pageok
pageok
pageok
Hurray for Jim and Sarah Brady:

In a Friday interview with the Washington Post, Jim and Sarah Brady state: "In the first place, lets make it clear we don't want restrictions on law abiding citizens beyond making sure that all gun purchasers undergo a complete and comprehensive background check." (Although they do still support local bans on all firearms if "a locality has voted it in themselves", and state or national bans on firearms which they claim are weapons of war.)

The Brady interview marks, apparently, a repudiation of many proposals which the Brady Campaign (formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc., and before that known as the National Committee to Control Handguns) has previously advocated. Such now-repudiated proposals include:

The "Brady II" proposal from 1994 declaring that ownership of a certain number of guns or gun parts or ammunition constitutes an "arsenal" which should require special licensing and subject the owner to warrantless home inspections.

Mrs. Brady's 1993 advocacy of a "needs-based" licensing system, in which police could deny a prospective gun purchase under the theory that the buyer does not "need" the gun.

So-called "safe storage" laws enacted in several states and cities, thanks to effective lobbying from the Brady Campaign, requiring that guns be locked up, and, in many cases, inaccessible for emergency self-defense. Legislatures which enacted these laws should be informed that the Brady Campaign, although formerly supportive of such laws, no longer supports them.

"One-gun a month laws." Repealed in South Carolina, but still in effect in Maryland, California, and Virginia, as a direct result of Brady Campaign lobbying. With the Brady Campaign now repudiating gun rationing, these laws should be repealed.

Perhaps the Brady Campaign will withdraw from membership in IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms) which promotes many extreme gun laws which go far beyond the Brady objective of comprehensive background checks; such laws include banning all handguns, banning all long guns which can shoot over 100 meters (that is, almost all rifles), banning all self-loading guns (the Brady Campaign has long insisted that only some self-loading guns should be considered "assault weapons"), and prohibiting gun ownership for self-defense.

If the Brady Campaign takes action to give meaning to its leaders' declarations in the Washington Post, the Campaign will deserve respect from all sides of the gun debate for supporting reform of overly restrictive laws which the Campaign now, apparently, acknowledges were mistakes.

jgshapiro (mail):

Legislatures which enacted these laws should be informed that the Brady Campaign, although formerly supportive of such laws, no longer supports them

With the Brady Campaign now repudiating gun rationing, these laws should be repealed.

I don't get this argument. Is it supposed to be some kind of reverse argument from authority? What difference does it make whether the Bradys still support these laws or not? If they are a good idea (which they are), they remain so regardless of who in particular supports them.

Kopel's logic appears to be the same logic that posits that since Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) now opposes abortion rights, the Supreme Court should reconsider Roe. Maybe it should, but not for this reason. Like the Bradys, she was just a face to an issue and is barely associated with it today. The issue of gun violence, and the possible ways to address it, is far more significant than the views on any given day of a particular poster child from 25 years ago.

Here's an easy thought experiment: If these laws were repealed and Jim Brady later changed his mind again, would Kopel be likely to then support re-enacting them? Unless you think the answer is yes, the absence of logic behind this post should be apparent.
4.1.2006 6:13am
jgshapiro (mail):
On a separate note, why all the gun posts today by Prof. Kopel? Is today gun rights day?

I suppose April Fools Day would be the ideal day for that . . .

Since guns seem to be the theme of the day, here's hoping I can salvage my bracket when Florida guns down GMU later today in Indy. Or should I say, when Florida pumps them full of lead?
4.1.2006 6:16am
Brett Bellmore (mail):
It's sarcasm, JG; The Bradys, as usual, are lying about the extent of the restrictions they support.
4.1.2006 7:34am
PersonFromPorlock:
Well, it might be irony. Who expects Washington Words and Washington Actions to correlate, anyway?
4.1.2006 8:48am
CEB:
Don't feel bad, jgshapiro; it took me a couple readings to realize the post was sarcastic. The title of the post should have tipped me off, not to mention the dateline. It's early, though.
Speaking of early, what is it with the VC'ers (VC'ors?) posting at the wee hours? Mr. Kopel posted at 1:30, 3:00, and 4:15 this morning.
4.1.2006 8:49am
AF:
Intentionally or not, you're obviously reading Brady's words much more broadly than they were intended. By your logic, the Brady's have abandoned their support for banning semi-automatic assault weapons and have, in fact, endorsed the legalization of machine guns.
4.1.2006 8:53am
AF:
And I realize the post is meant sarcastically. But for the sarcasm to have any bite, the premise of the post -- that the Brady's words mean what you say they mean -- has to be true. And it isn't. In informal speech the listener is presumed to be able to interpret the intended meaning of broad words from context.
4.1.2006 9:19am
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
Intentionally or not, you're obviously reading Brady's words much more broadly than they were intended. By your logic, the Brady's have abandoned their support for banning semi-automatic assault weapons and have, in fact, endorsed the legalization of machine guns.


