Dr Peter Rhee - Trauma Surgeon who treated Giffords calls for fix background checks

[RamboLiberal]

-----

All at once, we were treating eleven patients with gunshot wounds. Despite the best efforts of everyone, six innocent people died that day at the scene and no treatment could have saved those innocent people as they were killed instantly. I am proud of the work by everyone, which helped keep that number from climbing. The outcome could have been worse. But unfortunately, we need to treat people who are shot all the time, all over the United States. When I go to Europe to lecture they often ask me to speak on how to treat patients that were shot. This is because they don't have gunshot wounds in Europe, because they don't have anywhere near our level of gun violence. In Japan and Korea, they have practically no gunshot wounds at all. One fact is true, and undeniable. Where you have guns you will need well-trained trauma surgeons.

-----

So, today I am joining other Arizonans, including several people wounded on January 8, and officials like Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard and former U.S. Senator Dennis DeConcini, to support a new plan to fix gun background checks.

For a doctor, an ounce of prevention is always worth more than any cure. Enforcing our laws and screening for unstable people like Jared Loughner, the accused killer, would surely help. I can't see how anyone would argue against that. Innocent people die from gunshot wounds all the time, right here in our country. We have to work to decrease that, don't we?

The plan I am supporting is, in my view, common sense. And it respects the constitutional rights we all share.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-rhee/one-gun-in-the-wrong-hand_b_841611.html

[texastoast]

1. The guy who took down Loughner also called for this

And he is ex-military.

Must be nice to live in a country that is not so gun crazy.

[Hoyt]

2. Cheers for the doc. Wouldn't it be cool if gun supporters let us become like those countries.

It costs a bunch to treat gun shot wounds -- might even help lower health care costs.

Yea, I know, if there were no guns people would be killed by knives, etc. Well, so be it. We'd be better off.

[tblue37]

4. It would be very difficult for a "lone knife man" to kill six people and

critically wound eleven before being taken down. But a lone gunman can do all that and more quite easily. So even if we still would have some deaths, limiting the weaponry to knives would do a lot to contain the level of mayhem. At least there should be reasonable background checks and some sort of licensing to make sure that seriously disturbed people like Loughner would at least have to overcome some obstacles before arming themselves with rapid fire weaponry and lots of ammunition.

[rl6214]

7. Actually it wouldn't

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1376982.stm

knifeman has killed at least eight pupils in a rampage at their school in western Japan.
Officials say more than 20 other pupils were hurt, along with several teachers. Some are seriously ill in hospital.


http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/five-settlers-die-in-west-bank-knife-massacre-2577517.html

IsraelI security forces were last night joined by forces from from the Palestinian Authority in the hunt for the perpetrators of a grisly murder of a Jewish family of five in a remote West Bank settlement.

Two young children, a baby and their parents were knifed to death as they slept.

[Hoyt]

20. Loughner would have been stopped easily. In fact, he likely wouldn't have even tried it w/o a gun.

[rl6214]

23. Probably not

there is always the possibility he would have waited until she was in a less populated area and attacked her then. You can't say though that he would have been "stopped easily".

I have personally met with my congressman, Reyes, and could have easily attacked him with a knife.

[Hoyt]

28. Don't think so many folks would have been wounded or that Loughner would have done it with a knife.

You guys just can not live without guns. You can't even imagine guns being banned and the benefits to society.

[rl6214]

31. Come on, I am having a civil conversation here

Can you just leave the "you guys just can not live without guns" comments for a minute and tell me why loughner would not have done it with a knife?

[Common Sense Party]

79. Crazies who want to kill, kill. This nut could have easily made an explosive

and killed far more people. A gun is not the only weapon that is dangerous.

[tblue37]

85. But that would still be far fewer killed and wounded. nt

[RSillsbee]

44. Objection

speculation

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Yo, where did you buy your crystal ball? I need a new one, mine is crap.

[Hoyt]

21. Delete duplicate. Sorry.

[Hoyt]

18. I agree. I believe those attracted to "assault" type weapons should automatically be denied a permit

or the right to purchase them. I know pro-gunners, that's a Catch 22. But I believe the gun marketers aim those type weapons at people who are attracted to the assault/tactical aspects of guns.

[rl6214]

26. Please define "assault type weapons"

[Hoyt]

29. The usual question -- have seen it a million times. Trite answer -- an assault weapon is like porn.

If it's made and advertised as a tactical weapon, etc., it's an assault weapon. When people buy a weapon partly because of it's killing capabilities (or perceived capabilities) they are buying an assault weapon. How many do you have?

[rl6214]

33. Isn't every weapon bought partly because of its killing capability?

Didn't the expired AWB already prove that the gun manufacturers can make any gun without the "assault" features?

