This whole thing is about government control. Too much government control. I could see a shrink asking these questions if they have a patient that is mentally unstable and a risk to be violent. That may help stop the senseless shooting spree's like the ones happening all over the country. I think people that commit these crimes are indeed of a diminished mental capacity. But these are not questions to be asked by a general practitioner.
Doctors target gun violence as a social disease
- Thread starter Don H
- Start date
Silver Bullet
New member
You enlist his help, it's the only reasonable choice in the situation you described. You just do what you can when you can. You don't have to be martyr for the cause to contribute to the cause.
spacecoast
New member
Unbelievably stupid language in that original story -
Uh huh, this guy is a crackpot and ought to be called out on his inflammatory rhetoric. Another Johns Hopkins genius (or maybe infection would be a better word).
Citing their own statistics, I find it remarkable that in a nation of up to 300 million guns, only 9% of all violent crimes involve a gun. I guess they didn't think it worthy to point out that the overwhelming majority of gun owners have zero propensity to commit violent crimes.
Uh huh, this guy is a crackpot and ought to be called out on his inflammatory rhetoric. Another Johns Hopkins genius (or maybe infection would be a better word).
Citing their own statistics, I find it remarkable that in a nation of up to 300 million guns, only 9% of all violent crimes involve a gun. I guess they didn't think it worthy to point out that the overwhelming majority of gun owners have zero propensity to commit violent crimes.
oneounceload
Moderator
Two of the biggest pushers of this are the AMA and the CDC - both well-noted for their anti-gun agenda
And if you really want to be shocked read the statistics from the U.S. Dept. of Health and the National Academy of Sciences on how many people are injured and killed by medical stupidity in this country every year at a cost of 17 to 19 billion dollars. They don't have ANY room to talk about firearm fatalities.
This anti-gun tactic was first tried and enthusiastically supported by (Assault weapon ban) clinton.
My suggestion to the doctors would be "physician heal thyself".
Stats from trial lawyers indicate doctors could SAVE FAR MORE LIVES by helping the profession to rid itself of bad doctors than they can by ridding US of guns. Do they consider BAD DOCTORS a health risk? Probably not, but I do!
My suggestion to the doctors would be "physician heal thyself".
Stats from trial lawyers indicate doctors could SAVE FAR MORE LIVES by helping the profession to rid itself of bad doctors than they can by ridding US of guns. Do they consider BAD DOCTORS a health risk? Probably not, but I do!
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The late Ann Landers once wrote, "Remember, fifty percent of the doctors graduated in the bottom half of their class."
Corollary: And I'm sure the entire bottom fifty percent ALL found their way into the VA (alleged) healthcare system.
Corollary: And I'm sure the entire bottom fifty percent ALL found their way into the VA (alleged) healthcare system.
So gun ownership becomes a "social disease" now?
I thought that's what we used to call a sexually-transmitted disease.
Letting doctors dictate social policy on firearms makes as much sense as letting lawyers perform brain surgery.
Perhaps doctors who think we are having an "epidemic" of crime will step forward and volunteer their time & services to get people off drugs or alcohol, work with poor families to maintain nutrition of their children, etc. I won't hold my breath, though.
I thought that's what we used to call a sexually-transmitted disease.
Letting doctors dictate social policy on firearms makes as much sense as letting lawyers perform brain surgery.
Perhaps doctors who think we are having an "epidemic" of crime will step forward and volunteer their time & services to get people off drugs or alcohol, work with poor families to maintain nutrition of their children, etc. I won't hold my breath, though.
Don H said:
I have to think I would respond ther same way I would if my Doc asked about my 2011 taxable income, or if my accountant asked if I'd had any bloody stools.
As to the matter of docs viewing instruments of violence as a social disease, I don't think have policy set or even heavily inflienced by people who are over-exposed to a specific danger is circumspect. Such people will nearly always lack perspective.
