The United States has been without a Surgeon General since July, 2013. The acting Surgeon General is Rear Admiral Boris Lushniak, Why is this position temporary? The Senate has refused to push through President Obama’s nominee for the position. While the Surgeon General cannot enact laws, this person can influence policy by discussion and is the national spokesperson for health related issues. Think back to comments from people serving in this position over smoking cigarettes, AIDS, and teen sex. Many folks just don’t want to have any discussion at all. This time, the NRA is leading the charge. Apparently, it fears any talk about gun violence or suicide. I can’t imagine a doctor worth his or her salt not talking about the importance of gun safety. Maybe we just won’t find a Surgeon General. Let’s examine what the problem seems to be, according to Billmoyers.com:
[T]he NRA has tried to bar pediatricians from counseling parents about the risks of keeping guns at home. The American Association of Pediatrics recommends that doctors begin to talk to parents about gun safety even before their baby is born and continue the conversation yearly, just as doctors talk to parents about the dangers of swimming pools and the importance of bicycle helmets. Florida passed a gag law in 2011; crafted by an NRA lobbyist, the bill forbids doctors from “making written inquiry or asking questions concerning the ownership of a firearm or ammunition by the patient or by a family member of the patient.” A district court ruled the following year that the law restricted physicians’ rights to free speech and the case is now in the appeals process. Murthy’s opposition to pediatrician gag laws was one of the reasons cited by the NRA and Rand Paul in their attempt to disqualify him.
When she ordered a permanent injunction against the Florida law in 2012, District Judge Marcia Cooke wrote that the law “in no way affects [Second Amendment] rights” and instead “aims to restrict a practitioner’s ability to provide truthful, non-misleading information to a patient.” The same can be said of the NRA’s objection to the Surgeon General nominee, who won’t be involved in crafting gun policy. The threat to the NRA is that the surgeon general will merely talk about gun violence, in fulfilling his or her duty to provide the public with “the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce their risk of illness and injury.” While the NRA’s political clout comes from its individual members, the group serves the agenda of gun industry. What’s really going on with Murthy’s confirmation is that an industry group is trying to keep the government from regulating its products. This isn’t a new battle: the tobacco industry fought it, as have many other industries with financial interests in evading health and safety regulations. “Most industries try to protect themselves — the less regulation the better, the less oversight the better. They want to pursue their sales,” said Hemenway. “I think it’s almost time for a surgeon general statement about guns, like we had with cigarettes and cancer, particularly about guns and suicide.” While the industry’s goals aren’t exceptional, its success at evading regulation is, said Kristen Rand, legislative director at the Violence Policy Center. “Guns are a consumer product. We’ve taken a public health approach to reducing product-related injury for every other product, from automobiles, to toys, to airplanes. Every product is regulated from a health and safety perspective with the goal of reducing accident and injury. The only exception is guns,” Rand said. Murthy’s assurance that he does not intend to use the surgeon general’s office “as a bully pulpit on gun control” failed to appease the NRA. Perhaps appeasement is the wrong tack. The only way to curb the gun industry’s outsized influence is if people like the surgeon general do talk about gun violence and advocate for more research and data, not less. “The surgeon general’s role is to educate the public about how to live healthier, safer lives and one of biggest injury-producing mechanisms in America today are guns. It’s obviously an area where he should be involved,” said Rand. “What the NRA fears is having someone with a bully pulpit who has solid information and is giving people the facts. The NRA fears information.”
Everything is regulated. Baby cribs, Big Wheels, Pet Food, drugs, medical equipment, pet drugs, automobiles, furnaces, all are regulated. Toy guns have to have warning labels if there is a projectile involved. Why can’t we discuss gun safety? Nominee Murthy has assured his critics that he has no intentions of attempting to influence legislation. Apparently that assurance isn’t good enough. His opinion isn’t wanted. Public health is all about a healthier America. Let’s see, we aren’t supposed to discuss gun safety, teen sex and pregnancy or birth control. Maybe we don’t need a Surgeon General at all. Let’s just go rudderless on this Ebola thing. Let’s see how that works out for us. There really is no leadership and the CDC is an advisory group. It has no real clout. So, what’s next? Frankly, I am not ready to deal with a pandemic–especially one that kills in such a horrifying way.
We can discuss gun safety.
Moyers is dishonestly leaving out a key element. Nothing prevents a doctor from discussing gun safety. They can hand out brochures, etc. What they cannot do is ask about guns in your home and then discuss YOUR guns. Why? Because a Florida doctor refused to accept a patient because they owned guns.
Furthermore, under what certification and training is a doctor authorized to dispense such advice?
My pediatrician has told me that he wouldn’t dream of giving advice on gun safety since he knows little about guns and gun handling past shooting someone else’s guns. He wants to learn.
What is the liability if said doctor dispenses advice and it results in getting someone killed.
We in the gun rights community discuss these things. Some discussed it with lawyers. The doctor might be liable…and that doctor does not realize it.
The AMA and the AAP are known gun control advocates. The only information that they use comes from dishonest propaganda groups like the Violence Policy Center.
Guns are regulated too. In fact, the gun industry is one of the most regulated in the country. If any company builds a product that is not safe and it malfunctions…it can be sued. What cannot happen is that some gun control group suing frivolously because someone used a gun illegally or negligently.
Murthy’s assurance is NOT good enough. He is a known gun control advocate. Gun control people are known to lie. He is of the same mold as the CDC “scientists” that ADMITTED to creating studies for the PURPOSE of restricting gun rights and getting guns banned.
Furthermore, he is only been practicing for 8 years. His primary business is building business networks between doctors. AND being an activist for getting Obama elected. As I said, select a qualified candidate instead of political supporter, and that HOLD might come off.
The surgeon general has nothing to add for the Ebola thing. IF we are rudderless, even though we HAVE an “Ebola Czar AND an actual agency to look into such things…in addition to the CDC, then that is the fault of the CDC. The surgeon general is an advisor.