"How many do you have"
I have told YOU exactly what I have in the way of weapons in another thread. I purchase guns based upon:

1. Is it of historical nature- I collect WW2 weapons
2. Does it suit the type of shooting I do- I compete and I hunt
3. Is it something I can shoot comfortably- I have had rotator cuff surgery on both shoulders making some firearms easier to shoot than others.

How many do YOU have?

[Hoyt]

35. If you read most of the pro-gunner posts here, it is clear killing power is the main attraction.

Shoot, you guys can't even imagine life without guns.

[rl6214]

36. Again with the "you guys" comment.

And you ignored my question.

What do YOU have?

[GreenStormCloud]

40. Actually we can easily imagine life without guns, and don't like it.

Your life without guns leaves the weak at the mercy of the strong and evil. The is now way my wife could have defended herself from that mugger five years ago, except the she had a gun. He ran away, no shot fired, no injury to my wife. Without her gun she would have been killed. I value her life far, far above your political feelings.

[Hoyt]

58. Glad your wife is safe. I get how you feel. A whistle might have accomplished same thing.

Instead, you promote guns. I don't think that is what our society needs right now.

[RSillsbee]

72. Might is an awfully big word

but what the Hell, it's not like you're talking about your life right?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

32. How can you prove anybodys' attraction toward anything? What an idiotic statement.

Are you (or the police) psychic?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rl6214]

37. Is congresswoman Giffords sick?

Did she drool over her gun when she purchased it? Really, it's a sick attraction, right? She was attracted to a killing machine, right? Was she drooling when she got her CCL?

These aren't rhetorical questions, I would like an answer to each of them.

[Hoyt]

38. First, I doubt Giffords carried an "assault" type weapon. Second, she didn't drool over it.

If she was carrying at the time, shows how useless a carrier's gun is in most cases.

[rl6214]

39. Do you consider a handgun that carries over 10 rounds

an "assault type weapon"?

I believe in the past you have said it is.

What type of gun does she own? How do you know she didn't drool over it? You are willing to make baseless remarks about people you don't know, how can you make the claim she didn't drool over it?

[rl6214]

41. Congresswoman Giffords owns a Glock

According to this webpage:

http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/arizona-capitol-times/mi_8079/is_20080321/arizona-democrats-split-dc-gun/ai_n51710249/

Haven't you said in the past that these Glocks are "assault" weapons?

I'm pretty sure you have.

[Hoyt]

50. Don't think you can find where I said that. But, I wouldn't be too concerned about Gifford's Glock.

I'm sure she wasn't trained for "duck and shoot" maneuvers in a crowd like some folks on here claim.

I would call a Glock a hybrid assault weapon, meaning it can be used in a purely self defense mode, or become an assault weapon in the wrong hands. Now, I might feel differently if somebody's Glock is tricked out with a hi-cap mag, the baddest ass loads one can get/make, maybe a special area in the handle for notches, and/or if the person has become overly obsessed with the dang things.

[rl6214]

53. "Glock is tricked out with a hi-cap mag"

So let's see, Giffords Glock comes standard with a 15 round magazine. According to your definition, that would be an "assault weapon" because it exceeds the 10 rounds that you want in a magazine capacity.

That would make her sick in your mind.

What sort of loads do you suppose she carries in her evil Glock?

I load a 125gr lead bullet for general plinking but I would imagine the Congresswoman doesn't load her own bullets so she would use either a full metal jacket or some form of hollow point. The full metal jacket is most common for target while most carry hollow points in their carry guns. I would figure the Congresswoman carries hollow points.

Do you think that's a little bit extreme of her to be carrying hollow points? Might even border on obsessive.

[Hoyt]

59. The Congresswoman"s gun did her no good. None. Nor did the packers nearby.

A couple of old geezers did -- with out a friggin gun.

[PavePusher]

65. And this is representative of every instance of criminal action, everywhere? n/t

[rl6214]

81. Why won't you answer my questions

Is it because you know you have nothing to base your arguement on except feelings?

And actually my Packers did a lot of good this year, hell they won the Superbowl!

[PavePusher]

64. "it can be used in a purely self defense mode, or become an assault weapon in the wrong hands"

You just described EVERY WEAPON EVER MADE.

[Callisto32]

70. One instance proves something "in most cases?

Oy.

[Atypical Liberal]

8. Why would we better off?

Yea, I know, if there were no guns people would be killed by knives, etc. Well, so be it. We'd be better off.

If your world vision came to pass, then every assault would mean the victim would have to either try to flee or fight their attacker in a physical contest of strength.

Why would this possibly make us better off? Why would the world be a better place if the weak were always at the mercy of anyone stronger than they who wished to attack them?

