“Predicting who will commit a violent act with a gun is impossible, but it is possible to reduce the firearms deaths by ‘stratifying’ people based on risk factors and disqualifying certain populations from having them.” – Dr. Christopher Barsotti, quoted in Physicians Support Proposed Gun Legislation [via vtdigger.org]
“The world will be a safer place, if we forbid minor, non-white males with previous felony convictions from purchasing firearms.” – Every Gun-Grabber.
If that is supposed to be sarcasm you have failed.
You had me until “with felony convictions”. While non-violent felons may petition for renewal or 2A rights, FELONY is a disqualifier regardless of race.
FAIL
Where is it legal for a minor to purchase a gun? Federal law says that someone under the age of 21 may not purchase a handgun from an FFL (18 from private party).
If this isn’t working clearly we need to make it illegaler.
“The world will be a safer place, if we forbid minor, non-white males with previous felony convictions from purchasing firearms.” Sounds like a Bloomberg thought.
Shouldn’t he be wearing a pointy white had and white robes? Like kapo bloomberg.
Honestly, I think he probably thought he was referring to young white males when he wrote that sentence, and it’s “impossible” to be racist against white people. And “everyone knows” young white males are the serial killers, school shooters, mass-murderers.
Still, the train of thought (Disqualifying someone from the ability to protect his self, family and livelihood on the basis of demographic qualifiers) is horrifying no matter to whom he thought he was referring.
This makes sense if you are a collectivist authoritarian. For them, the lives of individuals have no value. The philosophical differences between collectivists and individualists (in the current context, Progressives vs. Americans) are fundamentally incompatible.
“Through counter-intelligence it should be possible to pinpoint potential trouble-makers and neutralize them…”
https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/mlk-document-friday-through-counter-intelligence-it-should-be-possible-to-pinpoint-potential-trouble-makers-and-neutralize-them/
“Sen. Claire Ayer, D-Addison, asked Barsotti to respond to the argument put forward by gun rights advocates that prohibited persons would not obey a background check law and would still obtain a firearm illegally.
“I’d like to see the data that would suggest that they would do that, because I don’t think that exists…it’s conjecture,” he said.”
Really? A.L. Right off the top of my head.
I’m not sure if the word I’m looking for is ignorance or arrogance, but I’m not sure that either truly explains how someone could respond like that.
Beyond the pale.
“I’d like to see the data that would suggest that they would do that, because I don’t think that exists…it’s conjecture,” he said.”
Nothing short of…
Stunning.
And … What nirvana has he been living in? Talk about sheltered…
“I’d like to see the data that would suggest that [felons] would [acquire firearms illegally without a background check], because I don’t think that exists…it’s conjecture …”
Sure the data exists jackass. Violent criminal attackers used firearms to murder about 8,000 people in the United States last year … and most of those attackers were felons which means they illegally acquired their firearms. Sheesh!
The data have existed for decades. Here’s a very insightful survey of incarcerated felons, from 1985 (i.e. pre-Brady) that shows that, even back then, only 16% of criminals purchased their firearms from a retail outlet:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Photocopy/97099NCJRS.pdf
(See page 36)
Theft (all): 32%
Purchase (family/friends/street): 28%
Borrow/Trade/Gift (all): 24%
Purchase (retail): 16%
So, 84% of firearms were obtained by criminals through non-BGC means, even before the Brady BGCs went into effect (1993).
This report from 2002 shows approximately the same numbers:
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
Uh, Chicago?
The anti’s hatred of the 2nd is so strong they’re willing and eager to mark everyone they can with a yellow star just to limit the number who can partake.
Of course the same people who say you’re too sad, too happy, too poor, too rich, too black, too female to own a gun are all too happy to round you up onto a bus to hit the polls and pull D every two years.
Politicians: taking your liberty everyday and you love them for it.
we need to stratify doctors too and take away the licenses of those most likely to commit malpractice.
+1
That might actually be a good idea. Now with ACA you can monitor physician performance and that makes it possible to pull the license from doctors who kill to many patients.
What about docs who provide palliative or end of life care? They tend to lose all their patients. Or surgeons who only work on the most difficult problems?
Point taken.
But his own words test logic: “…it is possible to reduce the firearms deaths by ‘stratifying’ people based on risk factors and disqualifying certain populations from having them.”
Practice what you preach, Dr. Barsotti. He wants to “stratify” gun owners based on risk factors related to death, then how about he leads the charge by applying the same kind of blanket risk factor restrictions to his own colleagues.