“Maybe we don’t need a Surgeon General at all.”
There is justification to that idea. BOTH parties have discussed whether that position is obsolete.
This part here shows the “hackery.”
“While the NRA’s political clout comes from its individual members, the group serves the agenda of gun industry.”
“Serves the agenda of the gun industry” links to a hack hit piece on Rolling Stone. And it sound sooooo bad. The gun industry sells guns. The gun buying populace likes to buy guns. The NRA protects the rights of people to keep and bear arms and it educates them in shooting and gun safety. Yep….. looks like it serves the agenda of the people that want guns.
“What’s really going on with Murthy’s confirmation is that an industry group is trying to keep the government from regulating its products. ” As I stated above, the gun industry IS regulated. And the industry follows ALL product safety laws. His statement is a lie, an OUTRIGHT lie.
Moyer’s entire article is spin and lies. It links to known hacks. It uses propaganda from activists like Hemenway. Hemenway declines to inform you that the restriction on the CDC was that no studies could be used to advocate gun control. For some reason, all the studies stopped. There must have been no neutral studies planned. He also neglects to inform you that the most recent report on gun violence, ordered by the president, showed little or no positive effect of gun control laws and that the CDC estimates that at least 108,000 defensive gun uses happen each year.
Silly me. I don’t see why anyone would consider a gun to be a health concern. Damn. Only 30,000 people a year die from gun shot wounds.
do you really believe all that you wrote? Se4riously. In the first place, doctors can see whoever they want as patients. You gun people seem to think your f-ing rights supercede all others. So a physician tells you to make sure your kids cant get to weapons when they aren’t being supervised. Big deal. They should say that. Sort of like they should tell parents to not give their kids unlimited access to the internet because of lurking dangers.
The man isn’t a gun control activist. He is entitled to his opinion. This is probably the stupidest reason not to confirm someone I have ever heard. You wonder why people hate the NRA? There you go. I hate them. I grew up with guns and the NRA and I hate them now because of the political lunkheadedness now.
He is a attending physician at an ivy league school for heavens sake. 8 years is 8 years more than you have been healing people.
That response just revved up my ire about 200 points so that I now think the NRA should declared #1 enemy or something.
@Cargosquid
Gun control people are known to lie.
Nuff said. Not even worthy of a response.
When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Pediatricians discussing guns? What a ridiculous thing for the NRA to be afraid of.
@Pat.Herve Well stated
@Moon-howler
Silly me…. Are you leaving out all of the other suicides or counting the “gun” ones twice. Also you are adding in justified homicide.
Yes… the CDC does list that many in their stats.
Want to REALLY save lives?….have Murthy address nedical malpractice and mistakes. You will save triple the lives. Want to save 20,000? Address suicide. That’s about how many die while using a gun. And no….. suicide rates do not depend on gun access. See Japan.
There were 8855 “gun murders” in 2012, the last year with data. The CDC estimated that there were, at least, 108,000 defensive gun uses against criminal attack last year. This is the low estimate. But, lets use the Brady Campaign’s numbers…..they estimate that there are, at least, 86,000 defensive gun uses. That same CDC report states that gun control laws do nothing to affect “gun crime.”
Yes…doctors can see whoever the want. Instead of rehashing it here, go look up the actual case. The doctor refused him as a patient because the man had a gun at home, WHICH IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Would the doctor get a pass for rejecting a homosexual or a minority?
“So a physician tells you to make sure your kids cant get to weapons when they aren’t being supervised. Big deal.” Really? Is that all they are going to do? Are you sure? In states like New Jersey, those “safety requirements” can be forced on you, regardless of conditions. Heck, in England, the country that the gun control people seem to most want to emulate, the police can enter your home at will if you have a registered gun. Some advocates here think that is a great idea.
Murthy is a known gun control advocate. Yes, he is a doctor at a Ivy league school……big whoop. Let’s get someone like Dr. Koop. He IS entitled to his opinion. He is NOT entitled to a political position where he can use a national bully pulpit to advocate for gun control.
Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona wrote a letter to the president in December to protest nominating Dr. Murthy because he is not qualified. Dr. Carmona said that Dr. Murthy appeared to have “no significant related leadership experience and no formal public health training or experience.” It is a role for the most seasoned and knowledgeable doctor available for the position, not a political lackey.
Here’s Doctors for America, which Murthy founded. http://www.drsforamerica.org/take-action/gun-violence-prevention
Notice the hyperbole and dishonesty in the very first cartoon. Their “facts vs Claims” are filled with standard slanted statements. They use Dr. Hemenway as their “gun expert,” a known gun control activist. He even lies in his transcript. Their reporting links to debunked studies like Kellerman’s ….. who admitted that his studies were worthless. And they KNOW this.
The site makes claims that those unfamiliar with gun control and the actual data would believe.For example, they state that the AWB was a sucess…. but…..
Even Hemenway has to search high and low for any benefits to the AWB. His only statement? 37% of police departments, according to him, saw an increase after the “ban” was lifted.
The only reason there as a change is that they are listing some undefined pistol as an “assault pistol.” The actual report states that “assault weapon RIFLES” saw no change.
Of course, the ACTUAL report on the value of the ban says nothing of the sort. He links to another pro-gun control study. Actually, he does’t actually back up his bald assertion, because he merely links to the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Gun Policy, a think tank that supports more gun control, financed by that control nut, Bloomberg.
You hate the NRA because of this? Because they are trying to stop politicians from infringing on rights….and yes….. Murthy is part of that…. Okay… That’s your business. Then again, you didn’t like them to begin with. This is politics. You asked why we didn’t have a Surgeon General. That was the answer. His sort spin the data to fit their agenda, as I’ve pointed out above.
I get that this is an emotional issue. And I agree about the deaths. One is too many. But the only solution that they put out is gun bans. And that is unconstitutional.