You may want to reread the second sentence of the first paragraph which read: (Although they do still support local bans on all firearms if "a locality has voted it in themselves", and state or national bans on firearms which they claim are weapons of war.) (emphasis added).

Presumably semi-automatic "assault weapons" and machineguns are considered "weapons of war" by the Bradys.
4.1.2006 10:59am
Wally (mail) (www):
Yet another lame attempt to avoid a reasoned debate about enacting safe gun laws by attacking the player, rather than the football. I'm particularly fascinated by the above poster who states they are "lying" about the restrictions. It's the sort of pseudo-intellectual cheap shot I could pull by saying the NRA are trying to arm as many criminals as possible. It isn't true, but it effectively smears the other party and avoids addressing the substantive points. Only on the subject of gun control have I ever seen the brain switch off so quickly.
4.1.2006 11:30am
Wally (mail) (www):
Let's just look at the latest massacres and see where people's minds go: a lunatic blasts six people at a rave and the instant response is "should we outlaw raves?" because of the level of intimidation gun owners level at anyone and everyone who dare to say anything against their orthodoxy. It's a lot like the righteous anger we see in the muslim world today; ignorant, phony and deeply troubling. Is it about your middle-aged paunch and your feelings of impotence? Your ED?

Lawrence Woods walks into Denny's a week or so ago and murders people eating, and what troubles Kopel is the restrictions on guns and the apparent backpeddling of Sarah Brady.
4.1.2006 11:42am
t e (mail):
Good point Wally, I agree if we didn't have these restrictions here in California and we were like the other 40 states where people can lawfully carry concealed weapons, the chances of these Denny's style massacres would go way down.

Now all those folks eating their Moons over My Hammy (R) are just sitting ducks.
4.1.2006 11:46am
TomHynes (mail):
What does this sentence in the interview mean:

"We do not support gun bans unless a locality has voted it in themselves".

Isn't that the same as:

"We support using the democratic process to ban guns"?
4.1.2006 12:25pm
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
What does this sentence in the interview mean:

"We do not support gun bans unless a locality has voted it in themselves".

Isn't that the same as:

"We support using the democratic process to ban guns"?


That'd a fair reading. But, looking on the bright side, they would not support a gun ban voted in by a different locality. So if, say, Dallas voted to ban guns in Baltimore, and sent the Dallas PD there to confiscate firearms, the Bradys wouldn't feel bound to support the law. So that rules out a lot of gun bans. Living here in Tucson, I can't tell you how often I've worried that Salt Lake City might pass a resolution forbidding gun possession here. (grin).
4.1.2006 12:41pm
Fishbane (mail):
Somehow it feels as if a number of commentators today are autistic.
4.1.2006 1:14pm
AF:
Thorley-- Thanks for pointing that out; I did overlook that sentence. But it proves my point. As Kopel acknowledges, the Brady's statement that they don't want restrictions on law abiding citizens other than background checks was perfectly consistent with their later statement that they support bans on weapons of war. So why is it inconsistent with their continued support of other moderate gun control measures?
4.1.2006 1:49pm
Robert Lyman (mail):
This is just too cute:

Wally:
Yet another lame attempt to avoid a reasoned debate about enacting safe gun laws by attacking the player, rather than the football

Because ad hominem is wrong, right?

And Wally again:
It's a lot like the righteous anger we see in the muslim world today; ignorant, phony and deeply troubling. Is it about your middle-aged paunch and your feelings of impotence? Your ED?

