Even though I am a Pro-Gun person and I do know that the use of a firearm in the preservation of one life from a standpoint of SD (Self-Defense) is a necessity because of the type of society that they currently live in. I have always been a huge proponent of mental health back ground checks and the applied studies of ways to reduce not only the amount of violence but the amount of violence that are render by the use of firearms.
Don’t get me wrong I fully believe in shooting armed bad guys in the face when applicable. However, I also believe in promoting not “responsibility” (which is a word that has become jaded by the NRA) but I believe in promoting MATURITY of firearm handling. Again, I don’t need you to be responsible I need you to be MATURE.
But even more than that, I’m strongly opposed to the NRA and the Career Politician's that have stonewalled under clock and dagger not only the possible progressive measures but willfully blocking the critical research on how firearms maybe can be considered a Public Health issue just as much as there is a direct correlation between the following two variables:
It is critical insights such as these that must be considered when it comes to the Gun Game. In an article entitled “Silencing the Science on Gun Research” written by two Medical Doctors by the names of Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH; Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH. and it really is a great article in the fact that they wrote the following:
“The nation might be in a better position to act if medical and Public Health Researchers had continued to study these issues as diligently as some of us did between 1985 and 1997. But in 1996, pro-gun members of Congress mounted an all-out effort to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).”
This is a classic example of when Politics stand in the way of good sense that would be beneficial for all – not just a select few. My question is:
“Why eliminate a program that studies a possible correlation between firearms and Public at the Health National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) when they are charge with protecting the Public Health?”
Trust me as a Sociologist; it has nothing to do with your FREEDOM. Why? Because you don’t have any FREEDOM as you only have LIBERTIES. It has nothing to do with your RIGHTS as your RIGHTS can never be taken away unless by force. So what is this about? This is about plain old Dollars and Cents. And what’s not adding up is the fact that we are stopping an institution that we created from doing its job that it was created to do in the first place. And that job is protecting the Public’s Health.
Organizations like the NRA and people that promote them love to use the term “responsibility”. So, this begs the question, does responsibility come into play when we find out that firearms actually are a danger to Public Health. I’m just saying – this is something to think about. My position is that organizations like the NRA cherry pick when the term and the idea of “responsibility” can and shall be applied.
Another statement that was interesting was:
“Although they failed to defund the center [CDC], the House of Representatives removed $2.6 million from the CDC's budget—precisely the amount the agency had spent on firearm injury research the previous year. Funding was restored in joint conference committee, but the money was earmarked for traumatic brain injury. The effect was sharply reduced support for firearm injury research.”
It is my position that policies and actions such as these are not only fundamentally flawed but it is outright “irresponsible”. Why? Because it potentially places the health of the Public at risk. And for me that is unacceptable and socially disrespectful. And the fact that according to Authors; Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH:
“To ensure that the CDC and its grantees got the message, the following language was added to the final appropriation: “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.””
Another thing that really got to me was:
“In 2011, Florida's legislature passed and Governor Scott signed HB 155, which subjects the state's health care practitioners to possible sanctions, including loss of license, if they discuss or record information about firearm safety that a medical board later determines was not “relevant” or was “unnecessarily harassing.” A US district judge has since issued a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of this law, but the matter is still in litigation. Similar bills have been proposed in 7 other states.”
Are we questioning or are we maliciously challenging the integrity and judgment calls of Doctors and Nurses. If a medical provider suspects that a firearm or anything else may pose a possible threat to someone due they not have a duty to report? I’m not say that they should disarm or take someone guns away based on suspicion; but what I am saying is that there should be someone or some mechanism in place to at least investigate the suspicion and or claim.
Supporting my position the Authors stated:
“Health researchers are ethically bound to conduct, analyze, and report studies as objectively as possible and communicate the findings in a transparent manner. Policy makers, health care practitioners, and the public have the final decision regarding whether they will accept, much less act on, those data. Criticizing research is fair game; suppressing research by targeting its sources of funding is not.”
It is my other position that we can do better – we should do better. We have the “responsibility” / social responsibility to educate and promote MATURITY so that we can socially progress. Anything less is outright bullshit. Get with the Growth & Development.
Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH
Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH