"Physicians have been responding to the NRA on Twitter with medical research on gun violence.
"Reasonable gun control results in saving lives," wrote Mary Brandt, MD, a pediatric surgeon at Houston-based Texas Children's Hospital and professor of surgery, pediatrics and medical ethics at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. Dr. Brandt shared study abstracts that found stricter gun control laws result in fewer injuries and deaths.
Esther Choo, MD, an emergency physician and associate professor at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, wrote, "We are not anti-gun: we are anti-bullet holes in our patients."
The Annals of Internal Medicine, the journal for the college of physicians, tweeted a link to journal articles about firearm safety: "The NRA tells doctors to 'stay in their lane' re #GunViolence. We wish we could. Instead, we pledge to talk to our patients about gun violence whenever risk factors are present."
Tomas Diaz, MD, an emergency physician at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote, "Gun violence is very much our lane. And advocating for those who have lost their lives and loved ones is our duty."
The CDC on Nov. 5 published data indicating gun deaths rose in 2015-16 after a few years in which gun-related deaths dropped. The report links the increase to suicides and violent crime."
Physicians respond after NRA tells 'self-important anti-gun doctors to stay in their lane'
After doctors' associations put out a statement warning of the public health dangers of a gun culture based on growing research, and pushing for the need for funding for more research, and the resultant devastation they are seeing daily in their emergency rooms and operating rooms, the NRA tweeted "Someone should tell self-important anti-gun doctors to stay in their lane," as if public health is not in their purview. Their findings, after all, were interfering with propaganda and marketing efforts that "guns keep you safe".
Doctors have now pushed back in turn in turn.
The right, of course, was never that interested in findings or research. Facts have no bearing in forming their worldview. They have dismissed a unanimous consensus and formal statements from every single scientific organization on the planet about the dangers of global warming, choosing instead to support a real estate guy from Manhattan who has dismissed it all as a "Chinese hoax". They still pass tax plans on the premise of trickle down economics. Many of them even still insist the Earth is only 6000 years old. So even if there is further research and more facts and observations become available, don't expect it to impress any of them if it doesn't support their already-existing notions.
But still, we need to learn more facts. The research bans and gag orders pushed by the NRA in congress must be repealed. We need to start caring about facts again.
A gun that does not inflict a fatal or incapacitating wound is basically useless. Certainly if speed limits were reduced to 5 to 10mph there would be far fewer traffic deaths and serious injuries - the problem, of course, is that defeats the purpose of using a modern motor vehicle.
What "research bans" and "gag orders"?
Speaking of hoaxes and myths, are you persisting the myth that the CDC is "banned" from doing "research" on guns?
You must have missed this:
How The NRA Worked To Stifle Gun Violence Research : NPR
https://slate.com/technology/2013/0...ian-gag-rules-and-the-cdc-aca-and-states.html
This is all eerily reminiscent of the tobacco industry trying to stifle the research linking their product to cancer.
: Provided further,
That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and
control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may
be used to advocate or promote gun control:
A handgun is more than enough to defend yourself and inflict fatal wounds. You don’t need to have military style weapons free for any mentally ill person or felon.
You must have missed this:
How The NRA Worked To Stifle Gun Violence Research : NPR
https://slate.com/technology/2013/0...ian-gag-rules-and-the-cdc-aca-and-states.html
This is all eerily reminiscent of the tobacco industry trying to stifle the research linking their product to cancer.
Unless the bad guy has a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine. Then, you're outgunned. So yes, we need those weapons, to even the odds.
Tesearch indicates that hundreds-of-thousands of lives are saved annually, because of private gun ownership.
Poor argument. A 9mm will kill the same as an semi-auto rifle. Dead is dead.Unless the bad guy has a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine. Then, you're outgunned. So yes, we need those weapons, to even the odds.
A handgun is more than enough to defend yourself and inflict fatal wounds. You don’t need to have military style weapons free for any mentally ill person or felon.
There is no end to how far we can go with an arms race with the criminals. A line needs to be drawn somewhere.
Nope. No such research. If you are talking about the number of times guns are use defensively, I can point you towards zones where they are used many times defensively every minute. It does not mean that a war zone is a safe place.
Poor argument. A 9mm will kill the same as an semi-auto rifle. Dead is dead.
The NRA is in the wrong, period.
What is a "military style weapon"?A handgun is more than enough to defend yourself and inflict fatal wounds. You don’t need to have military style weapons free for any mentally ill person or felon.
Unless the bad guy has a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine. Then, you're outgunned. So yes, we need those weapons, to even the odds.
That's why we shouldn't be outlawing guns.
Put more criminals in jail. Utilize the death penalty more.
We already incarcerate more people per capita than any other western country, that plan is not working out so well.
What if the bad guy has a bazooka?:lamo
We already incarcerate more people per capita than any other western country, that plan is not working out so well.
I still have more firepower. A bazooka is a single shot, crew served weapon.
If they miss with the first rounds, they're ****ed.
Thankfully intelligent people understand that a right is not based on the ability to show ones NEED to exercise it.
The research indeed exists.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw01ocoSHdDSX9y5xzqIL6mH&ust=1542818019834340
Are you denying science?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?