[Hoyt]

14. Because we wouldn't be shooting folks so much. You gun guys might be miserable, but

we'd all be better off. The fact is, it's easier to stop a guy with a knife than someone wielding an "assault" weapon. Shoot, we could all go back to walking around with a staff. Some marketing guy will come out with an "assault" staff to appeal to you guys.

Your view of guns as an easy "equalizer" is a bit disturbing when you think about it.

[rrneck]

17. A knife is an assault weapon. nt

[Hoyt]

19. You just can't imagine life without a gun, can you? Sad.

[rrneck]

25. Oh I don't know.

I haven't been to the range in years. But even if there are those who are as obsessed as you claim at least there is an actual object of their obsession. You seem satisfied to obsess over your own blinkered ideology. And that's really sad.

[rl6214]

27. Can you stick to the subject without being snarky?

[rrneck]

30. No

He's here for the snark. Its all he's got. It's all ideologues need. Well, that and an obedient populace.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenStormCloud]

49. Your excellent post will be ignored by the anti-gun crowd. N/T

[RSillsbee]

74. Interestingly enough

the mods asked me to edit that post due to copyright violation. So, I did exactly as they asked , apologized for the violation and asked people to follow the link and they deleted the post anyway

[dmr]

84. It was deleted in error. Please feel free to re-post.

:hi:

[RSillsbee]

86. I apologize for not being able to edit the post above

You are more than welcome to delete it

But I do want to go on record as stating that the mods have contaced me and admit that they deleted my post in error.

No harm no foul

[Hoyt]

51. If I skimmed that correctly, current law-abiding gun owners would break the law to get a gun.

The political concerns -- a dictator is going to take over America -- is not a very persuasive reason to promote guns, especially in public. If it's you are afraid of a dictator, and ignoring how irrational that is, get a couple of guns and leave them at home. You can pull them out when the revolution comes for real, or -- more likely -- in your mind. At that point, it would be time to take them away from you for your and society's safety.

[Atypical Liberal]

62. Yes, I absolutely CAN imagine life without a gun.

You just can't imagine life without a gun, can you? Sad.

Yes, I can imagine just such a life, as I have explained to you above.

Life without guns would mean that every single time there was an assault the weak would be at the mercy of the strong. Victims of violence could try to run, if they were physically able, submit, if they were physically strong enough to survive it, or try to fight, if they were physically strong enough to resist.

Even in your own home, people would be forced into physical contests of strength against their attackers.

Life without guns just puts us back on a social footing similar to what people endured in the Middle Ages. The weak are victims of the strong.

[RSillsbee]

87. Life w/ out a gun repost

http://lildobe.livejournal.com/150309.html

In response to Hoyt’s question I have posted this link to Dave Kopel’s "A World Without Guns" .

Imagine the world without guns" was a bumper sticker that began making the rounds after the murder of ex-Beatle John Lennon on December 18, 1980. Last year, Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono, followed up on that sentiment by announcing she would become a spokeswoman for Handgun Control, Inc. (which later changed its name to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and which was previously named the National Council to Control Handguns).

More at the link

[Atypical Liberal]

61. Disturbing?!?

Because we wouldn't be shooting folks so much. You gun guys might be miserable, but we'd all be better off.

Yes, I understand that if there were no guns, there would be no shootings.

But how would we be better off? Without firearms, every single physical assault would then become a physical contest of strength between the attacker and victim. The weak would always be at the mercy of the strong. How is this better off?

The fact is, it's easier to stop a guy with a knife than someone wielding an "assault" weapon.

But in your scenario, there are no guns. Which means that everyone faced with a knife now has three options: Try to run, submit, or try and stop the knife-wielding attacker by engaging in a physical contest of strength.

This is what everyone would be reduced to if there were no firearms. The weak would always be at the mercy of the strong.

Your view of guns as an easy "equalizer" is a bit disturbing when you think about it.

Again, this just highlights how irreconcilable the differences of opinion are on this matter. Sharesunited expresses the exact same view as yourself.

I submit to you that it is your worldview that is disturbing. Your worldview is that every assault should become a contest of physical strength between the attacker and his victim. That the weak should be at the mercy of the strong. That is not a progressive world view. I'd say that the entire premise of being a progressive is about protecting the weak from the strong. I guess the fundamental difference is that people like you and Sharesunited want the government to protect the weak from the strong, but you never want the actual weak people to be able to protect themselves from the strong.

The problem with that idea is that the agents of the government are almost never present at the time of the commission of a crime. They almost always show up after the crime is over, to collect evidence, question witnesses, and aid in the prosecution of the crime.

