it as a problem at all.
Here’s what they say: “This is NOT a book about taking all the guns away. This is NOT about the Second Amendment. This is about creating an environment in which we can be safe given that there are guns present.”
If the purpose of public health is to create a zero-sum result for any large-scale threat to health, then I hate to break it to Drs. Degutis and Spivak, but you can’t ever achieve that goal as long as the guns are around. The co-editors justify their argument by citing how public health has been used to make cars safer and reduce vehicular injuries while still allowing people to own and drive cars.
But the analogy between auto injuries and gun injuries doesn’t work. And it doesn’t work for one, simple reason, namely, if someone is injured while driving from here to there, then we figure out whether it was the fault of the driver, or the fault of the car’s design, and we come up with strategies to fix one or both.
If I were to walk into a room occupied by 15 people, then pull out my Glock 17 and empty the mag, I could kill everyone in that room in 20 seconds or less.
Know what? That gun would be functioning exactly the way it should function and I would have used it the way it was designed and sold to be used.
Jul 26, 2021 @ 12:55:22
“Know what? That gun would be functioning exactly the way it should function and I would have used it the way it was designed and sold to be used.”
I think you forgot the part where you preach that getting rid of the guns is the only real solution because you can’t make a Glock safe.
Jul 26, 2021 @ 15:28:55
That’s right. You can’t make it ‘safe.’ It wasn’t designed to be ‘safe.’
Jul 27, 2021 @ 10:16:13
But don’t you own a Glock, or perhaps a similar scary bottom loading handgun?
Jul 27, 2021 @ 15:03:52
Yes I do. A Glock 17. I also own lots of other products that aren’t ‘safe’ if I don’t use them very, very carefully and use them all the time to keep up my muscle memory and my coordination. How many people walking around with guns actually spend any time practicing to use the gun as effectively as possible? I’ll bet it’s not 10%. In my state, you get CCW without having to shoot a gun even once. You buy into that?
Jul 27, 2021 @ 16:19:55
Your hypocrisy is profound, Mike. You have repeatedly called for a ban and forced buyback (read: CONFISCATION) of so called ‘killer handguns’ such as the Glock. And yet you continue to own one of these weapons.
“How many people walking around with guns actually spend any time practicing to use the gun as effectively as possible? I’ll bet it’s not 10%.”
Like you even know. You just hate the idea of people walking around with guns. This isn’t surprising as you are obviously very antigun. I’ll walk around with a gun if I want, and there’s naught you or anyone else in confiscation nation can do to stop me.
“In my state, you get CCW without having to shoot a gun even once. You buy into that?”
Better that than having to suck the sheriff’s d*ck (figuratively speaking) in order to get a permit like NYC.
Jul 26, 2021 @ 13:24:10
Another side of your hypothetical circumstance of you walking into a room occupied by 15 people, then you pull out your Glock 17 and before you empty your mag, one of those 15 people pulls out his/her Sig P365 or a Sig P938 and kill you in 2 seconds or less.
Know what? That gun would be functioning exactly the way it should function and that person would have used it the way it was designed and sold to be used in this hypothetical circumstance.
As the other lead editor of the new book, Gun Violence Prevention, A Public Health Approach, Howard Spivak, MD, said: “But, the science cannot ignore our culture and history with respect to firearm ownership, and the reasons for responsible gun ownership and use.” What better hypothetical circumstance is there than a good guy with a gun?
Jul 26, 2021 @ 15:28:10
So if someone is walking around with a gun which he owns legally, that makes them a ‘good guy,’ right? Sorry, I disagree. You think that most guys walking around with a gun keep themselves in good enough shape to actually use the damn thing? Are you serious?
Jul 26, 2021 @ 16:20:44
When you say “You think…” interesting how you can tell the operation of my mind.
And as for keeping themselves in good shape…you got me there. What does that mean, “good shape?”
Jul 27, 2021 @ 15:06:20
I said ‘you think’ at the beginning of a sentence that ended in a question mark. So I was asking you a question about how you think. I wasn’t telling you how your mind operates. Do you actually read my responses to what you write?
Jul 27, 2021 @ 21:21:49
“Do you actually read my responses to what you write?”
Yes, yes I do when it’s something important.
Jul 26, 2021 @ 15:56:58
I like the usage of the Public Health angle to create an environment where we can use medical professionals to spark public opinion and support legislation on how dangerous they are.
I would like to recommend the good work put forth by the excellent and qualified team over at the National Medical Council on Gun Violence to use as a resource for this approach.