@Pat.Herve
Since you did reply…… Please…. get back to me when you’ve spent 11 years dealing with the lies put out by gun control groups and people like the VPC and Bloomberg.
I can point out at least 3 lies right off the bat in the above link to “Doctors for America. They lie by omission, with statistics, by padding studies, and basically outright.
Yea I really really hate the NRA. The old NRA wasn’t like the bunch of cowboys today.
I have spent a lot more time than that listening to lives put out by various right to life groups. No sympathy here.
> In the first place, doctors can see whoever they want as patients.
Really? So you’d be perfectly cool with doctors saying they won’t take patients that aren’t in the country legally? How about a doctor that doesn’t want to treat supporters of the ACA?
Doctors have legal obligations to see patients based on a number of factors such as the severity of the patient’s condition. Allowing physicians to treat or not treat patients based on political beliefs is a very bad idea.
And for the record, the dumbest reason ever not to confirm someone was Miguel Estrada who was fillibustered to a DC circuit court position because of concerns that he could be fast-tracked for the Supreme Court. Yup, Senate Democrats fillibustered somebody for being overqualified. Worse, there was even talk of making sure that Bush didn’t get ‘credit’ for the first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee.
I’m not saying the surgeon general should be confirmed or not, because guns really aren’t a big issue for me, but his nomination being held up isn’t noteworthy. And if he doesn’t get the job because we want doctors to stay far away from politics when it comes to treatment, that’s not a bad idea either.
Even better, let’s just get rid of the position completely. We don’t need a SG, head of HHS, head of NIH and head of CDC. Surely we can somehow get by without a surgeon general.
They are entitled to think what they want to think. We have a choice to go to them or not. Besides you can lie about gun ownership. What about doctors who won’t treat smokers? That’s a lot easier to verify. Some doctors are *****. What are you going to do about it.
that is a stupid reason not to confirm someone. Totally stupid.
@Moon-howler
I AGREE that they can think what they want to think. You CAN lie about anything. We (the 2nd amendment people) are not. Because we are not spinning. We have no need to lie. We just want to be left alone.
His lack of actual qualifications and admitted political advocacy is a stupid reason not confirm him?
He isn’t a public advocate for gun control. I am more of a public advocate than he is.
I don’t feel he lacks qualifications.
That’s how the pro choice people feel. It isn’t going to happen.
@Moon-howler
“I have spent a lot more time than that listening to lives put out by various right to life groups. No sympathy here.”
Notice… I don’t challenge you on that. I challenge you on the basic principles. Which argument has been done over and over and I’m not bringing up here.
You have in the past. Certainly others have not backed off.
So, where is the voice of Rear Admiral Lushniak in all this? He must be as qualified, if not perhaps more so, than the nominee. Could it be that we already have a chorus of official voices out there and that the Admiral realizes too many cooks might just confuse the broth, to mangle an old adage?
Who knows. I guess I am scratching my head over what constitutes “being qualified?” is there written criteria?
@Moon-howler
Moon,
How can you say that Murthy is NOT a public advocate for gun control when he is proud of such advocacy and founded Doctors for America, a gun control group?
I really don’t see how you can reach that decision. He stated that he won’t use the office to do so. He already IS doing so….so I don’t believe him.
We should not be nominating political activists as SG. I wouldn’t want a strident pro-life there. Its not what the office is for.
He isn’t in the office yet. Secondly, all surgeon generals are advocates for things they consider promoting good health. We have certainly had some fairly strident pro life SG’s in the past also. However, the SG doesn’t make the laws.
Doctors for America hardly seems like a gun control group to me. You have failed to prove to me that he is using the office he hasn’t even been confirmed to have.
He seems very accomplished to me.
http://www.drsforamerica.org/about/leadership
The Senate should have the nads to give him an up or down vote.
@Moon-howler </
You did go to this link, right? http://www.drsforamerica.org/take-action/gun-violence-prevention
Everything on that link is right out of the playbook for gun control including the dishonesty.
I missed that. So are you in favor of gun violence? Surely not. What on earth is wrong with being against gun violence?
I would think that would be a good thing.
You know…I can’t leave this one alone. 30,000 people is significant. that’s over half the people killed in the Vietnam War.
Gun violence is horrible. It destroys lives. These doctors are the ones who have to dig bullets out of people and patch up heads and limbs. You expect them to remain silent?
Shouldn’t we be telling kids basic gun safety rules…like if you find ammo or a gun, go tell an adult, don’t touch it? How about if your friends have a gun, leave immediately and go home and tell your parents.
Maybe we should just silence people on these issues so we don’t make anyone think we are stripping them of their 2A rights.
Yeah, Moon, not only do NRA types mistake anti-gun violence as anti-gun ownership, they also mistake the 2A “bear arms” clause as a right to have guns and not a right to self defense. That allows them to avoid discussing restrictions on gun owners to protect the rights of we the people’s self defense against gun violence. Only after gun owners stop using their guns to harm others will we no longer need to balance the rights of self defense for victims of gun violence with the rights of gun owners to carry their security blankets around.
I would think any responsible gun owner or non-gun owner would want to discourage gun violence.
In fact, any time on this blog we have tried to discuss what defines reasonable restrictions or increased accountability for automatic weapons and semi automatic weapons, there is always someone out there who tries to distract the discussion with the number of youth killed in Chicago or other cities by gun violence. Chicago is a favorite because Obama is from that city.
I don’t see why we can’t talk about gun violence. Sorry gun owners, we ARE going to talk about it. In fact, I have a very vested interest in talking about it. Any time you have a tool accessible to everyone that can take away lives and maim in a matter of nano–seconds, we had better be able to talk about it. It’s not going to become the 800 pound elephant in the room.
Finally, it is the dumbest reason in the world to not have Surgeon General. Anyone who has ever worked a day in ER or admissions in a hospital has to be especially sensitive to gun violence.
We are anti violence. Don’t fall into the rhetorical trap of the gun controllers and think we are not. We are anti violence and anti crime. We don’t limit it to “gun violence.” That is what they want you to think.