Because gun-rights supporters = terrorists who can't get it up.
4.1.2006 2:05pm
Francis W. Porretto (mail) (www):
"If the Brady Campaign takes action to give meaning to its leaders' declarations in the Washington Post, the Campaign will deserve respect from all sides of the gun debate for supporting reform of overly restrictive laws which the Campaign now, apparently, acknowledges were mistakes."

The probability that a gun-control group actually means what it says is vanishingly small even when they're advocating a tightening of the laws. Gun control groups want to ban the private ownership of weapons; nothing less. Any retreat from a "hard" position to a more permissive one is tactical and temporary.

Do not trust persons who don't trust you with a gun.
4.1.2006 2:14pm
geekWithA.45 (mail) (www):
I don't buy it.

What they want is two fold:

First, to wrap themselves in a cloak of "reasonableness".

Second, even if we are to take what they say at face value, they are still advocating policies with sufficient wiggle room for institutional abuse in them that are the same as those that make life in New Jersey hell for gunowners.
4.1.2006 2:18pm
Robert Lyman (mail):
Re: wiggle room,

Yes, in fairness to the Bradys, I should note that Remington 700s, Beretta M-92s, and K-Bar knives are all currently deployed with our troops around the world. Camo pants with big pockets, too, or so reliable sources tell me.
4.1.2006 2:26pm
Anonymous Koward:
(Although they do still support local bans on all firearms if "a locality has voted it in themselves", and state or national bans on firearms which they claim are weapons of war.)

What if a locality decides to ignore a state or national ban?
4.1.2006 2:44pm
Anonymous Koward:
Yet another lame attempt to avoid a reasoned debate about enacting safe gun laws by attacking the player, rather than the football. I'm particularly fascinated by the above poster who states they are "lying" about the restrictions.

Bad analogy. In American football, part of the game is attacking other players.

What if the party in questions is lying? Is it wrong to point that out? Or are you just as "fascinated" at all those people who say that Bush is lying (or Clinton lied, depending on your political leanings)?
4.1.2006 3:07pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
They're just going to start messing with the definition of "law-abiding owners". We all know of certain political factions that believe people with contrary political beliefs are by definition mentally ill. Not surprisingly, these people are often gun rights advocates. Let slip the dogs of Catch-22 totalitarianism.......
4.1.2006 3:13pm
AppSocRes (mail):
I confess it took me a minute to realize that this post was dated April 1. It has in fact become SOP among inti-gun-nutters to lie about their true intentions since they've realized that they have little electoral support. Bravo for succesfully tricking so many people.
4.1.2006 6:57pm
Brett Bellmore (mail):
I say they're lying about the restrictions they support, because I *know* what sort of restrictions they have actually supported, and they far exceed the sort they *claim* in that statement that they support.

They start out by claiming to hold a facially reasonable position, that they "don't want restrictions on law abiding citizens beyond making sure that all gun purchasers undergo a complete and comprehensive background check.". And then, step by step back away from that position.

Oh, gosh, they DO support gun bans, if voted in locally. (And, though they don't say it there, are in favor of such votes.)

Oops, they also support bans of any guns somebody choses to call a "weapon of war", regardless of whether they really ARE weapons of war.

Oops, it seems that they actually support every single restriction on firearms ownership which has ever been enacted, no matter how restrictive.

At some point you have to realize that the initial claim to support lawful ownership of firearms IS a lie, because they're also in favor of laws which would render all such ownership unlawful.
4.1.2006 7:12pm
Hunkahillbilly (mail) (www):
Maybe they're turning their attention to a new pet-peave in light of the recent cell-phone assaults by people like Russell Crowe, Naomi Campell, and Cynthia Mckinney!
4.1.2006 7:24pm
Gordo:
Even more shocking than the Bradys' apparent conversion to sensibility on the gun issue is David Kopel's apparent conversion to sensibility. He, along with the Bradys, now supports comprehensive background checks to prevent convicted violent criminals and people with documented history of violent mental illness from purchasing firearms.

I'm glad Mr. Kopel has left the camp of the NRA and other 2nd amendment absolutists, who want to continue to let convicted violent criminals and people with documented history of violent mental illness from purchasing firearms.
4.1.2006 7:24pm
Mike BUSL07 (mail):
Off topic, but GMU is well on its way to losing =/ Oh well, great run while it lasted.
4.1.2006 7:36pm
Brooks Lyman (mail):
Gordo,

1) I think the dateline (April First - April Fool's Day) says it all on Dave's post....

