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.
@Moon-howler
I deal with too many other gun control people just like him that make these sorts of statements, then say….. “just kidding.” But, then make all sorts of accusations against law abiding citizens merely exercising their inherent rights.
So, I play THEIR game. He said it. He owns it. Pure Alinsky. I make them play by their rules.
…in the case of Myers v. .Cargo for defamation….
Cargo, Are you saying in defense of your demonstatably false accusations on Moonhowlings.net that you are just too feeble-minded to understand literary forms such as sarcasm and hyperbole? After you were advised of the proper interpretation, why did you continue to defame Myers’ character by insisting that he intended for the comment to be taken as a threat against gun owners even though no one else read it that way? Do you see the potential for a unjustified killing when someone (like yourself) with lethal force (a gun) is unable to judge the difference between an expression of an opinion and an actual threat. Or, are you simply lying when you claim you are unable to read anything but threat in Myers’ comment. Let me remind you that you are under oath.
No, I am saying that I’m taking you at your word about your intentions.
Do you see the potential for a unjustified killing when someone (like yourself) with lethal force (a gun) is unable to judge the difference between an expression of an opinion and an actual threat.
I do not accept your premise. I do not see you as a deadly threat. Nowhere did I state that I see you as a threat. I do see it as an opinion. I see your words as a mindset that sees violence as a suitable tool against those that disagree. I, myself, cannot conceive of that being acceptable. Nor have I seen remorse for those statements, so you must find them acceptable.
Perhaps if you offered a heartfelt apology for expressing such an uncivilized opinion, I might believe you that you meant your statements to be a foolish, hyperbolic, stereotypical and ignorant statement, common to gun control fanatics.
Keep digging Cargo. In several different ways on multiple threads I’ve said that self defense should never including a desire to kill the attacker. That near-pacifist position is diametrically opposed to the picture you are painting insinuating that I would use or encourage violence against someone with opposing political viewpoints. Me thinks you are projecting. That viewpoint of keeping guns for political insurrection is strong in the militia movement. Go get your apology from them.
@Ed Myers
Again, I see no apology for stating such a thing. If it were truly hyperbole, you would apologize for your statements. I see more spin.
One of the reasons that I don’t believe you is that I don’t believe that you are serious about your stance; using it only to advance a gun control agenda.
Your statement is directly in line with the common with other gun control people that threaten others “in jest.” You are correct. You have said that self defense should never include a desire to kill the attacker. What you wrote was not self defense.
It is simple. Apologize for your foolish, hyperbolic, stereotypical and ignorant statement and I will believe you when you say that you are not the typical violent gun control fanatic.
Dog with bone? He wasn’t speaking in jest. He was making a point. Give it a rest. I for one am sick of hearing about it.
@Cargosquid
Let it go. For decades now the organized gun control community has been trying to sell the American people on the idea that they are not for civilian disarmament. That is BS. Much like a company trying to unload a terrible and historically unsafe product, they have argued against self protection, stand your ground, good smaritan laws and even hunting. Only the King can hunt and owning a weapon should be illegal, because its not necessary — for the King will provide. Saying they are not against certain guns is nothing more than a feeble attempt to make their goals more acceptable –in the short term.
Back to binary …its all right or its all wrong.
That kind of thinking sickens me. Many Americans who own guns feel there is room for tightening rules a little to help curb gun violence.
@blue
Let it go?
I’m merely responding to his falsehoods and spin. He’s already lost the argument for gun control.
What some of you don’t realize or find hard to accept is that many of us are gun owners and for us it isn’t an all or nothing choice.
Bravo, Censored, Bravo.
@Moon-howler
” there is room for tightening rules a little to help curb gun violence.”
If there was any evidence that gun control curbed gun vioence you might have a dangerous point. A point, but still dangerous to individual liberty, democracy and the Constitution itself. The problem with progressive gun lobby types is that we have learned that it is a sliding slippery slope of demands for more and more until there is no more. Like the war on women, it has been an effective political slogan for raising money – I will give you that.
@Censored bybvbl
I am not presenting an “all or nothing” choice. So, I’m curious what you mean by that.
As I said….Virginia’s laws are fine. I would be ecstatic if every state modeled their laws by ours….. as a maximum of legal restrictions. Some states have less restrictions, such as Vermont.
Virginia’s laws are fine to you. To many people, they are not.