All gun control groups market themselves as “anti gun violence.” They do this because anti gun does not sell. Then…the only solution is always gun control. And no matter what is proposed, up to and including gun bans….is always “reasonable.” They all just want “reasonable” gun laws.
You know what I consider reasonable? Virginia’s laws. Its a nice compromise. The ideal would be like Vermont or Arizona…but I like Virginia law.
Chicago is a favorite because Chicago had actual gun bans and still had one of, if not the highest, “gun murder rate. Even now, it has a high murder count. Obama has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. It’s because Chicago infringed upon rights.
You are absolutely right about teaching kids gun safety. And the best program out there for small children is the Eddie Eagle program. It teaches exactly what you advocate. But anytime we (2nd supporters) try to implement it or advocate for it, the gun control people denigrate it, calling it brainwashing. We also advocate teaching safe gun handling to older children so that if they do pick up a gun, they know proper gun handling.
This is what gun people DO talk about. SAFETY. Not licensing. Bans. Confiscation. Registration. But actual gun safety. The reason that discussions turn to Chicago when you try to “define” reasonable laws…is that Chicago thinks actual gun bans are reasonable.
The discussions that Dr. Murthy and other doctors seem to always want to have involve restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. That does not address the problem, because those ER docs are usually seeing criminals in their ER. The VAST majority of victims are victims of crime, usually within the inner city. Want to lower gun violence? Then lets start discussing the criminology, psychology, mental health, drug policy, the break down of the family, “gangsta” culture, and the enforcement of laws.
I have absolutely NO problem talking about “gun violence.” But limiting it to how we can restrict the 2nd amendment for law abiding people does nothing to address the problem. None of the propose laws in the more restrictive states would do anything. Even the CDC has stated that. Let’s discuss the ENTIRE problem, where it is most prevalent, and the causes behind it, and the best way to fix it. The problem is that no one on the gun control side wants to do that. They want to go the easy route and make laws that only affect the law abiding.
Let’s not do what “reasonable” gun controllers in Washington State want to do. They have a “background check” bill that would make it illegal, punishable by jail, to even hand a gun to my wife, or a friend, even at a range…. without a background check. The proponents hate when the details of the bill are described, saying that the pro-gun people just want felons to have guns. This is what I call lying. This is the sort of thing that has caused the pro-gun side to push back. Bloomberg and other controllers want this to be the model. Bloomberg has spent MILLIONS in Washington for this bill.
There are an estimated 110 million gun owners. There were 8855 “gun murders” in 2012. That means that 99.9997% of gun owners did not commit murder or “gun violence.” And that is assuming that all the murders were committed by a separate person.
Those are the topics that address “gun violence” because it is not the existence of the gun that causes crime. If it was….then northern Virginia would have a vastly higher crime rate than DC or Maryland. Talking about and “controlling” guns is the easy way to address the problem.
@Ed Myers
As for you, Ed, we already know that you don’t have a problem advocating for violence against gun owners because of your bigotry. Your own words demonstrated that. Your mask has slipped.
The right of self defense is incorporated as part of the 2nd. One has the right to defend themselves using the best tools available. I’m sorry…. what would you suggest for a 100lb woman trying to defend herself against a 250lb man?
You do spin very well: ” balance the rights of self defense for victims of gun violence”
I’m sure that you wouldn’t mind telling the 100’s of thousands of people that use guns defensively every year that they should have just accepted their fates. THEIR use of a gun was self defense. Your idea is called infringement.
The spin on how giving people the option to buy guns with improved safety features is an infringement of their 2A rights shows how unconcerned many gun activists are for the safety and health of others. Being anti-safe guns is the same as condoning gun violence.
Guns are not the best defensive tool available … the number of fatalities at the hands of gun owners is the proof. The best defensive tool would have zero fatalities without compromising the life or safety of anyone.
Like a baseball bat and a cell phone. I heard that somewhere.
@Ed Myers
See, Ed, this is what is called lying by omission.
If you had paid attention during the thread where we discussed this, you would know that the improved “safety features” in the latest “smart gun” (I’m assuming that’s the safety features) are anything but. And that the infringement is the New Jersey law mandating that ALL guns in the state adopt that technology once that technology hits the market.
It is statements like these: “Being anti-safe guns is the same as condoning gun violence.” that cause me to call you dishonest and biased. Because a) those aren’t safe guns b) you are the one that has advocated violence.
Okay Mr. Expert. Please point out you “best defensive tool AVAILABLE” that matches your description and definition in THIS reality.
We’ll wait.
Oh…and dead bad guys is not necessarily a bad thing. The goal is to stop the attack.
Two inaccuracies Cargo.
1) Improvement in gun safety is on hold because people like you prevent companies who are developing safer technology from selling their guns. You can’t just claim they are less safe and restrict me from exercising my 2A right to self defense.
2) I have not advocated violence against gun owners. I have made fun of the stand your ground mentality and how gun owners would be upset if it was applied to them. You got the point but now attempt to twist that to satisfy your own politics. Shameful.
3) Cell phones provide more safety than a gun in a broad security sense. Each situation is different but in high crime, high gun areas the merchants enclose the cashbox and employee in a plexi-glass case. While the gunman is unloading his weapon the employee calls 911. The cops come and surround the place and the gunman surrenders without anyone being killed.
4) ‘Dead bad guys” makes an assumption about the criminality of someone without benefit of due process. That is a violation of civil rights more onerous than taking someone’s gun.
@Ed Myers
No inaccuracies.
Improvements in actual safety happen all the time. What is preventing the sale of the guns is opposition to the law I mentioned. Get rid of that idiotic law and the companies can sell that unsafe gun all they want and then go out of business because the technology is unsafe.
Second, you, in these thread, advocated violence. And when I called you on it…. you first defended it and then tried to spin and walk it back. And I will continue to point out your bias and hypocrisy.
