Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:43 AM
SecularMotion (5,243 posts)
A Public Health Approach To Regulating Firearms As Consumer Products
It is indisputable that firearms are consumer products. In the United States, there are an estimated 192 million firearms in private hands. Broadly speaking, firearms can be divided into two categories: handguns and long guns. About sixty-five million of all civilian-owned firearms are handguns. More than one in three households have at least one firearm, and about one in four U.S. adults personally own one. In rural areas and certain regions of the country, ownership rates are still higher. Like other consumer products, firearms are manufactured by foreign and domestic corporations, then sold to consumers through a system of distributors and dealers. In 1998, about 1.2 million handguns were produced in the United States; 532,000 more were imported. Also like most consumer products, firearms are advertised in both specialized publications and mainstream media.
There are also important differences between firearms and other consumer products. Unlike nearly all other products commonly found in households, firearms are specifically designed to injure or kill. As a result, there were more than 32,000 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 1997, and approximately another 64,000 serious nonfatal injuries. In addition, more than 670,000 violent crimes were committed with firearms in 1998.
This special deadliness increases the need to regulate firearms. In the United States, however, we have failed to regulate firearms in the manner we regulate even less deadly consumer products. In particular, we have not implemented comprehensive product-based regulation of firearms, as we have effectively done for other consumer products, in order to reduce the incidence of firearm-related injuries.
As public health researchers and teachers, our reasons for arguing that consumer-product regulation of firearms is needed are neither philosophical nor ideological. Rather, they are based on our understanding of the potential benefits of gun regulation for the public's health.
2 replies, 708 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Response to Euphoria (Reply #1)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:24 PM
Macoy51 (239 posts)
2. Your Source is 13 Years Out of Date
“no federal court has ever struck down any gun law as violative of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has not directly addressed the Second Amendment since 1939”
Your source is 13 years old. In the intervening time, the Supreme Court has struck down several gun laws as violating the 2nd Amendment. Any back-door attempt to regulate them out of existence will meet a similar fate…..unless of course Obama gets to pick a few new judges.