Medical establishment hostility to guns is long-standing and pervasive

Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 8 April, 2010 | David Codrea

[marktwain]

We've been discussing doctors presuming to advise patients on gun safety. We saw a standard form used by an HMO and a form we can give back to make them think twice about dispensing advice they are not qualified to provide.

It's not surprising that the medical establishment reflects an anti-gun bias. Such sentiment has been expressed at the top levels for some time now.

A Reason article from 13 years ago shows how strong the leadership bias has been.

Case in point, it discusses, among many other things, Mark Rosenberg, once director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control (and now President and Chief Executive Officer The Task Force for Global Health: "a coalition of the World Health Organization, UNICEF, the United Nations Development Programmme, the World Bank, and The Rockefeller Foundation"):

In 1993 Rolling Stone reported that Rosenberg 'envisions a long term campaign, similar to [those concerning] tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.' In 1994 he told The Washington Post, 'We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly, and banned.'

Or consider this from Deborah Prothrow-Stith of the Harvard School of Public Health:

'My own view on gun control is simple,' she writes. 'I hate guns and cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.'

So it's hardly unexpected that we would see the following advice from a site like WebMD.com, citing both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Journal of Public Health as authoritative sources:

[OneWingedShark]

>Did we have dogs. If so, were there trigger locks,

Dogs come with trigger locks now?

>were they in a safe etc etc.

Dogs are kept in safes?

[jboot]

When I changed doctors back in the '90s, they gave me a questionaire with not one but 2 gun-related questions:

Do you own guns?

If you own guns, are they stored with trigger locks?

I declined to answer both questions (and the later questions about my preferred sexual activities as well). The doctor sniffed a bit when she came to that section of the form, but she didn't have anything to say.

[Repeat Offender]

Yes, dogs are kept in safes and have trigger locks. Afterthoughts and not paying attention to where you're dropping a "ctrl v" should also be kept in a safe.... this way you don't have a negligent discharge.

I hit the post button just a moment too soon. I hoped and hoped no one would catch it.

Maybe there should be a permit and waiting period for dogs and keyboards.

[OneWingedShark]

LOL - At least you’re amiable about it.

On the gun restrictions issue, maybe you’d like the idea presented in this post of mine:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2489739/posts?page=19#19

[Repeat Offender]

I agree. But, my posts on the subject were rather lengthy. Napalm and land mines are definites for border enforcement. As are declring all illegals "hostile." Fine US companies hiring illegals at $10,000 per illegal. Arrest and charge gov't authorities that knowingly allow illegals to claim social "benefits."

Of course I also favor allowing private citizens to own machineguns, mortars, grenades, grenade launchers, flares, rockets, rocket launchers etc. Pretty much anything "smaller" than 155 Howitzers. Of course anything explosive or "stronger" than a firearm would require an NRA approved training course. NICS check, and a check of your docs by the salesman. No registration, no fees, no finger prints, no waiting periods. Just proof of competence. The increase in sales volume would allow munitions manufactures to lower the prices charged to the military and ensure supplies were on hand. Also, it would serve as a deterent for invading force..... including illegal immigrants/drug cartels. And, we could actually manufacture something in this country. Imagine that.... jobs and the common defense.

[sig226]

I agree with Dr. Rosenberg. Guns are a huge menace to the public health. Every time the government gets hold of some guns, millions of people die. As a matter of fact, the only thing that threatens the public health more than guns is cognitive dissonance, which explains why a person with the last name Rosenberg believes that only the government should have guns. I wonder if he was drawing little crayon peace signs while they were stuffing his grandparents into the gas chamber.

[sig226]

The question about pets and the sexual activity question that jboot mentioned at least have some medical merit. Both are potential vectors for disease. Questions about smoke alarms and trigger locks are nanny state crap. Like on the next episode of House they’ll have to figure out what happened to a kid who showed up with smoke inhalation and a gunshot wound...

Several doctors I’ve seen were shooters and enjoyed discussions about the subject. I’ve also found that you can write in your own answers to the patient survey questions in the margins. For instance, if you write “big, heavy ones,” next to “Do you own guns?” the doctor makes an interesting face and acts like he’s not interested in your response.