3) Really? THAT’s your scenario? When was the last time you saw a 7-11 wrapped in bullet proof glass? And outside of that invented scenario, please explain how your defense works so that no one is hurt.
Remember, when seconds count, the cops are minutes away.
4) Dead bad guys makes no assumptions when someone is attacking you. Dead bad guys is not the goal. Self defense is stopping the attack as soon as possible. The best too to do that is a firearm.
But, you are perfectly welcome to refuse to defend yourself and loved ones. Go ahead…. call the cops. I’m sure that anyone attacking you will wait.
When groups like Open Carry Texas speak for the 2A crowd, you lose all credibility. About time the sensible people stood up and say it is wrong.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/gun-rights-group-open-carry-texas-warned-to-stay-out-of-fifth-ward/27465032
@Pat.Herve
When the 2A crowd was calling them idiots, apparently that means that the 2A crowd are sensible people. Because the OC Texas group doesn’t speak for the 2A crowd.
It speaks for themselves. And their stunts to protest the lack of pistol OC in Texas backfired.
I have often heard you call on moderate Muslims to denounce radical Islam and all its extremists. Why is the 2A crowd any different? They should disavow OC Texas.
@Cargosquid
Here is the NRA backing off their statement about OC Texas – http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-nra-apologize-texas-long-gun-open-carry-20140604-story.html
If the NRA will not call them out, then who speaks for the 2A crowd.
“Dead bad guys makes no assumptions when someone is attacking you. Dead bad guys is not the goal. Self defense is stopping the attack as soon as possible. The best too to do that is a firearm.”
This is so untrue. I don’t see or hear of gun owners with a warning first shot or people who load their guns with a preceding round of birdshot or rubber bullets. Instead I hear of instructors telling people to aim for center mass and fire until the perp drops. The goal for someone using a gun for protection is to kill; guns do not have a “stun” setting.
The benefit of killing the other person in a one-on-one encounter is that the dead person can’t provide the evidence to counter the story concocted after the shooting which always favors the surviving side. Based on cargo’s view of the world as expressed here we can imagine the exaggerated threats he would write into his legal fiction if he was involved in a shooting.
In very, very rare cases a gun would be useful as self defense but because of people like cargo I can’t buy a smart gun that would work best for me.
There are many alternatives to guns for self defense. One of the most effective is to avoid people who use drugs (esp. alcohol) to excess. Having adequate locks on doors and windows helps too. The automobile makes an effective escape from even the most powerful armed opponent. Cellphone can easily summon help from anywhere. Whatever danger isn’t avoided by these simple measures is not improved by having a gun as it increases the risk of accidental firings, improper use resulting in unlawful death or injury, successful suicide by family members, and theft. Until the NRA allows safer guns to be sold my risk analysis says I should forgo owning a firearm. Your mileage may vary but choosing to carry a gun around says a lot about your state of mind and your willingness to assess another person as being a mortal threat and then kill them with only a second or two of information. Prejudice and bias indeed!
@Moon-howler
WE DID. We were some of the first to call them idiots and that they should stop. Even the NRA said that they shouldn’t be doing what they did.
Who is WE?
They should be told to stop.
@Pat.Herve
“It shouldn’t have happened,” he added, because the NRA “unequivocally” supports open carry laws.
“It was a poor word choice in an alert that went out,” Cox said. “But again, the underlying point here is: What is the best tactic to win? That’s what we’re interested in. We’re not interested in distractions. We’re not interested in arguing with the national news media over this. We’re interested in winning.”
Yes…they retracted the insult of weird. The NRA still criticized their tactics. Furthermore, the original criticism actually made OC Texas change their bylaws and the OC with long guns stopped. THEN the NRA, because they are not as “brave” as everyone thinks…backed off, to keep up good relations with a state organization AND because they do support Open Carry.
They have the right to do what they did. They should not have done it because they were dumb. Their actions backfired.
Sometimes PR stunts go wrong.
@Ed Myers
“I don’t see or hear of gun owners with a warning first shot or people who load their guns with a preceding round of birdshot or rubber bullets. Instead I hear of instructors telling people to aim for center mass and fire until the perp drops. The goal for someone using a gun for protection is to kill; guns do not have a “stun” setting. ”
You really have no clue about self defense, do you? Or the legal ramifications of your suggestions.
A) Warning shots are illegal. B) A round of birdshot is 1oz of small pellets. It will kill you just as easily as a bullet. The legal requirement is to fire center mass until the perp stops approaching you. That is the law.
” Based on cargo’s view of the world as expressed here we can imagine the exaggerated threats he would write into his legal fiction if he was involved in a shooting.”
And here you go slandering me. How nice. Project much?
“In very, very rare cases a gun would be useful as self defense (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA) but because of people like cargo I can’t buy a smart gun that would work best for me.”
Um…so…. you want to buy a gun? A smart gun still fires bullets. All a smart gun does, based on the latest tech, is force you to wear a watch with RFID chips that match the gun’s, enabling it to fire.
“Until the NRA allows safer guns to be sold my risk analysis says I should forgo owning a firearm.”
You are sending out a very confused message in trying to hit all of the talking points.
You condemn people for wanting the best tool for defense, disregard hundreds of years of evidence regarding the fact that guns ARE the best tool for defense, and then, because you are concerned about your inability to safely handle and keep the gun, state that you won’t buy one UNTIL the smart gun comes out……. You just stated that you would BUY A GUN.
If you want a smart gun, then work to get that idiotic New Jersey law repealed.
Again, you might want to discuss the suitability of a gun for defense with the hundreds of thousands of people that have used guns successfully to defend themselves.
“Prejudice and bias indeed!”
I’m glad that you agree. Your prejudice against gun owners leads you to slander them Your bias forced you into convolutions and hypocrisy.
Btw… you are a PERFECT example of the gun control hypocrite.
My problem is that Ed is really a gun control person. cargo, you personally have made me hate the NRA even more than I did in the first place.