Ask a fireman if a schoolroom should be cooled by leaving a door open, ask an attorney if a young couple need a prenuptial, or ask ask a GI doc if you should have an annual colonoscopy, and you will likely receive a warning unmoderated by ordinary experience.
I had a lad in my office a month ago or so. He had a significant trust fund and a couple other assets, and was to be married in a few weeks. I told him why he should have an ante-nup agreement. He smiled dopily and assured me he didn't need one.
Thing is, he might be right. Most people don't need one, and I only see the people who regret not having gotten one. My foresight lacks a general perspective.
Docs have the same problem.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Nope, not the same problem. The perspective issue is much like when I once asked an orthodontist if my teeth needed braces, or when I asked a hand surgeon at the VA hospital if my hand needed surgery. In both instances I received the response one might expect from a specialist in the respective field.zukiphile said:
That's a very different issue from doctors, such as pediatricians, many/most of whom have never held or fired a gun and who know nothing abut them, asking questions about guns in the home and presuming to offer their (untrained, unqualified) advice about what to do with guns in the house. There's a huge distinction between tunnel vision, and boundary violation.
My my..
And the natives are already frothing at the mouth..
Me thinks if you took a poll, most doctors would NOT support this article. It appears obvious, at least to me, that the doctors quoted were cherry-picked. And that makes sense, the article was trying to make a point (right or wrong), not portray both sides of an issue. According to some surveys, approximately 1/3 of doctors own firearms (here). Which is the same as the national average quoted in the article.
I could probably find a few mechanics who believe that firearms in vehicles lead to more violent road-rage incidents. And then write a dandy article expounding on the "dangers of vehicle-gun violence." But it wouldn't make all mechanics gun-grabbers any more than it would doctors.
What I find (and have always found) disturbing is the term, "Gun Violence." Which is usually used in the wrong context, and seems to imply that "possessed" guns are walking around causing violence and mayhem. But mostly because it is bad grammar, and nothing bothers me more than someone elses bad grammar
PS:
That's like asking the Democrats for stats on the Republicans (or vice versa), or asking a hillbilly to judge gourmet dishes, what they say won't really mean anything. Between the bias and the ignorance, it's just pretty noise.
That's like comparing apples to eggplants. The two situations aren't even remotely comparable.
And the natives are already frothing at the mouth..
Me thinks if you took a poll, most doctors would NOT support this article. It appears obvious, at least to me, that the doctors quoted were cherry-picked. And that makes sense, the article was trying to make a point (right or wrong), not portray both sides of an issue. According to some surveys, approximately 1/3 of doctors own firearms (here). Which is the same as the national average quoted in the article.
I could probably find a few mechanics who believe that firearms in vehicles lead to more violent road-rage incidents. And then write a dandy article expounding on the "dangers of vehicle-gun violence." But it wouldn't make all mechanics gun-grabbers any more than it would doctors.
What I find (and have always found) disturbing is the term, "Gun Violence." Which is usually used in the wrong context, and seems to imply that "possessed" guns are walking around causing violence and mayhem. But mostly because it is bad grammar, and nothing bothers me more than someone elses bad grammar
PS:
That's like asking the Democrats for stats on the Republicans (or vice versa), or asking a hillbilly to judge gourmet dishes, what they say won't really mean anything. Between the bias and the ignorance, it's just pretty noise.
That's like comparing apples to eggplants. The two situations aren't even remotely comparable.
Focus on the rhetoric, but follow the money...
This idea has cropped up several times before, and likely will again. The concept that undesirable behavior is a disease has been with us for a long time. All that seems to change is the specific area of focus.
At one time, homosexuality was classified as a disease. A mental disorder. Today, that is not the case. One must wonder at what will, or will not be classified as a disease tomorrow.
Words like "disease" and "epidemic" are thrown around carelessly and without any sense of responsibility these days. Anything widespread is referred to as an epidemic. Anything deemed socially incorrect, a disease.
Personally, all I see is another attempt at a power grab by bureaucrats in lab coats and stethescopes. By making something a "disease" then it falls under their purview, and that means money.