And I don’t hear Barsotti advocating taking into account any mitigating “risk factors” that might affect certain gun owners, such as those living in high crime or remote rural areas where a firearm is a particularly necessary for self protection. In fact my take is he would specifically exclude those living in high crime urban areas.
I would suggest he apply the same logic to his own profession; ‘…it is possible to reduce the patient deaths by ‘stratifying’ doctors based on risk factors and disqualifying certain physicians from practicing.’ Alas, too bad for those ‘high risk’ patients…’if it saves just one child’.
Good for the goose, good for the gander!
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread914624/pg1
Again with the God Complex, huh, Doc?
We cannot predict who will have a wreck, harming themselves and multiple innocent others. So if we just take all the cars off the road the world will be a safer place. See I personally don’t drive anywhere. I have a private professional driver take me everywhere if I can’t fly my helicopter or jet there. I believe every citizen needs to do the same to be safer. – Liberal Logic
” disqualifying certain populations from having them.” If you are going to be racist, man up and say what you mean, don’t be a coward. At least have the courage of conviction for your stance.
Because, pre-crime… and guns!
There’s a tangential comparison with an unconstitutional governmental “Prior Restraint” (censorship) being applied to speech/print and the “Chilling Affect” of some governmental actions to discourage exercising ones constitutional free speech rights?
It may not be as readily apparent, but I believe there is a parallel with the freedom of speech “Prior Restraint” doctrine and the suppression of 2A “arms” protections.
The “chilling affect” doctrine of dissuading the exercise of the constitutional right of expression has a related parallel in the gun rights arena. There is a similar ‘chilling affect’ on exercising ones 2A freedom to acquire a firearm without fear of government legal repercussions, particularly with the byzantine labyrinth of gun laws that exist in some states.
Exactly, we see it in action right here, every time the subject of OC comes up.
Let me guess, he is proposing that we bring back Phrenology or some other equally effective way to judge a man for something he might do in the future. Gattaca? Minority Report? Soviet Union used to lock people up in insane asylums because they said criticizing the government was a mental illness. Geez, this world has gone nuts…again.
“Let me guess, he is proposing that we bring back Phrenology or some other equally effective way to judge a man for something he might do in the future. Gattaca? Minority Report? Soviet Union used to lock people up in insane asylums because they said criticizing the government was a mental illness. Geez, this world has gone nuts…again.”
We only have to go into America’s past to see he is proposing is something on the same level of evil nonsense like Eugenics. Take a listen at this, starting at 25:02 :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79LLhJyWSEg
“When Louie was in his early teens, an event in Torrance brought reality home. A kid from Louie’s neighborhood was deemed “feebleminded”, institutionalized, and barely saved from forced sterilization by frantic legal effort by his parents, funded by their Torrance neighbors. Tutored by Louie’s siblings, the boy earned straight A’s”.
How is he proposing anything different, just deprivation of human rights based on pseudoscience.
Why wouldn’t this guy be an expert in firearms? After all, he must see dozens of people shot everyday in Bennington, Vermont. /sarc
Sounds like another medical movement started in the US called eugenics. As I recall it became very popular in Germany in the second half of the 1930s.
Besides, I thought we already had a systematic method of removing rights from minorities, it’s called the justice system.
I was going to say, the medical profession did lead the way for eugenics back in the 30s. Immigrants, minorities and poorer people didn’t do so well.
Keep in mind, this guy lives in Bennington, VT, and is a doctor. The white to minority ratio is about 98% white in an average VT town. It’s real easy to rant about stuff you don’t understand when there are no repercussions. If he did this in Alabama, liberals from NY or Chicago would call him a racist redneck.
Exactly. Do these people ever even listen to themselves? Do they not have any knowledge of history?
Holy Cow
Maybe there is reincarnation, or channeling….
Besides, I thought we already had a systematic method of removing rights from minorities, it’s called the justice system.
WIN! That’s the way to deal with the progbots, Fred. Baste them in some of their own sauce.
Or maybe we could “stratify” who gets to exercise their First Amendment Rights while were at it.
Or perhaps we could “stratify” who gets to drive automobiles, based on their perceived potential to cause an accident in the future, as FAR more people die from automobile accidents than firearms.
At what point along the line do we realize that we have only traded our freedoms for an illusion?