I AM a gun owner. I believe in moderate restrictions for the average person. However, Cargo thinks I am a gun control person and Ed views me as a 2A person, I expect.
Why is this issue so binary?
In the interest of accuracy…. I will return to the bird shot question, since I don’t lie by omission.
Birdshot as a defense round can kill people.
Shot location is the key element in that. It is not a reliable defensive round. And you many only get one shot. It may discourage some people… It may just make others mad. And if the perp is not STOPPED, then you are in trouble.
If the perp is wearing heavy clothing, it may not penetrate at all. For it to be at all effective as a discouraging round…as proposed by Ed, it would have to be fired from a large gauge shotgun which is only a viable self defense tool in certain situations. Of course, since Ed doesn’t believe that ANYONE should carry a gun….that’s a plus in his book.
Lets discuss rubber bullets. Even cops are not supposed to fire them directly at people. They are directed to skip them off pavement. And are found in shotguns, not handguns. They are not effective in self defense and cannot be found outside of law enforcement. They are metal objects coated in rubber.
Guns are used to stop attacks. By law, that is what they are to be used for.
But then, we know that you, Ed, are against reasonable self defense for other people. If you wish to be a pacifist…more power to you.
@Moon-howler
I can’t help how you feel about the NRA.
Sorry.
The issue has become binary because too many people are like Ed and want really strict controls on a basic freedom. Too many “reasonable” people, like Feinstein, Schumer, and whoever wrote the current “background check” bill in Washington state, have written laws that are anything but reasonable. The problem is that the gun control side NEVER stops trying to advance their cause. And so they use every means at their disposal…. laws, regulations, PR, putting pro-control people into positions of authority, and basically lying. We gun rights people have learned to resist their efforts at every turn because it is hard to regain lost freedoms. We’ve spent the last 20-50 years regaining these freedoms.
Let me ask you, are you happy with Virginia laws?
No but not necessarily for the reasons many people would be.
But in general….
I just don’t think the average Joe is entitled to own any weapon they want. I would have tiers of ownership. Everyone could keep and bear certain arms. I wouldn’t allow everyone to have semi-automoatic rifles. I would have some hoops to jump through.
No wear in the Constitution does it say what kind of arms people have the right to bear.
The NRA doesn’t care. They will say or do anything to advance their case.
Same with many right to life groups.
@Moon-howler
Oh, forgot to add… I don’t think that you truly are a gun control person. You are not advocating that I give up my rights. I disagree with you on certain things. And I disagree with your definition of moderate and reasonable, because I think that I’m a moderate and reasonable gun rights activist.
I see you as far right and me as moderate. I see Ed as very gun control but I don’t know how far he would go.
I don’t want to take responsible people’s weapons from them.
I absolutely no not want to be a Target or Starbucks with anyone waving a semi automatic weapon around or even displayed. Why? I don’t know them and I don’t know their intentions.
I don’t want to sit in a bar or restaurant with anyone displaying a weapon. I also wouldn’t allow weapons (guns or knives) in bars except perhaps by the owner or manager. Guns and booze don’t mix. Ask hunters. 🙄
I am not sure why felons can NEVER own or use a gun again. That is actually fairly silly. People who have turned their lives around are probably safer than the general population. Same with voting. People who haven’t turned their lives around probably had a gun the same day as their release if that is what they wanted to do.
@Moon-howler
The people are already limited to certain types. Automatic weapons are very limited.
You are right. The Constitution does NOT state what kind of arms people have a right to…..thus, technically, they are entitled to any and all arms. The Bill of Rights is a limit on government power, not permission for the citizenry.
The compromise is the Heller decision. All arms suitable for a militia, in common lawful use, are protected.
Why are you dead set against semi-auto rifles? They’ve been around for over 100 years. Fewer crimes are committed with long guns, which includes semi auto rifles, than are committed with blunt objects and hands and feet.
Who said I was dead set against them? I am not. I just don’t think everyone needs to own one or have access to it.
Am I to assume that your feelings on the Bill of Rights apply to all rights? Speech for example? Should it include slander, liable, Tee Shirts with graphic crotch shots worn in public, at school?
There are limits on all rights and those limits are often imposed by government as the representative of the people. Technically, if playing by your rules, people should be able to display whatever they want or say anything they want anywhere. Such is not the case.
“I absolutely no not want to be a Target or Starbucks with anyone waving a semi automatic weapon around or even displayed. Why? I don’t know them and I don’t know their intentions.”
And you just echoed the opinions of quite a few 2nd amendment activists.
As for the open carry in bars….. you do remember that it was only recently that we 2nd amendment people got concealed carry to be legal in restaurants where alcohol is served, right? Previously, it was mandatory open carry. I agree. Guns and booze don’t mix…so if you are carrying, you should not drink alcohol.
And I agree with you on the felons getting their rights back. If they cannot be trusted with a firearm….why are they out of jail?
Felons–because we can’t keep people longer than their sentence. that violates the Constitution. However, some people will go back to old ways. Other people will straighten their lives out. Do those people not have a right to defend themselves? Felony vs misdemeanor is a matter of court determination and charges.
Those who are going to backslide the minute they get out of prison can have a gun by the afternoon. They don’t care. Its the people who care and want to do the right thing who are being discriminated against.
“And you just echoed the opinions of quite a few 2nd amendment activists.”
Just read your comment again…and realized that I misread it.
When you are saying “Semi automatic weapon” do you mean a long gun like a rifle or ANY including your standard pistol?
Semi automatic covers a lot of territory. Perhaps some sub categories need to be applied to even make it a valid conversation.
One of our guns is a semi automatic 22 pistol. I don’t think I would classify it the same as a military style semi automatic weapon.
@Moon-howler
So, to be specific, what you object to are semi automatic rifles at appear similar to the military M-16/M-4 rifles? Or do you include the standard Semi auto pistols as well, just in higher calibers?
