There's an editorial on the SunSpot.net server that discusses reducing gun violence. The focus is (surprise, surprise) on restricting access to guns. The author seems to think that a good way to do this is to treat firearms as a form of disease, and the police and public health officials should work together to restrict sales.
"(Baltimore City Health Commisioner) Dr. Beilenson, acting as he would in any situation affecting public health, such as a restaurant serving unsafe food, shut down a west-side hardware store caught selling ammunition illegally to youths. To reopen, the store had to prevent illegal sales or stop selling ammunition.
Just as environmental contaminants are best abated by treating their source, Baltimore cannot make significant and sustained reductions in gun violence without targeting it's sources."
This would indicate to me that the guys who shoot other people should be "treated". Treated to a stay in the local jail, I mean. But the author seems to think that viewing illegal gun possession and use as a crime will somehow keep criminals from getting guns. The only logical way to do this would be to abolish guns entirely.
This is the same tired mantra we've heard from the medical community for the past few years. The Centers for Disease Control first came up with the idea, that since criminal use fo firearms cause injury than all firearms should be banned. The reasoning behind this was that, since firearms obviously cause injury, then it fell within the responsibility of the medical profession to make policy decisions. This has always puzzled both criminologists and people involved in law enforcement, since they don't wander through emergency rooms and arrest doctors when they can't save a patient. But the absurdity of their position seems to be lost on those who embrace the idea that doctors know best!