“Those who would give up liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty not security.” – Benjamin Franklin
These guys are a broken record when it comes to taking away your rights. I’ll make this analogy again because it is relevant and appropriate as it shows the MO that is being used in an attempt to weaken and reduce our rights. Pushing for mandatory vaccines this same industry admits that while it is impossible to predict which individuals will experience adverse reactions to vaccines and suffer brain damage and even death, it is for the better of the collective because vaccines can reduce (herd immunity theory) infectious disease rates. Same argument.
That’s a very important distinction because people stick to what they know. In the case of medicine there is a process to treat epidemics and outbreaks. The problem here comes about when the medical community applies medical procedure to a problem that is not medical. While there is a medical result to the use of firearms it’s not a medical problem. They are trying to remove the “disease” from the herd, that being guns. Also, some buy into the falsehood that an expert in one area is an expert in all areas; just because you’re a doctor doesn’t mean you know anything about cars, cooking, guns, or crime. There is some arrogance in thinking taking medical procedure 1:1 in another area is the answer.
Take it a step further, people with medical degrees are not experts in biochemistry or even pharmacology. Both arguments are false as they are trying to be used to restrict individual freedom based on very questionable theories.
I’m fairly certain if we put everyone in little white padded rooms with the instructions to throw the key out the window once you are in and locked, no one will get hurt, but what’s the point.
Right, is this stratification based on the same science that told us to avoid saccharin, cholesterol, and now is changing the recommendation for peanut allergies (now: giving kids a small amount of peanuts before 12 months reduces the risk of allergies later on). Or is this stratification the same one we have been doing for over 150 years: forbid poor minorities from exercising their self defense rights?
I am sure there are double blind randomized controlled clinical trials to back this advice up, right? Not those ecological studies that have been so wrong before?
So if they can’t predict who will engage in violence using a gun, on what basis will they arrive at such a stratification of the population? That doesn’t even make sense.
This tactic is known as prior restraint, which (IANAL) I’m fairly certain has been, as a matter of settled constitutional case law, determined to be utterly unconstitutional.
Yeah, but there are some people who continue to advocate it, as well as ignoring other things in the constitution which would restrict their own search for power and control over others.
Oh, the author of that story?
“Morgan True is VTDigger’s health care reporter. A Seattle native, he graduated from Boston University with a Bachelor of Science in Journalism before working for several publications in Massachusetts.”
A Seattle native, then Massachusetts.
This is my surprised face…
How does the good doctor propose we “stratify” society…
Race? Sexual origination? Gender? Religion? Social class?
I wonder what category well-to-do, proper, white folk like himself fall into.
This is a continuation of or attempt to validate Bloomberg’s argument that we need to take away the rights of young male minorities. Of course the good doctor has never heard of the justice system that ensures no young male in a minority group goes without a felony and is completely ignorant of the fact people can illegally obtain guns. That is if we believe this is an independently obtained argument. More likely he’s just reading from a script.
And some little short fart is paying him to do it.
Translation: I am a wealthy, arrogant motherf$&%er who has knowledge that transcends my (possibly) legitimate expertise. In this, I judge gun owners as fundamentally ignorant because I have treated gunshot wounds. Further, my ignorance regarding gun ownership is irrelevant because I’m a big deal. People know me….
Sure does come off that way, at same time most MDs I know are somewhat humble if you can believe it. It’s very likely the AMA is being used as puppets are often used to exploit the publics positive perception of doctors to give the anti gun rhetoric more credibility. How medicine retains such high credibility while being full of corruption and being pharmaceutical lackeys is mind boggling, but maybe you can attribute it to the plethora of tv shows over the decades painting positive images of this profession.
As a doctor and a person of the gun I think I can answer this. The AMA does NOT represent what most doctors believe or advocate. Most (perhaps I am being generous, but observer bias) doctors are humble, but the loudmouths will get all the press. I try to do the best for my patients, whether they are 90 year olds with multiple diseases and early dementia or 18 year olds with a cough. I do not preach or expect them to follow my advice slavishly, although I do think it is foolish for them to pay for a consultant and then ignore what they get.
I am a firm believer in the Dunning Kruger effect. I have learned enough to know that I cannot know everything, and I also understand Robert Conquest’s First Law. Leftists are conservative about nothing, because they know nothing.
“Common sense will tell us that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all
others the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of
friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at last cheated into
slavery…. Wherefore, if we must here-after protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves?
Why do it for another?” ( Paine Common Sense pg. 47)
Has this “Dr.” taken a penny of foreign money to overthrow our Constitution???