The fact that there is an emotional connection with public safety (and therefore "health") is just grease for their skids.
We have an epidemic of obesity (leaving aside the fact that by changing their parameters on what is "obese", the epidemic is falsely created), we have an epidemic of gun violence. We have an epidemic of people claiming we have epidemics.
Follow the money. Money, prestige, influence and power, all will be increased to the followers of the cult of "gun violence epidemic" if this idea is allowed to firmly take root in the public conciousness.
And don't count on any of the "progressive" politicians standing in the way. This benefits them, as well.
Once again, we see the root idea that an inanimate object (in this case a gun) is capable of directing or controlling human behavior. We cannot be responsible, it must be something else that has caused this....
The real problem is not guns, nor the availability of guns, but that so many people are so willing to shoot other people.
We are a long way from the days when shooting someone for fun and profit got you (ultimately) hung, gassed, shot, or electrocuted, in a timely manner and on a regular basis. I know there are many, many other causes, but I cannot help but think that this might have something to do with the problem we face today.
This idea has cropped up several times before, and likely will again. The concept that undesirable behavior is a disease has been with us for a long time. All that seems to change is the specific area of focus.
At one time, homosexuality was classified as a disease. A mental disorder. Today, that is not the case. One must wonder at what will, or will not be classified as a disease tomorrow.
Words like "disease" and "epidemic" are thrown around carelessly and without any sense of responsibility these days. Anything widespread is referred to as an epidemic. Anything deemed socially incorrect, a disease.
Personally, all I see is another attempt at a power grab by bureaucrats in lab coats and stethescopes. By making something a "disease" then it falls under their purview, and that means money.
The fact that there is an emotional connection with public safety (and therefore "health") is just grease for their skids.
We have an epidemic of obesity (leaving aside the fact that by changing their parameters on what is "obese", the epidemic is falsely created), we have an epidemic of gun violence. We have an epidemic of people claiming we have epidemics.
Follow the money. Money, prestige, influence and power, all will be increased to the followers of the cult of "gun violence epidemic" if this idea is allowed to firmly take root in the public conciousness.
And don't count on any of the "progressive" politicians standing in the way. This benefits them, as well.
Once again, we see the root idea that an inanimate object (in this case a gun) is capable of directing or controlling human behavior. We cannot be responsible, it must be something else that has caused this....
The real problem is not guns, nor the availability of guns, but that so many people are so willing to shoot other people.
We are a long way from the days when shooting someone for fun and profit got you (ultimately) hung, gassed, shot, or electrocuted, in a timely manner and on a regular basis. I know there are many, many other causes, but I cannot help but think that this might have something to do with the problem we face today.
If the doctors really wanted to be truthful they would state that 99.99% of gun owners use firearms for legitimate purposes. That there was some type of criminal virus that effects only a very very small part of the population. Guys like these start with theory that would not withstand serious peer review. Some folks will beleive that if a Doctor or Scientist said it it must be true especially if the media says the study is right.
If it is like a virus pretty soon the folks on Stars earn stripes will contract it and start shooting each other up...not.
The anti gunners just want their 15 minutes of fame.
If it is like a virus pretty soon the folks on Stars earn stripes will contract it and start shooting each other up...not.
The anti gunners just want their 15 minutes of fame.
Silver Bullet
New member
If you don't have a valid argument, you don't want to be truthful.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
If all they wanted was a soapbox, it wouldn't be a problem. Just let the doc say his/her piece, ignore it, and move on.Eghad said:
The potential problem is if/when firearms ownership becomes a part of medical records, thus creating a firearms quasi-registry. It is well-known and well-documented that in the very near future all medical records are going to be electronic. And, especially with Obamacare, it is reasonable to expect that the government is going to be demanding -- and getting -- more access to personal health records. Once the Federal government has access to your health records, there is no control over and no limit to what departments and agencies may have access to your personal information.