This is not surprising, as most attackers choose the time and place of their attacks where they will be at the greatest advantage. Which means most victims of violent crime are on their own at the time of the attack.

I think it is far, far, far more disturbing to dream up a world where the weak are at the mercy of the strong. Where there is no access to tools to help weak people stand up to stronger people who would physically abuse them. Where your choices are to run (if you are physically able), submit (and hope you are physically strong enough to survive), or fight in a physical contest of strength (if you are physically stronger).

That is disturbing.

I honestly don't see how you can advocate such a position.

[PavePusher]

66. Your goal and ignorance are obvious.

1. "Because we wouldn't be shooting folks so much."

So, it really isn't about the crime, it's about the object. Doesn't matter how many die, as long as it's not a gun that is used.


2. "The fact is, it's easier to stop a guy with a knife than someone wielding an "assault" weapon."

Really? Confronted many people with knives, have you? It's easy to stop a guy with a knife, if you have a gun. Otherwise, you are almost certain to get cut or stabbed, even if you do manage to disarm him/her. Read up on knife fighting sometime.

[spin]

12. So you are in favor of disarming everybody so criminals could kill them with knives ...

and you feel we would all be better off.

If you were to run for office criminals and fools would vote for you.

[Hoyt]

15. The lenghts you guys go to in an effort to expand gun ownership/presence is laughable.

Of course, most of us would be better off without guns. The 3% that can't walk out of the house without one, would just have to suck it up like a man.

[spin]

42. You might be a real tough guy in real life ...

or you may be playing one on the internet.

Let's assume that you believe that you are really are a "man" and you are capable of handling yourself in any situation you might find yourself in. Let's go so far as to say that you have a solid background in marital arts and have served in the military as a Navy seal.

You are still at a serious disadvantage if you find yourself facing a individual armed with a large caliber firearm who intends to do you harm and is smart enough not to be so close enough to you that you can use your skills to disarm him. Perhaps you once encountered this individual in a bar and fought with him and you humiliated him. He has decided to seek revenge and obtains a .45 auto to settle the score.

He is waiting for you when you leave your home unarmed and as you are walking to your car, he pulls his weapon and shoots you. Even a .45 caliber round is not always lethal and he hits you in a non vital area. You are severely injured but you attempt to use your skills to defend yourself. He laughs and empties his .45 into you. You die.

Now let's assume the same scenario except that you have a legally concealed firearm and you are very proficient with it. Although you are injured, you are able to draw your weapon and return fire.

Which scenario would you choose?

Imagine yourself not as a tough guy but as a woman who is five foot two and weighs just over 100 pounds (which is a description of my daughter.) She has had training in judo and jujitsu but even with her skills, if she is attacked by a 220 pound male in excellent condition her best hope is to surprise him with her jujitsu (perhaps kick him in the kneecap) and run. A good little fighter has a disadvantage in a fight with a much larger opponent. That's why you don't see boxing matches between a fly weight and a heavy weight.

Or let's suppose that you are transformed into a 65 year old man who is five foot seven with a hip that needs replaced and suffers form degenerative disk disease in his back, (which describes me.) For some reason a young buck who weighs two hundred and twenty pounds and is well over six feet tall decides to attack me. Even though I was one tough little SOB in my younger years there is an excellent chance that I will end up in a hospital or dead. However, I have a concealed weapons permit and forty years experience with shooting handguns and I carry. This in no way means that I will survive but my snub nosed revolver does give me a better chance.

Now let's imagine that you are a criminal. Criminals are predators and like any animal predator they cull the weak out the herd. They may not pick you because you look and act like a tough guy, but they might attack my attractive daughter or an older individual like me with a bad limp.

I suppose you will simply say that that's nature and the weak deserve to die because it will improve the herd.

Just remember, my friend, that one day you too will be old or that someone you love may be attacked when you are not around to protect them. You, or your loved one, might be the one culled from the herd. Shouldn't you or the one you love have the best means available for defense.

Now I will agree that the chances of my daughter or myself being attacked is extremely small, but last year my daughter attracted the attention of a very determined stalker. She obtained a restraining order but for six months he harassed the hell out of her. If she walked outside our home she often seen him driving by or watching her from across the street. Fortunately for him he never attacked her as she was armed and would have shot him. He did eventually get arrested and several weekends in jail convinced him that bothering my daughter was foolish. He was aware that she had a carry permit. Had she not, she might have been at his mercy as he was much larger than her. She did nothing to encourage his attention and never had a relationship with him. One of her close friends had once had a relationship with him and he stalked her too. My daughter's friend was terrified of this man and he even harassed her mother. The stalker had a history of violence including resisting arrest while intoxicated. I suspect the man had serious mental issues.

