USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “A doctor has shared a gruesome photo of her scrubs covered in blood to hit back at the National Rifle Association's claim that doctors should ‘stay in their lane',” the UK’s Daily Mail happily publicizes. “Dr Kristin Gee, of Los Angeles, posted a picture of her pants and shoes drenched in a gunshot victim's blood, writing: ‘To the @NRA, this is what it looks like to stay in #mylane'.”
The article showcases angry social media backlash by some anti-gun doctors to NRA’s proper contention that:
“Half of the articles in Annals of Internal Medicine are pushing for gun control. Most upsetting, however, the medical community seems to have consulted NO ONE but themselves.”
NRA’s tweet was to introduce its article demonstrating those contentions, showing how anti-gun physicians exploit their status as doctors to presume expertise as arbiters of gun safety. That’s a subject we’ve explored before, noting the gunquacks are long on hysteria and short on proof of professional competence in that field.
Think about it—their formidable education and training in their fields of practice notwithstanding, what makes them qualified to offer professional opinions in fields for which they’ve had no formal training? Why are their opinions on guns more qualified than their opinions on what to do about that pinging noise under the hood, or what the proper mix of mutual funds and high tech stocks in your retirement portfolio should be? Just because they’re (presumably) highly competent in one field doesn’t mean they know squat about others.
Years back, I teamed with the late Joe Horn, a retired Los Angeles Sheriff’s Deputy who had become a risk management professional. Using his “Physicians, Don’t Borrow Trouble” article as a starting point, we developed a form for patients to present to doctors presuming to counsel them on guns.
That was for simple boundary violations, stuff like advising patients to lock up their safety, or better yet get rid of guns altogether eventhough they had no formal qualifications to do so. If anything, the gunquacks have gotten louder and more demanding, and their furious responses to NRA’s observations show that, as with all gun-grabbers, no infringement will ever be enough. And you can prove that for yourself from the qua… uh … tweets cited in the Daily Mail promo piece.
“This tweet didn’t even make it 12 hours before another mass shooting,” Cedrick Dark, MD MPH snarked.
OK, Doc—that happened in Brady and Giffords #1-rated California, and in an establishment where the gun was carried in illegally. Your lame attempt at “Gotcha!” notwithstanding, what do you propose that would have prevented it? And bring proof to the table, not just unqualified opinion followed with your unrelated degrees.
Then there’s Ilya Rakitin, M.D., who posted a photo of his bloody pants legs after a young girl was shot.
“I’m not here to discuss legislation, my concern is patients and we need less coming in with bullet hole[s],” he writes, meaning he offers no solutions. “@NRA wouldn’t know anything about having someone die in your arms.”
NRA knows plenty about armed citizens preventing someone dying in their arms. That these medical hoplophobes resort to emotion and hysteria and totally ignore all the documented examples of guns in private hands being used to defend lives is proof that they are not immune to confirmation bias. They thrive on it.
“Do you have any idea how many bullets I pull out of corpses weekly?” Judith Melinek, M.D. angrily demands to know. “This isn’t just my lane. It’s my f*****g highway.”
Being a Los Angeles pathologist, meaning you’re in #1 Brady/Giffords territory, how many of those corpses were the victims of criminals who pay no attention to California’s restrictive citizen disarmament edicts, Doctor? What’s your prescription to stop it, and what’s your evidence that it will be effective?
And importantly, when will you and your colleagues ever agree that the controls are “enough”?
The bottom line is none of these people can offer a solution because they have none, but what they want is obvious. It was articulated years back by Deborah Prothrow-Stith, when she was dean of the Harvard School of Public Health:
“My own view on gun control is simple. 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.”
If they could have their way, what do you think someone who felt compelled to post photos of bloody scrubs on Twitter to make a political point would also want?
In the meantime, if you'd like some qualified opinions (meaning the ones I personally know have actually trained with guns under nationally recognized and certified professionals, so they understand real gun safety), check out Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.
In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and a contributor to Firearms News, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.