1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Surgeon General Nominee Decidedly Anit-Gun

Discussion in 'Activism' started by hotajax, Mar 13, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hotajax

    hotajax member

    Pres Obama's nominee for Surgeon General is being voted on in the Senate this week. If you are able, it may be a good idea to call your US Senator and urge them to vote against this nominee. His name is Dr. Vivek Murthy, and he has a confirmed record of anti-gun activity.
  2. gym

    gym member

  3. climbskirun

    climbskirun Active Member

    All I can find is that he wants to look at gun violence as a public health issue, which is something I'm not entirely opposed to. I hope we can all agree that gun violence is bad, and taking a scientific approach to studying it can only produce good result as we're bound to better understand why it happens. Hopefully we can move away from stupid, irrational measures like magazine capacity restrictions or "assault" weapons ban, and towards measures that would actually be effective while not infringing on our constitutional rights.

    Frankly, NRA has been counterproductive in this respect as they've lobbied heavily against funding more studies into true causes of gun violence. I'm not sure what exactly they're trying to achieve here.

    I'm also unclear as to what a Surgeon General can possibly do to restrict RsKBA.
  4. DT Guy

    DT Guy Well-Known Member

    I think classifying 'gun violence' (what is that, exactly?) as a public health issue is a huge red herring. It allows the government, who will soon be our health care insurer, to weigh and investigate gun ownership in the light of 'health' costs, rather than the appropriate measures of liberty, personal freedom and individual responsibility.

    With Obamacare rolling pell mell over many lives (including my family, I might add), a surgeon general might well have an expanded role in deciding what to oppose in the name of societal expense.

    I've mentioned before that letting your insurance company write law (which is what governmental health care devolves into) is an invitation to limit gun ownership, real butter, motorcycles, fast cars, and sky-diving. Whenever you open yourself to being judged not just on the correctness and legality of your behavior, but the 'health costs' associated with it, you've begun a long, slippery slide into governmental control of every aspect of your life.

  5. Ed N.

    Ed N. Well-Known Member

    Studies of "gun violence" inevitably end up studying guns rather than violence, and therefore recommend gun control rather than violence control.

    Frankly, I don't care whether violent crime is commited using guns, knives, hammmers, baseball bats, fists, or airplanes. If the Surgeon General wants to study causes of violence, focusing on mental illness perhaps, I'm all for it. But focusing on the tools used by violent people doesn't address the root of the problem and so it will be a waste of time and money and can only result in useless restrictions on the law abiding.
  6. climbskirun

    climbskirun Active Member

    Surely you're not suggesting that the numbers of people killed by guns is even on the same scale as those killed by knives, hammers, or baseball bats. I think it's quite reasonable to study gun violence in particular in order to help us identify those who are likely to commit violence and thus shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms as uniquely destructive weapons.
  7. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Well-Known Member

    How does one determine who is likely to commit violence, with a firearm or otherwise? As soon as we bestow that power on some person or entity, that person or entity starts wielding it for political purposes.

    Calling "gun violence" a public health issue is simply a marketable precursor to proclaiming that some other constitutional right must be violated because not doing so would pose a public health risk. Imagine someone who has the HIV virus or some other "uniquely destructive" communicable disease being required by law to wear a bright red hat or some other readily identifiable "scarlet letter" so that those who wish to avoid exposure can do so.

    Do you want to live in such a world?
  8. kwguy

    kwguy Well-Known Member

    How can a behavior really be a 'health issue'? Is stealing cars a health issue? Or other types of behaviors? I think not. They are behavior issues. Calling them health issues just gives them another means to attack our firearms rights.
  9. DT Guy

    DT Guy Well-Known Member

    Again, do you want your insurance agent writing laws to 'protect' you?

    Do you want the government to declare EVERY hazard in this world a 'health risk' and use that to gain some jurisdiction over it?

    Do you really (REALLY) think any such 'research' would be scientific, in the strict sense? I know that most of the stuff I've seen that addressed firearms as a 'health issue' was flawed, and written to an agenda.

    Again, NO. Firearms are not cancer, and violent criminals are not lupus.