Barsotti is a functional idiot and suffers from allusions of grandeur. He seemed to miss the fact that May went into FSU library with a stolen gun and shot the place up. He was mentally ill. That is also the last campus Ted Bundy went on a rampage on. This guy is on Pluto and funded by Bloomer.
Well- since a surprising number of the active shooters have been progressive liberal types, than it would make sense to prohibit them from owning firearms- and doctors, all doctors who advocate for the banning of firearm ownership should be banned from owning firearms.
Actually, it seems to me “common sense” that ANYONE advocating more gun control of any kind should be added to the NICS database instantly, becoming prohibited persons as well, go to prison if they ever handle a gun. I mean, supposedly they would LIKE that, right?
“Predicting who will commit a violent act with a gun is impossible, but it is possible to reduce the firearms deaths by ‘stratifying’ people based on risk factors and disqualifying certain populations from having them.” – Dr. Christopher Barsotti
And gun grabbers say that we are paranoid. Of course there is almost always a tiny kernel of truth in every statement. I freely admit to being paranoid that gun grabbers want to exercise their will over me (which is fundamentally repugnant) because of statements from the likes of Mr. Barsotti. And yet am I actually “paranoid” if my “paranoia” is based on reality?
So lets give the guy the benefit of the doubt for a moment. Dr, how would you identify the people who are prohibited from having weapons? Perhaps they could wear something on their clothes to identify them. A gold star, maybe?
“Predicting which doctor will commit a malpractice death incident is impossible, but it is possible to reduce malpractice risks by ‘stratifying’ doctors people based on risk factors and disqualifying certain doctors from practice.”
Pretty typical of the modern ‘progressive’. Use any excuse you can to get a point across. And rights? Who cares! We can decide what rights are….
By “disqualifying certain populations from having them.” – As demonstrated by the Nazis, Communists in the USSR and China, N Korea and Cambodia, to name a few. Works perfectly, if you’re not in the “certain population”.
Doctors without sense…my doctor is an Iraq War vet(who has treated lots of gunshot wounds). He likes guns…
Never forget! Every sweeping gun law from the Black Codes to the Sullivan Law to the Marxist decrees has had the intent of disarming “those people” and keeping the favored and “reliable” well-armed.
Ray
He’s correct – we’d all be safer if fewer government stooges were allowed to carry guns.
My recommendation would be Secret Service and FBI, obviously military. All others turn in your issued guns, and you are prohibited from carrying a gun on duty. Particularly ATF and IRS.
First off, we don’t need the SS (the President is no more important than any other American) and there’s nothing that the FBI does that can’t be handled by state / city police. The military needs to be cut to maybe 25% of it’s current staffing as well. Remember, the only reason for a standing army in a time of peace is to use it against the people – nor is it moral for us to keep waging endless wars of aggression because other countries dare to think that they should be allowed to choose their own laws and religions.
Great idea, doc! Could we do something similar with that pesky right to vote while we’re at it?!?
Naw, he’ll be too busy, if he’s honest, working to reduce those hundred thousand annual deaths from medical mistakes his profession is responsible for.
I’m OK mandating reporting to NICS those who’ve been adjudicated a mental defective or addict. I know, I know, abuses are possible. Fix the system and make it work. Ignoring the problem is not a viable option. Beyond that, the rest of this bill is pure gun grab and my only compromise would be to offer them the option of which cheek they prefer to kiss.
Brings up an interesting question. Are we saying people adjudged in a court of law to be mentally defective to the point of being a danger to themselves or others are currently NOT reported to NICS? Because I find that unbelievable.
Doctors could save as many as 50,000 people a year from death and serious illness simply by not spreading infections and disease from patient to patient. Until they do, they should STFU about something they know nothing about. Come to think of it, that would include washing their damn hands.
Did you guys actually link over there and read that article?? amazing nonsense – your civil rights granted to you by – “doctors”
http://vtdigger.org/2015/02/20/physicians-support-proposed-gun-legislation/
Yeah well if the pharmaceutical companies get their way, doctors will determine who has civil rights where vaccines are concerned.
And the good Dr. Barsotti reveals himself to be the kind of bloody minded totalitarian that is cheered on my fascists and Stalinists everywhere. It always fascinates me how people, even those who are supposedly well educated and should know better, become so fixated on single issues like gun-control that they so quickly abandon fundamental elements of freedom and liberty. What’s so amazing about this guy is that he and his buddies sat around and discussed this stuff for quite some time, carefully developing and honing these completely dumb ideas—until they were ready to have a press conference!