Often those who oppose firearm ownership or concealed carry say that those of us on the opposite side are excessively paranoid or live in fear. Quite the opposite. We realize and hope that we can travel down the path of life without ever having to use a firearm for self defense. Most people prefer to go with statistics and read incidents in the newspaper where others are attacked and say, "That will never happen to me." That's fine with me and in almost all cases they are correct. Other people consider the possibility that the unlikely might just happen and plan and prepare. Sometimes their preparations pay off. I don't fear an attack because I have planned what to do in case it happens with the full realization that my plans might not work. Still I know that I will do the best I can and if that doesn't work than life is not always fair.

Nor am I advising you or anyone to run out and buy a firearm and get a carry permit. That's a serious decision that requires a lot of thought and merely owning a firearm without the safety training and developing the skills to use it is a bad idea that can result in a tragic ending. Not everyone should own a firearm. You have to know yourself and your strengths and weaknesses plus everybody lives in a different situation.

Take some time to consider this post and come back to me.

[Hoyt]

52. I'm not going to spend too much time on being ready to shoot someone. The risk is too small.

I think most of you could handle not carrying into most public places. Heck, I don't care if you keep a reasonable gun nearby if you are in remote areas. But, come on, the odds are so small that you will encounter a problem in most public areas that it's not worth the impact on society.

I don't have a real problem with someone temporarily carrying in the case of the stalker. Plus, most women aren't carrying in preparation for a cowboy moment, for intimidation, some macho thing, as an equalizer, or anything like that. Shoot, if a stalker were after you, I'd issue a temporary permit to you to protect yourself.

[RSillsbee]

55. My odds are 100%

Would you disarm me too? Guess I would have been collateral damage.

See, that's the problem you may never win the lottery but someone will and you don't get to decide if they can buy a ticket or not

[rrneck]

56. +10000. yep. nt

[Hoyt]

57. I'd seek some counseling if I felt my odds were 100% of being mugged.

Your odds of a situation happening (perhaps again) where your gun tucked down your waistband does you any good, are really small.

[RSillsbee]

71. My odds of being the victim of an attempted mugging are 100%

it's happened , I was able to use a gun to defend myself w/out incident. You know this

Now, please address my other coment.

You may never be mugged but someonewill and you don't get to decide the method they use to defend themselves

[Atypical Liberal]

63. No one has a crystal ball.

I think most of you could handle not carrying into most public places. Heck, I don't care if you keep a reasonable gun nearby if you are in remote areas. But, come on, the odds are so small that you will encounter a problem in most public areas that it's not worth the impact on society.

The odds of many things happening in life are small. The odds of me having a house fire are small. Yet I still have insurance, smoke detectors, and fire extinguishers. Why? Because the cost of the tools to be prepared is cheap compared to the cost of needing them and not having them.

The odds of me being in a car accident are small. Yet I still wear seat belts, and in fact they are required in cars. Why? Because the cost of the tools to be prepared is cheap compared to the cost of needing them and not having them.

The odds of me needing life insurance are small. Yet I still have life insurance. Why? Because the cost of the tools to be prepared is cheap compared to the cost of needing them and not having them.

The odds of me dying from carbon monoxide poisoning are small. Yet I still have carbon monoxide detectors. Why? Because the cost of the tools to be prepared is cheap compared to the cost of needing them and not having them.

All of us are exposed to risk in our life, and it is up to each of us to prepare ourselves for those risks by buying tools as we see fit and as we are able to afford.

Now you can say that the tool of firearms can be used to do bad things as well as good things. Well so can many tools. But more than that, we know, from decades of data, that people who lawfully carry concealed firearms are not just unlikely to be involved in firearm-related crime, they are unlikely to be involved in any crime at all.

So there is no problem with law-abiding people carrying concealed firearms.

I don't have a real problem with someone temporarily carrying in the case of the stalker. Plus, most women aren't carrying in preparation for a cowboy moment, for intimidation, some macho thing, as an equalizer, or anything like that. Shoot, if a stalker were after you, I'd issue a temporary permit to you to protect yourself.

The problem is, no one has a crystal ball to tell them when they are in imminent danger of attack. Yes, there are some cases where people have an idea that someone is out to get them. But many people have no idea when they get up in the morning that that day will be the day that someone decides to assault them.

But more importantly, it shouldn't be up to you or anyone else to decide when I should be able to choose to arm myself. You say that you'd allow people to carry firearms if they had a stalker. That's nice. But what about people in high-risk occupations? What about private investigators? What about cab drivers? What about pizza delivery people? What about attorneys? Psychiatrists? Convenient store clerks? Gas Station clerks? Store-closers who have to make the night money drop?