2) The idea of instant (and comprehensive) record checks was, I believe, the NRA's, not the Brady's. The NRA certainly supports it, although they do not support any abuse of it to form a national gun registry, etc.

3) So Kopel hasn't "left the camp of the NRA," and while your language is a bit confused, the NRA does not and never has wanted to allow convicted criminals and people with a documented history of violent mental illness (or drug addicts and alcoholics) to purchase firearms. But the Brady Campaign and its friends say these sorts of lies because New York liberals and other people unfamiliar with "firearms culture" believe them and send money and ask their legislators to vote for gun control laws - laws that almost never reduce crime, and usually increase it. Sometimes makes you wonder if maybe the gun control people don't own stock in the Mafia....
4.1.2006 11:19pm
Gordo:
Don't worry, Brooks Lyman, I couldn't be serious to think that David Kopel would actually support a national background check system, now would I?

Or would I?

the NRA does not and never has wanted to allow convicted criminals and people with a documented history of violent mental illness (or drug addicts and alcoholics) to purchase firearms

How does the NRA propose to accomplish this objective without a national background check system? How does David Kopel (if he agrees with the NRA) propose to accomplish this objective?

And sorry for the tortured ending to my previous post, PIMF.
4.1.2006 11:41pm
eng:
Dave,

You will tell us that this is an April Fools joke right?
4.2.2006 1:45am
George W. Brady:
the NRA does not and never has wanted to allow convicted criminals and people with a documented history of violent mental illness (or drug addicts and alcoholics) to purchase firearms

How does the NRA propose to accomplish this objective without a national background check system? How does David Kopel (if he agrees with the NRA) propose to accomplish this objective?


The same way we plan to listen in on terrorist communications without wiretapping.

You're either for criminals getting guns, or or with us.
4.2.2006 11:01am
Robert Lyman (mail):
How does the NRA propose to accomplish this objective without a national background check system?

They don't, Gordo. The NRA supports the (now-existing) background-check system. Just as Brooks said.
4.2.2006 3:49pm
minuteman44 (mail):
Why can't those loony liberals understand that guns keep us safe? If we didn't have guns, we'd be at the mercy of armed criminals. That's why every American citizen should have one at all times. If some drug crazed gangster from the getto tries to attack me or my family, I'll blow his ass away. If he has a gun, I'd shoot him first. Its easy as that. But what if he has a knife? Guns beat knives every day of the week. Don't you think the Framers thought about that when they gave us a right to "bear arms." Its right there in the constittution. Note that its "bear arms," not "bare arms." How hard is that to understand?
4.2.2006 4:06pm
Wally (mail) (www):
Us loony liberals just seem to notice more estranged husbands shooting their wives than strangers killing strangers.
4.2.2006 7:19pm
Wally (mail) (www):
Gun control groups want to ban the private ownership of weapons; nothing less. Any retreat from a "hard" position to a more permissive one is tactical and temporary.
---------------------
The slippery slope...yawn...
4.2.2006 7:25pm
Brett Bellmore (mail):
You know, if the aim of self-defense was to kill people, you might actually have a point there, Wally.
4.2.2006 7:32pm
Wally (mail) (www):
Good point Wally, I agree if we didn't have these restrictions here in California and we were like the other 40 states where people can lawfully carry concealed weapons, the chances of these Denny's style massacres would go way down.
===================
You mean like in Georgia?
But regardless, there apparently was no reason for Barton to be denied the right to buy any gun. Even though Barton was a suspect in the Labor Day 1993 murders of his first wife, Deborah Spivey Barton, 36, and her mother, Eloise Powell Spivey, 59, the police were never able to amass enough evidence to indict him. Thus, with no criminal record, Barton should have had no problem legally buying a weapon; guns are as easy to get in Georgia as beer.

"He could have gone to a gun shop, he could have gone to a gun show, he could have gone to a flea market and bought a gun without even giving his name," said Lewis.

Further, Georgia has especially lax gun laws, permitting almost all non-felons to carry concealed weapons if they so choose, with little law enforcement say in the matter. It is not yet known if Barton had a concealed weapon license, but there is little reason to believe that he would have been denied such a license. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/07/30/atlanta/
4.2.2006 7:56pm
h0mi:
Us loony liberals just seem to notice more estranged husbands shooting their wives than strangers killing strangers.