I’m going to take a break from working on clinical validation of ECG systems and toss in my perspective here. Since I’m wearing my clinical hat today, I’ll take it from that perspective. Forgive me for speaking to him in his language…
First, you’re making a common clinical mistake. Treating the presentation rather than the underlying etiology. We learned the danger of that back when I was doing cardiac drug trials. Give the patient anti-arrhythmics to make the arrhythmia go away and the V-tach and V-fib goes away. Sounds good until the CAST study (in which I was also involved) proved that not only were we ineffective by only treating the symptom, but we were exacerbating the problem by causing proarrhythmic deaths. This is repeated over and over in medicine. For long term efficacy, you need to treat the cause. Guns are merely a mechanism of violence, not a cause of violence. In your demographic guns are a major mechanism – a presentation, but only at about a 50% level. Considering the high number of other presentations, there is no reason to presume that removing the guns will reduce mortality and every reason to believe that mortality will change presentation.
Now, you talk about preventative intervention in removing guns from those with high risk factors. Prophylaxis is a valid means of intervention, however correct use is typically a mitigation of the risk factors. Based upon your criteria, a case could be made for prophylactic appendectomy for the general population. Should we also do preventative CABG based simply on risk factors and not as a treatment of documented CAD?
Again, if you want to treat gun violence, it is necessary to focus on the underlying etiology – violence rather than the presentation. That is simply a matter of good clinical practice. What studies have been conducted to review the cause of the underlying violence? What would be the appropriate intervention to address those causes? Rather what ethical methods are available for intervention? There are many unethical methods. Those are no more acceptable gun prohibitions with regard to violating patient rights.
Second, with regard to self inflicted injury and suicide, there is certainly precedent of restricting an individual’s rights or freedom due to a clear and present danger of self injury. However, this is always within a framework of due process. More important, such intervention is always made in the context of treatment with the objective being the restoration of the restricted freedom or rights. Follow-up must be mandatory in that regard. If the clinical presentation no longer indicates the risk, then the gun right should be immediately restored with their other liberties. There is no ethical clinical indication for a multi-year waiting period, as is often imposed for mental health issues.
With regard to the recommendation of extended background checks, the research presented notes that there is no indication of the extent of effect of the intervention. Particularly important, as in all medical treatment, is compliance. Interventional policy without sufficient evidence of efficacy is not sound medicine. Since several states have implemented the checks proposed the appropriate studies should be possible. Indeed, in Illinois where background checks for all sales is a recent implementation, this check is recent enough that a prospective study should be able to be developed to test the effectiveness of the checks against recent historical data. Epidemiological data should also be sufficiently available to assess compliance as a subcomponent of such a study. Data should also be collected to determine the scope of such checks that would be most appropriate. I.e. gun type, age, race and income of purchaser, residence, social history, etc. It is entirely possible that the data would indicate intervention needed in only specific demographics. In such case, there is no need to create an undue burden for the populace at large and restrict the checks to those high risk cohorts.
To close, one must serious consider the degree of burden the proposed intervention presents. Excluding the suicide where the patient is under active care with the endpoint of restoration of rights as suggested above, homicide by gun accounts for only 0.43% of death in the United States according to 2013 CDC data. For such a small demographic it is necessary to question the justification for a large social engineering program that will negatively impact between 37-44% of of households according to recent studies by Pew and Gallup, respectively.
Note: one limitation of this analysis to be considered is that it focuses on mortality and does not take into account non-fatal injury. Another limiting factor is that the data discussed includes all gun fatality. It does not, for example, distinguish between legal homicide (self-defense) and illegal murder. This may skew the interpretation of the data.
(Ok… I’ve vented my frustration. These types of medical opinions – misrepresenting under color of authority – really honk me off. I’m not an M.D., but I am a part of the field and involved in research and this crap makes all of us look bad. I’ll have to see if this will be allowed on the original newspaper site…)
Ok… just checked. It passed the moderator on the original site!
What kind of replies are you getting to it? 🙂
Not a word. And that doesn’t surprise me in the least.
I made an effort to write clinically and to avoid any personal attacks. Progd generally get rather quiet when that happens. They don’t seem to know what to do. 🙂
“Predicting who will incite a violent act with speech is impossible, but it is possible to reduce the freedom to do so by ‘stratifying’ people based on risk factors and disqualifying certain populations from speaking.”
Comments are closed.