Because most semi-auto rifles look like your standard wooden stocked plinking .22 or higher calibers. http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html
Not trying to be picky…just trying to understand your opinion.
You can do this….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90lH3zn6oQw
Cargo, I am not even objecting to the weapons. I am objecting to everyone having one or being able to have one. I think that is a weapon that perhaps needs a demonstration of proficiency before ownerhsip is allowed. Who sets the standard? Gun groups by state. People can get on a board or something.
I think also there needs to be some demonstration of psychological stability.
@Moon-howler
EXACTLY.
Of course, that opinion puts you firmly in the “gun nut” crazy position in the eyes of most gun control people.
Also, I did not mean to embed that video. Sometimes it comes up as a link and others…. embed.
Sorry.
Well, let’s say I did insurance fraud, got sent to the big house for 5 years on a felony. How come I am considered dangerous with a gun? Also why am I not allowed to vote? I have served y time.
@Moon-howler
“Am I to assume that your feelings on the Bill of Rights apply to all rights? Speech for example? Should it include slander, liable, Tee Shirts with graphic crotch shots worn in public, at school?”
Yes. To all rights. Especially to the enumerated civil liberties that place limits on government. Those checks are there for a reason.
Slander and liable are crimes. They do not apply. Just like illegally shooting a gun is a crime.
Tee shirts worn in public…… within rights…. not always advisable. Same as bringing a long gun into Starbucks. Maybe within your rights…..but not advisable. Schools have already been ruled a “free speech” controlled zone, at least for minors. Can’t even wear an American flag on Cinco de Mayo.
In one place you can’t wear an American flag on Cinco de Mayo. There is also a reason, in that particular school.
Whoa. Stop. Slander and Liable are only illegal because government has made them against the law.
You seem willing to accept that speech can have laws but guns can’t.
I call cherry picking.
@cargo, You should not play defamation of character lawyer on blogs until you know the difference between libel and slander and the difference between statements of opinion and statements of fact.
Let me use a story to illustrate why I think the “hundreds of thousands of people that have used guns successfully to defend themselves” claim is bogus.
Car A and B are in stop and go traffic on I-95. Car A notices in the rear view that car B is aggressively weaving in and out of traffic. When Car B moves up alongside, Car A accelerates to close a gap preventing B from advancing ahead. Driver A also flips the bird. Driver B points at driver A and then raises his hand which is holding a gun pointed upward. Driver A brakes to open a gap to let car B cut through and advance.
Driver B would record this road rage incident as a 2A success–the mere presence of a gun saved himself from a threat exemplified by the “fighting words” hand gesture. Driver A would see driver B as a quasi-criminal that used a gun to assault him and take what didn’t rightfully belong to him — the safety zone around a vehicle in order to recklessly (well at least rudely) advance faster than others on the highway.
The 1A should always win over the 2A but when the choice is to be dead or right the 2A always wins. That is what bugs me about gun activists…they only seem to care about their guns and how it affords them the ability to infringe the civil rights of others. That attitude does not contribute to the health and welfare of the nation. I’ll defend the right to own gun (I can imagine owning one) but keep it at home. I do not want to walk on a street or be in a store with someone who is armed with unknown intent, training or qualification. (Same is true of swords, knives and machetes.)
We are back to my main concern. Wnen I see strangers with guns I have no idea if they are friend or foe. That is a huge problem to me.
@Ed Myers
Oh…I’m sorry…. Did I use the wrong word? Please feel free to use the appropriate one. Your statement was not a statement of fact. If it was fact, it would not have been defamation. You appear to be quite factually challenged.
If you feel that it is bogus, take it up with the CDC. Even the pro-gun control Brady Campaign estimates 86,000 defensive gun uses per year.
Your little thought experiments are valid only in your head. Your projection keeps NOT happening. Gun ownership and carry have skyrocketed. If such scenarios were happening, then the calls to the police about brandishing would also go up.
A gun didn’t help protect anyone at that McD in Maryland. Sent an innocent bystander to the hospital. Yep injuries from the misuse of guns regularly documented in police blogs “Not Happening” and all in my head.
86,000 defensive gun uses versus 30,000 deaths and hundreds of thousands of gun injuries is not something to brag about. That is the problem on a macro level..not enough net benefit from guns. But we know people on a micro level make bad risk assessments about the stock market and ebola so no wonder they underestimate the dangers of gun ownership and drastically overestimate the potential need for lethal force. It is a security blanket …albeit a false one.
To be clear, my position is gun ownership for self defense is a net negative and would be horribly so if everyone owned a gun. It is a net positive only if either
1) a smaller number of highly trained and proficient people used guns for community protection or
2) guns were safer as in able to stop an eminent threat of death or serious injury without being lethal or that work only for authorized persons or in authorized locations.
One can’t pursue someone for libel if they are stating an opinion. You can only get a judgment if someone states something as a fact AND that fact is intentionally wrong AND the victim is harmed. Since Cargosquid isn’t a real person Cargosquid can’t get standing in court to pursue a libel case. HA!
Some local bloggers should really be worried about deliberately stating “facts” while knowing they are not true.
Some of them use anonymity to get around this issue.
I have always been concerned over the fact that is goes on continually.
@Ed Myers
Yep…not happening. The predictions of blood in the streets and gun battles over road rage keep not happening. 79% of the injuries include crime. Your 30,000 deaths include suicide and justified homicide. To compare alike statistics, compare the 86,000 defensive gun uses (which statistic is a radically low number by a biased organization.) vs the 8855 “gun murders. As for your hundreds of thousands of gun injuries……. is that per year or total over decades….. because there are not hundreds of thousands gun injuries.
According to the CDC, gun injuries are not even in the top ten for all ages.
There were about 600 accidental fatalities in 2011…. the trend is down.
The most common firearm accident happens during hunting….. 16 million + hunters….. means that there will be some accidents.
Get back to me when you don’t need to rely on hyperbole.