According to the 2004 UCR data, wives were killed by their husbands 579 times, compared to 1827 strangers killing people.

UCR for 2004 table 2.11
4.2.2006 8:20pm
juris_imprudent (mail):

Thus, with no criminal record, Barton should have had no problem legally buying a weapon; guns are as easy to get in Georgia as beer.

Funny, how liberals - people supposedly embracing "liberty" - come so close to fascism when it comes to guns. Perhaps Wally, you would like to change the standard to guilty until proven innocent?

Funny too, how that I recall Barton bludgeoned his first victims (wife and children), he didn't shoot them. But if he hadn't been able to get a gun so easily, surely he wouldn't have bludgeoned them, right? Liberal logic, on guns, is just too bizarre.

Oh, and as for police having a say in who should have guns, perhaps you should consider this before you climb to far out on that particular limb.
4.2.2006 11:55pm
minuteman44 (mail):
Good point, juris imprudent. Liberals are fascists who want to take our guns away. Plus,if it wasn't for guns, more peopel would be blugeoned to death. Thats one way guns keep us safe.
4.3.2006 1:02pm
minuteman44 (mail):
Wally, please, spare me. How do you think my wife is going to shoot me when I have a gun too? Plus, hOmi proved to you way more people are shot by stangers than there wives. Thats why we need guns to keep us safe.
4.3.2006 1:07pm
dweeb:
Let me get this straight, Mr. Kopel - Jim and Sara Brady, political activists (i.e. amateur politicians) give an interview, and make nice, soothing statements claiming they don't want to do what their namesake organization has been trying to do for decades, and you're ready to bless them? Would you like to buy a bridge?

They read the political climate, realize that they need to soften their tone, and with one interview, everything is rosy? Gee, no one's EVER misrepresented their goals in politics, have they?

Excuse me if I'm a little skeptical of this 'conversion.'
Let's see them actively campaign to roll back some of the things they've pushed through, then it may be time to consider them sincere.
4.3.2006 1:38pm
Wally (mail) (www):
Facts &Statistics on Domestic Violence

The statistics regarding domestic violence are staggering:

* According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 2001, over 1,300 murders were committed by a spouse or intimate partners. These numbers equate to nearly four murders a day

* More women are injured by their partners than by rape, auto accidents and muggings combined!

* The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that intimate partners -- husbands, ex-husbands, and current and former boyfriends -- commit violent crimes against approximately 937,000 women every year.i

* Over 25% of women have been victims of violence perpetrated by an intimate partner in their lifetime.ii

* According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, homicide is the leading cause of death for women on the job, and 20% of those murders were at the hands of their partners
-safe work coalition
4.3.2006 1:49pm
Wally (mail) (www):
*
You are three times more likely to be attacked at home by a person you know than by a stranger. (Kellerman, A., New England Journal of Medicine, 1993)

* Criminals rely on the element of surprise.

* Two-thirds of all domestic violence fatalities in California involve firearms. (California Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Information Center, 1995)

* Only about one percent of all victims of violent crime used a gun to successfully defend themselves. (U.S. Department of Justice Reports, Yearly Average 1987-1992 by Handgun Control, Inc.)

* A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to be used in self-defense. (Kellerman, A., New England Journal of Medicine, 1993)

* Bringing a gun into your home increases the risk of homicide three times, and the risk of suicide increases five-fold. (Kellerman, A., New England Journal of Medicine, 1993)

* Guns are used in 65% of all family murders in this country. (Rosenberg, M.L., et al, Maxcy-Rosenau Public Health and Preventive Medicine)

* Even the most experienced gun owners can have their guns turned against them. For example, one out of 10 officers who are shot and killed in the line of duty are killed with their own service weapons.. (Kellerman, A., The Journal of Trauma,1992)