I don't carry a firearm, mostly because of the paperwork hassle, but also because the most dangerous place I go to every week, night school, I'm not allowed to carry on campus. But if I was in any of the above high-risk occupations, I would almost certainly carry a firearm if I felt the risk warranted it. And that is as it should be. It shouldn't be up to you or anyone else to decide what tools are appropriate for me to mitigate risks to my well being.

[PavePusher]

68. Accusation, insinuation, disingenuousness, misdirection and intentional contrivance.

Anything to avoid the subject or dodge a direct question, eh?

[RSillsbee]

73. What , exactly, is a "reasonable" gun NT

[cleanhippie]

77. Hoyt, I see you are projecting your secret fantasy again. How sad.

[spin]

88. On your comment about a stalker and a woman ...

In Florida there is no such thing (to my knowledge) as a temporary permit to carry.

If a woman finds herself being pursued by a potentially dangerous individual and wants to legally carry a firearm, she would have to attend a class on firearm safety, get fingerprinted, fill out a bunch of forms and get them notarized and get a passport photo. She then would have to mail all the paperwork to the state and wait up to three months before she receives her concealed weapons permit.

Of course, she quite possibly has to select and purchase a suitable firearm and figure out how she intends to carry it. She may have a house gun, but often such weapons are impractical for concealed carry. My daughters house gun is a S&W Model 25-2 .45 acp revolver. It's the same size firearm as Dirty Harry's .44 magnum. A bit large for her to carry.

So does the woman carry a tiny revolver such as a North American Arms .22 (My daughter does occasionally. She calls it her "get away from me gun.")



Or a slightly larger revolver such as a S&W Model 351 PD .22 magnum (My daughter's favorite carry weapon.)



Or maybe a S&W Model 64 .38 special revolver. (My daughters serious carry weapon...I can't believe she can conceal this
fairly large firearm on her body considering that she is 5' 2" and weighs just over 100 pounds, but she does.)



There have been times where my daughter carried her husband's Glock 27 in .40 caliber.




Will the woman carry her firearm in her purse? A normal purse may be a poor choice for carrying a firearm and a purse designed for carry is not always easy to find locally and can be quite expensive.

This Addison Holster Handbag will set a woman back $274.99



This Gun Tote'n Mamas Shoulder Saddlebag Purse will only run $118



Most women would find such purses unfashionable so maybe the woman would decide to carry in a fanny pack or carry in an inside the waist band holster.

How will it take the woman to become comfortable and proficient with her carry weapon?

To sum up a woman faced with a stalker has a long wait before she can get a permit to carry a firearm and also has numerous decisions to make about the weapon she will carry and how to carry it. Wouldn't it be far better for a woman to already have a carry permit and a weapon she was familiar with carrying and proficient with. My daughter had the permit, the weapon and the skill. She was prepared.

Which is also the big difference between you and those who are like me. You chose to ignore any possibility of your ever having to carry a weapon for legitimate self defense. Many of us have considered the possibility and have decided to take steps to be prepared. Nothing is wrong with either approach. People differ in their approach to life. Some just figure they will handle what ever life throws at them, others like to plan ahead.

[cleanhippie]

76. Hoyt, why is it you ALWAYS have to spout insults? Every time your arguments start to fail

you resort to insults.


You are like a child. You certainly are not "like a man" at all.

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. But, but, but...

I can hear it now.

[rl6214]

5. I go shooting with my orthopeadic surgeon

That doesn't make his opinion worth any more or any less than this doctors. Opinions are alike assholes, everyone's got one.

This statement is just ridiculous though:

"When I go to Europe to lecture they often ask me to speak on how to treat patients that were shot. This is because they don't have gunshot wounds in Europe"

One statement I do agree with here:

"Enforcing our laws and screening for unstable people like Jared Loughner, the accused killer, would surely help."

Thoughts and prayers with Congresswoman Giffords

[RamboLiberal]

11. I think Rhee may be a gun owner - the other surgeon mentioned he was

Just remembering from their press conferences. I know the other surgeon that spoke quite often mentioned he owned guns. And I think Rhee may have mentioned he also owned guns.

[spin]

24. Loughner's college could have possibly prevented the tragedy ...

Loughner was busy waving plenty of red flags and no one had the intelligence or commonsense to take the responsibility to stop the ensuing tragedy.

Loughner could have been committed under Arizona law
Updated 1/13/2011 12:14 PM

Tucson mass shooting suspect Jared Loughner's recent history of instability — including five disruptions at his community college and bizarre rants on YouTube videos — probably would have been sufficient to commit him to a psychiatric facility, even against his will, experts said.

Arizona makes it easier than most states to commit mentally ill people to psychiatric care, even against their will. But that doesn't mean that everyone gets the help they need.