As for your position, your opinion is obviously incorrect, just based upon the fact that ownership and carry are skyrocketing, and “gun crime” is dropping…..as is violent crime. More guns do NOT equal more crime.
This, of course, leaves out the actual meaning of the 2nd amendment in which the government…or in your words, “authorized persons” …. do no have a monopoly of force.
Furthermore, again, you believe that some authorized force will protect you. Got news for you. The police, today, are under absolutely no obligation to protect you. Nor will they be there to protect you. They will be there to chase the criminal.
Also, don’t worry yourself. No one is pursuing you for your insults. Project away. You only beclown yourself.
@Ed Myers
I forgot to add….
About 300 million guns.
Gallup poll 47% of Americans own a gun. Since only adults own guns, that would mean 47% of the adult population.
315 million Americans.
242 million adults.
Estimates put gun ownership at about 110 million. 47% equals 113 million.
I think that the survey vastly understates gun ownership. What does make it a low number is that many of the major urban centers are “gun free” zones that make it illegal to own weapons or put such a burden on the exercise of the right that no one gets one…..so that does drive down both ownership AND those that would admit it.
@Moon-howler
Because I’m a nice guy…in case you do want a “non lethal” gun.
I make no statements on its effectiveness, availability, or legal status.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/10/19/weekend-photo-keseru-revenge-14m/?utm_source=feedly&utm_reader=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
Of course, you can always buy a paintball gun and shoot solid balls or freeze them……
The capsaicin filled balls are limited to law enforcement.
Although Cargo can’t sue for defamation, Ed Myers, if he were real, could sue Cargo. You can’t avoid the harm to real people by saying false things behind an alias. Insults are opinion so that is why the blog is full of insults. Politicians can’t sue for defamation because that would prevent the free exchange of political speech (1A rights) which is why blogs are full of false factual accusations against them.
What is telling is how thin-skinned Cargo is while dishing out insults in shovelfuls. Own that character trait, Cargo.
@Ed Myers
The difference is that I’m describing you based upon your words.
You are implying falsehoods.
I don’t care about what you write. I’m merely pointing out the standard operating procedure of gun control bigots like yourself of projecting evil motives with no evidence. As I said, you are the perfect example of the stereotypical gun control bigot. I see your type all over the gun control side. Your actions have become an internet trope.
You, on the other hand, actually advocated running down innocent people.
Have a nice day.
I believe Ed was drawing a conclusion, rather than recommending that someone be run down.
While I am to the right of Ed in my political position on guns and gun ownership, I certainly do not think Ed is a bigot. His opinion just differs from mine. That’s allowed.
@Moon-howler
Actually, no…he was advocating that it should be legal to run down people that are armed….merely for being armed.
I consider those that want to infringe upon the inherent rights of Americans to be bigots. And it most certainly is allowed to be that way. I would not have it any other way.
So I can assume that you feel the right to life people are bigots also? They certainly want to infringe upon the rights of Americans.
I will even defend them a little. I don’t necessarily think most of them are bigots.
I don’t really have a issue on this because I just don’t care about guns, but this is 100% a Democratic issue.
Since the fillibuster rule change, the surgeon general can be confirmed if 51 of the 55 Democrats in the Senate vote for him. But Harry Reid won’t schedule a vote, allegedly because Democratic Senators in tough races (like NC and LA) don’t want to vote on the issue.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/why-is-there-no-surgeon-general-ask-democrats/article/2555053
If this guy can’t get confirmed by his own party, maybe he isn’t the right choice for the job?
All that said, he’ll get confirmed in the lame duck Senate after the election but before the GOP led Senate starts in January.
You wish.
@Furby McPhee
Furby – it should be so simple, but not so.
Rand Paul has put a ‘Senatorial Hold’ onto the vote, which prevents the vote from coming to the floor. This is the same block and stall tactic that has been used to stifle the Senate. Once Rand Paul removes the hold, it will need to go to Cloture and then to a vote.
I do not care what is voted on yay or nay – just vote on it and move on. I tell my kids not to procrastinate on decisions, I have deadlines (April 15), but not Congress.
Cargo: “Actually, no…he was advocating that it should be legal to run down people that are armed….merely for being armed.”
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! I’ve told you before that this is a mischaracterization of the point I was conveying.
It is libel for you to assign me an opinion that I do not have. The first time you made that mistake I corrected you and you could escape liability by claiming it was mistaken interpretation. After multiple times correcting you it has moved from reasonable error to willful defamation. You can’t shoot your way out of this.
I think gun owners infringe on the primary and fundamental rights of American to life liberty and pursuit of happiness when they come out into public space anticipating and prepared to use lethal force. I have no issue with private ownership of guns.
@Ed Myers
You haven’t “corrected” anything.
Ed Myers :
“Open carry is fighting words. It is provocative. It is a threat. Therefore all drivers have open season to run over anyone carrying a gun. Good luck with the “i’m a gun nut” demonstration guys. Don’t get too close to the crosswalk. ”
“Carry is a threat in itself.”
Basically, you consider any carry to be considered a threat. You proposed that they be run over to protect society.
You wrote it. The internet is forever. Own it. No one else on this site has advocated violence against those they disagree with.
You can try to walk it back. But, I’m taking you at your word. It might be hyperbole, but, I don’t know how dangerous you are. You could be a nut. You appear to have no regard for the safety of your fellow man if they exercise a right that you disagree with, based upon the words written in these comments.
Your hoplophobia does not allow the right to keep and BEAR arms to be infringed.
Cargo, you are the only person who took it as a threat. I think the rest of us saw it as sarcasm and hyperbole.
@Pat.Herve
I stand corrected. Paul does have a hold on the surgeon general. Heck, it’s even on his Senate website.
So, I’ll completely flip flop and put the blame on Rand Paul.
In my defense, I would have thought the article I read would have at least mentioned that. It seems like kind of a relevant thing to omit.
I will join you, Furby.