* Of all law enforcement officers slain from 1981 to 1990, 70% were killed by handguns. Eight out of 10 of the officer victims did not have the opportunity to discharge their weapons. (U.S. Department of Justice, 1992)
4.3.2006 1:50pm
minuteman44 (mail):
Wally, your statistics just proves my point! If anti gun nuts and liberal facsists like you would just let decent Americans have there constituttonal right to bear arms, none of these crimes would happen! Do you think anyone would be dumb enough to try to shoot someone if everybody had a gun? They'd have to be crazy. How many nuclear wars do you think happened between the USA and Russia? Plus, you never answered my point of what if a ciminal has a knife? Guns beat knives every day till Sunday. Thats one way guns keep us safe. But you probably woudn't know that because your "anti violence."
4.3.2006 3:24pm
AtackDuck:
Wally you lost ALL credibility when you use anything by Kellerman. That charlatan and his ignominous work have been so discredited only an idiot would suggest his work as a source. It is also curious that you seem to be picking data from the most advantageous years for your argument. Why don't you use current data?
4.3.2006 5:20pm
h0mi:
The 1 stat that jumps out at me is the fact that out of 14k murders which were reported to the UCR, details were unknown in nearly 45% of them.
4.3.2006 5:48pm
minuteman44 (mail):
Taking up on what AtackDuck said, I noticed that guy Kellerman your quoting was in the New England Journal of Medicine. Talks about quacks! What does a journal of "medicine" know about handguns? Like AtackDuck said, only an "idiot" would quote the New England Journal of Medicine. Also, just curious, why dont quote some recent statistics? Could it be because they would prove GUNS ARE MAKING US SAFER? Face it, Wally, its not guns that are dangerous, its the liberal facsists like you that want to make all guns illegal and just leave us with our "bare arms" to fight the terrorists.
4.3.2006 6:00pm
juris_imprudent (mail):
minuteman,

Kellermann's [funny how the gun control side can't even get his name right] research HAS been pretty thoroughly debunked.


What does a journal of "medicine" know about handguns?

Not much. Trauma specialists surely know quite a bit about gunshot wounds - but that hardly means they have a good understanding about the "social pathology" of gun violence. Gun violence is concentrated in certain social spheres - not the general gun owning population (let alone the 'typical' gun owner):
Gun ownership was highest among middle-aged,
college- educated people of rural small-town
America. Whites were substantially more likely to
own guns than blacks, and blacks more likely than
Hispanics.

I wouldn't go to a lawyer to fix the sights on my gun. I wouldn't go to a gunsmith if my back hurts. And I wouldn't go to a doctor for an expert opinion on gun laws.
4.3.2006 8:10pm
minuteman44 (mail):
juris imprudent,
my point exactly. If you want unbiased information about guns, why would anyone go to a medical journal? Of course doctors are biased, they see people gettting shot everyday! People should look at your website you linked instead. Whats more fair? A medical journal or a website that knows what its talking about --that guns are KEEPING US SAFER. Like Ataduck said, only a "idiot" would pick Kellermann or whatever over that website. Plus, I like your point about how liberals are fascists. Didnt HItler try to take peoples guns away too? I think theres a website about it.
4.4.2006 11:46am
Wally (mail) (www):
Wally, your statistics just proves my point! If anti gun nuts and liberal facsists
======================
The hysterical tone of this first sentence indicates you have no intention of engaging in a substantive debate. Consider yourself dismissed.
4.4.2006 2:55pm
Wally (mail) (www):
Wally you lost ALL credibility when you use anything by Kellerman. That charlatan and his ignominous work have been so discredited
==========================
You would have to have credibility in order for me to listen to anything you said, and this statement indicates your mind is closed. Is there even one of you who doesn't tout the party line?
4.4.2006 2:57pm
Wally (mail) (www):
I wouldn't go to a lawyer to fix the sights on my gun. I wouldn't go to a gunsmith if my back hurts. And I wouldn't go to a doctor for an expert opinion on gun laws.
=====================
ahhh...the appeal to authority fallacy. An argument is valid no matter where it is coming from, but in order to avoid debating the subject honestly, you guys avoid it be attacking ad hominem. It's typical of gun-freaks and thanks for wasting five minutes of my time that I will never get back trying to find ONE of you who have something intelligent to say.
4.4.2006 3:00pm
juris_imprudent (mail):

the appeal to authority fallacy

Indeed, Wally, that IS what you did. After all, if it was research by a doctor, published in the NEJM - well, then the rest of us ignorant hicks had just better hush up.

Oops, there's another 40 seconds or so of your precious life that just got wasted reading...
4.5.2006 12:31am