"The state laws are some of the best in the country," said Jack Potts, a forensic psychiatrist in Phoenix. "The follow-up is not."

Under Arizona law, anyone can call the county or regional health authorities with concerns about a person's mental health, and authorities are required to send out mobile units to assess the person's condition, said Brian Stettin, policy director at the Treatment Advocacy Center in Arlington, Va., which advocates for involuntary commitment for mental illness.
http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/2011-01-13-arizonalaws13_st_N.htm

[one-eyed fat man]

43. Why the college?

Granted he acted nuts there.

Here you have a guy with no job but plenty of disposable income. He had enough to buy dope to fail a piss test he knew he was taking during his Army physical. Enough to own a couple of moderately high dollar handguns. He was getting an "allowance" from someone? He was also lucid enough to lie on the 4473 about being an unlawful user of marijuana.

Living at home with his parents. You suspect them might have had a clue they were raising a sociopath? He had "friends" saying when they heard on the car radio there had been a shooting that morning they "knew it was Jared."

Seems like a whole bunch of folks thought he was nuts, just not nuts enough to for them to DO something.

The Army couldn't legally disclose his drug test failure, HIPPA and all that.

The Stasi had one informant for every seven citizens in East Germany. They recruited border guards from the most politically reliable elements of that society and still had to establish a secret squad to infiltrate the border guards because border guards were escaping to the West.

If that level of government intrusion could not guarantee perfect safety, what level of scrutiny are you willing to allow? What abuse of the system would be acceptable to you?

[spin]

47. When a person like Loughner is waving red flags ...

it doesn't take a high level of scrutiny to notice them.

We are not talking about a security service watching all citizens like in the novel 1984. Many of the students in Loughner's college were concerned about him and felt threatened. His parents and the police also dropped the ball.

[one-eyed fat man]

67. Perhaps

To most of those around him he was "just weird" or maybe they thought he "would grow out of it." Those closest to him may have felt he was strange, trouble, wacko, maybe even disturbing. The end result is no one thought he was DANGEROUS to actually DO something about getting him committed.

Lots of people rant about politicians. Lots of people say they want to kill people. If there is a kid who has gotten to the age of five without hearing his mother threaten to kill him over cleaning up his room, or putting away his stuff it's because he is an orphan.

The question is whose job is it to "report" weird people to the authorities?

Just how low is the thresh hold for those "authorities" to restrict "crazy" people?

At present it takes a legal proceeding and due process to take away someones rights.

Is that bar too high?

Should a vindictive ex-spouse be able to make a phone call and put someone on the list for life?

Should your neighbor dislike your politics (or you his) does it become a race as to who reports the other's lunacy first?

[spin]

80. I favor "legal proceedings and due process" ...

I did find an interesting video on Arizona mental law from an attorney.

Arizona Mental Commitment Laws and Jared Laughner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU1KHI0PN-s

After I watched it, I can see how the law might be abused to harass an individual. Still had someone had called and got Laughner evaluated, a tragedy MIGHT have been averted.

The NICS background check system is already supposed to be updated with those adjudged to have serious mental problems. Unfortunately there are problems getting the names into the system.

Few states are complying with mental health gun law
Published: February 18, 2011

ATLANTA - More than half the states are not complying with a post-Virginia Tech law that requires them to share the names of mentally ill people with the national background-check system to prevent them from buying guns, an Associated Press review has found.

The deadline for complying with the 3-year-old law was last month. But nine states haven't supplied any names to the database. Seventeen others have sent in fewer than 25, meaning gun dealers in the United States could be running names of would-be buyers against a woefully incomplete list.

***snip***

Since 1968, federal law has banned certain mentally ill people from buying guns, including those who have been deemed a danger to themselves or others, involuntarily committed or judged not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial.

***snip***

The states that have failed to submit any mental health records are Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and South Dakota.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/feb/18/PT2NEWSO4-few-states-are-complying-with-mental-hea/news-nationworld/

[one-eyed fat man]

83. We agree then.

It should take due process and a legal proceeding to commit someone are to deny them rights. That just leaves with facing the imperfections in the system.

How does one know what some drunk shooting off his mouth in a bar is really dangerous?

How do you determine that your weird cousin living in his parent's basement is really going start shooting people in a supermarket parking lot?

Invariably those proclaiming there was an unmistakable string of red flags point directly to the latest outrage are doing from the crystal clarity of perfect 20/20 hindsight.

Unfortunately, the crystal ball fails most times. Not every wacko becomes a killer, and not every killer leaves a trail of clues which, after the fact, prove conclusively that his aberrant behavior could have been predicted.