  10. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Check the most recent FBI Uniform Crime Report and long guns, which semiauto rifles are a subset of, actually fall behind knives, blunt instruments, and hands/feet. You'll see that rifles are reported as used in 322 homicides in 2012 vs. 1,589 knives, 518 blunt objects, and 678 hands/feet. Since the attempts to regulate so-called "assault weapons" are of prime concern to us and of prime interest to the Antis the fact that they're statistically insignificant from a risk standpoint is clear reason for us to worry about anyone with a stated agenda like this.
  11. ChaoSS

    ChaoSS Well-Known Member

    No, I don't agree that gun violence is necessarily bad. Sometimes, it saves the lives of good guys.

    Maybe they should look into criminal violence rather than gun violence. Just a thought.
  12. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Well-Known Member

    You answered your own question there.
    He launches studies to study "gun violence" which doesn't exist. It should be called "criminals who commit violent acts while using guns", but that will never happen because then there is something to blame other than the firearm and that's certainly not what they want.

    Anyway, hypothetically he launches the study then as you put in your words, we can determine who is likely to commit violence and not give them guns.
    You are actually suggesting that we take someone's 2A rights away because we think they MIGHT commit a crime.

    Wow. Your first two posts sure were doosies.
  13. climbskirun

    climbskirun Active Member

    Well, we won't know until we study it, and perhaps we'll find some connection. Gun violence is clearly not random because so many of us have guns yet very few actually commit crimes using them.

    And thanks for reinforcing my point: until we studied HIV enough, we had no idea what it is or how it actually transmits, so we effectively ostracized the sick from society. We now know enough to a) keep ourselves safe, b) treat those who are afflicted, and c) we have a vaccine that prevent infection (altho it's still impractical as it has to be taken daily, but we'll get there eventually, like we did with everything else).
  14. climbskirun

    climbskirun Active Member

    Behavior *is* a health issue, because mental health is, y'know, health-related.
  15. climbskirun

    climbskirun Active Member

    Why did you omit handguns? Besides, I already stated that banning any firearm, including "assault" rifles, is stupid and unlikely to produce results we want because most gun violence is committed by handguns, which also happen to be my favorite type of firearms.
  16. climbskirun

    climbskirun Active Member

    We already don't allow possession of firearms for convicted fellons, domestic abusers, or drug addicts. Do you disagree with those 2A restrictions?
  17. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Well-Known Member

    Convicted felons is an entirely different conversation than prohibiting someone who is likely to commit violence, as you suggested we should do in post # 6.
    Proving that you are a criminal and us thinking you might at some point be a criminal are two things that are worlds apart.

    But I have no problem answering your question as to whether I disagree with the above 2A restrictions.
    I have a problem prohibiting non-violent people from owning firearms.
    I am against prohibiting all felons because some things are felonies that pose no physical threat to anyone. For instance Martha Stewart can't own a firearm. To me that's silly.
    Now a violent criminal, I have no problem with him/her being prohibited from ownership. That will get mixed opinions here and the favorite argument is "If someone is too dangerous to own a weapon they shouldn't be released from prison." I actually agree with that statement, but that's not the way it works in reality and I'm not sure there is a fix for it.
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2014
  18. kwguy

    kwguy Well-Known Member

    Behavior *is* a health issue, because mental health is, y'know, health-related

    Sure, but not all gun violence is due to mental health issues? To call gun violence in general a health issue is an attempt to put power into the hands of medical folks when it concerns gun ownership. I guess armed robbery with knives or ball bats or whatever is also a 'health issue'.

    Not all bad behavior is related to mental health issues, and 'gun violence', or rather, the violence in general that is committed by jerks with weapons ranging from fists to guns and worse, is not a 'health issue'.
  19. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Well-Known Member

    ^ Agreed.
    Sure there are some mental health issues at play with many of the recent mass shooters. That is fact, but they are a very small percentage of the issue.

    The VAST majority of people who assault and murder need to be in prison, not a mental health facility.
  20. climbskirun

    climbskirun Active Member

    If we had a reliable psych evaluation (which we currently don't) that would provide a statistically significant indication that a person may use the firearm to harm self or others, I'd be OK with adding them to the list of people who can't posses (or may be required to jump thru additional hoops as a safeguard for society at large).
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page