Again, as in countless other cases, all those closest to Loughner, those who had known him for years, not a single one took his behavior as serious enough to actually undertake the process to force him into treatment. No one seriously considered him dangerous until he pulled the trigger. Then, predictably, there is a hue and cry about how there was an unmistakable string of red flags apparent to all, as every detail or fact, uncovered through the efforts of the 1500 FBI agents, is revealed in lurid reporting.

[GreenStormCloud]

6. The article doesn't give specifics of his plan.

To be able to comment on his plan I need to know what it is, as well as what it is intended to do.

Most gro-gum people here will support genuine improvement in the NICS system. What we will oppose is mere feel-good laws that accomplish nothing.

[Atypical Liberal]

9. The article links to the plan he is talking about

http://www.fixgunchecks.org/?no_splash=1

[Atypical Liberal]

10. The plan: background checks for ALL gun sales

The article links to "The Plan" he speaks of:

http://www.fixgunchecks.org/?no_splash=1

Here is there plan:

1. Get all of the names of people who should be prohibited from buying guns into the background check system.
2. Require a background check for every gun sale in America.


The problem is point #2:

http://www.fixgunchecks.org/background-checks

* Even if a dangerous individual failed a background check, they can walk into any gun show and buy a trunk load of guns with no background check, no questions asked. That’s because only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct background checks. Occasional sellers, who often sell guns at gun shows, don’t have to do background checks.
* 30% of illegally trafficked guns are connected to gun shows.
* This loophole has been exploited by terrorists, drug cartels, and murderers, including the shooters at Columbine High School, whose guns were purchased from an unlicensed seller at a gun show.

Every handgun sale should come with a background check:

* People who want to sell their guns can take them to a licensed dealer who will conduct the background check.
* There should be reasonable exemptions for transfers to immediate family members, law enforcement, inheritance, and holders of gun permits that meet certain requirements.

This creates a de facto firearm registry, and is unacceptable.

I have no problem with universal background checks, so long as they preserve firearm ownership anonymity.

[Atypical Liberal]

13. More plan details

http://fixgunchecks.s3.amazonaws.com/191/7a/f/43/a_plan_to_prevent_future_tragedies.pdf

This is interesting:

"The revised law would cap the fee for conducting these background checks on behalf of private sellers at $15."

I like that!

[rl6214]

22. I don't think 2 days worth of polling is a good representative sample

The bipartisan poll was conducted jointly by Momentum Analysis, a polling firm with Democratic clients, and American Viewpoint, a polling firm with Republican clients between January 11 and January 13, 2011

From the poll:

The Consensus -- Public Support for the Plan to Fix Gun Checks•Americans overwhelmingly believe that criminals, drug abusers, and the mentally ill should not have access to guns: 9 out of 10 Americans and 9 out of 10 gun owners support fixing gaps in the background check databases that are meant to stop dangerous people from getting their hands on guns.
•Americans overwhelmingly believe that more needs to be done to ensure records in the background check system are complete: 89% of Americans and 89% of gun owners support full funding of the post-Virginia Tech law designed to put more records in the background check database.
•Americans overwhelmingly believe it’s time to close the loopholes that let people buy guns with no background check: 86% of Americans and 81% of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter who they buy it from.

[Hoyt]

60. Of course, the results aren't to your liking so it must be flawed.

[rl6214]

82. Nope, didn't say that at all

Just said I think their needs to be a little more than 2 days of polling.

[cleanhippie]

16. Did I miss what "the plan" was? I'm all for background checks.

In fact, here in Washington, to obtain a CPL, you get a background check, then one can purchase a gun anytime with your CPL as proof of having had the background check.


I think most of us 2A supporters are FOR background checks, but what exactly is this "plan"?

[RSillsbee]

46. Same old bullshit they're pushing under the 'Gunshow Loop hole"

Private sale ban

[cleanhippie]

48. Ahh, new package, same shit. Why do they never learn?

How many elections have to be lost before they get it?

[PavePusher]

69. I have to wonder how you "fix" the background checks....

to catch someone who isn't in the system.

Seems even the most brilliant doctors can have their little moments of Teh Stoooped(tm).

[-..__...]

75. As a doctor...

I wonder how Rhee feels about maintaining and protecting patient confidentiality?

Should voluntary mental health evaluations and treatment be included in the NICs database as well?

If his desire is to improve the current background check system, the he better be prepared to make a few concessions himself.

[Common Sense Party]

78. "they don't have gunshot wounds in Europe"

Is that right?

* Two U.S. airmen shot and killed at Frankfurt airport
* Two men killed at a Traveler's camp in England
* Man and woman shot in the head, murdered in a flat in Northern Ireland
* Retired plumber goes on a shooting spree in southern France, killing 3

Amazing how there are NO gunshot wounds to be treated in Europe.