According to this huffingtonpost.com bio, Sean Palfrey MD is a pediatrician, teacher, parent, photographer, advocate for improved child health and safety. They forgot to add “civilian disarmament advocate.” Reading the Harvard grad’s editorial What a Public Health Approach to Gun Violence Would Look Like, there’s no doubt that Palfrey would degrade and destroy gun rights in the name of public safety. Here’s his vision of applying the disease control model to Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms . . .
Using a similar approach for gun violence, communities around this country could vote to establish site-specific, enforceable local ordinances, such as firearm-free blocks, zip-codes, towns or cities. If, after a year, for instance, the firearm-related injuries and deaths dropped, other regions could be incorporated, through the electoral process, to institute similar ordinances. In order to gather accurate data, all health departments, through their police, physicians, ambulances and emergency rooms, would be required to gather and publicize such information. Communities could choose the strictness of their bans and the size and description of their zones, but a continuous voting cycle, informed by the data collected, would be scheduled yearly or whatever was chosen. Through this process, if one method of decreasing gun-related violence was shown to be superior to others, the zones would steadily increase in size and new techniques could be tried and added.
Firearms-free blocks and zip-codes. Right. So gun owners wishing to respect the law – as opposed to criminals – would have to know where they were at all times. Cross the wrong street and they’d be looking at the permanent loss of their gun rights, a fine and prison time. And this guy went to an Ivy League school?
It gets better . . .
Some gun owners believe that local gun bans would place their non-gun-carrying members at greater risk. The only way to know is to study it this way. Current gun-owners would be allowed to keep their guns in gun shops, armories, or police stations for use in agreed-upon areas outside of the gun-free zones. A community could vote to try variations on any theme they felt worth studying, such as keeping guns locked in homes with no ammunition in a community, or keeping only guns with personally identified triggering mechanisms, but the goal is to steadily apply all approaches that decreased the rate of gun violence. In this way, public health can react to gun violence not by attaching itself to general, society-wide legislative responses, but through instituting and managing a public health strategy itself.
I’m not sure there’s anything really new here – other than the tacit admission that his idea is an untested theory (only it isn’t) that would happily subject non-gun owners to greater risk during the trial period. Is there a medical ethicist in the house? How about someone who’s read the Constitution? Someone should send him a copy.
I disagree. His theories have been tested and found wanting, Charleston.
You forget Washington D.C. – which according to Sean Palfrey MD should have been a gun-free paradise until they struck down the prohibitions. If people can just make laws to eliminate guns, why not make laws to eliminate murder, rape, violence, and feeling bad too? Outlaw sad puppies while we’re at it, because that’s just heartbreaking.
I do not recommend that anyone send their children to this pediatrician, since he obviously doesn’t know the first thing about how the world works. If his theories were sound he could just petition the legislature to outlaw measles and chicken pox in certain zip codes and if that workd have the electoral process expand the exclusionary zones. Problem solved and no more arguments about immunizations.
Question is if he did his “modest experiment” and found the opposite to his presupposed outcome would he be open to the facts that the studies already show that more guns equals less crime?
I don’t think so since he has already shown his prejudice in the very statements he makes.
This communist needs to be deported immediately. He certainly does not belong in America. We can give him 72 hrs. to get to China or Russia where his thoughts will be better suited. He will be much happier and so will the of the rest of America.
just another harvard-educated ass! I got a question for your doctor do your lawn maintenance guys have college education does your gardener has a college education they seem to be able to run their lives pretty well huh how about you stick to your ways and we’ll stick to ours!
Pin head doctor out of his field. If he treats his patients the way he views violence he treats symptoms, not disease.
I think that is actually Steven Keaton – also a flaming libtard.
I have yet to see anything come out of Harvard; or any of the Ivy league schools; in the past 30 years that was worth any more than a rats ass. It seems all the asinine schemes, stupid ideas, and left-wing political jerk-offs come out of there.
Has this guy ever heard of Chicago?
No, because it is another place where his moronic “experiment” already failed.
I put up a sign banning progressives in my county. It didn’t work for shit, the progressive vermin just ignored it.
Funny thing about signs and zones – they don’t do shit without enforcement.
My first thought was, well, maybe we should try this on the south side of Chicago, and then I thought–oh wait, they did that all ready. Doctor, your results are available, no further testing needed.
Now we could actually try this in some affluent gated community full of rich liberals, and I suspect you would get nearly 100% compliance. But the cost of the private security to clamp down on the ensuing wave of burglaries might be prohibitive.
Yeah all those years of a handgun ban and crime more or less went with the rest of the nation, funny how that happens. Handguns are unbanned and crime starts to somewhat go down. Allow carry, crime somewhat goes down.
Hmm..I think they tried this some time ago. Yup, Warsaw Ghetto.
Take off that flannel and shave that beard, mister. You ain’t earned them.
I believe a quote from the movie Wargames is appropriate here…
“I was hoping for something a little better than that from you, sir. A man of your education.”
Wow, what a control freak. I guess he would simply bow down and obey any command from any government “official.”
+1 WOPR
hmm… That was supposed to be under dh34’s comment.
You see, because inanimate objects are usually the cause and all we have to do is ban them then nobody will ever get their hands on one. See? It’s so simple. I’m a doctor, take it from me, I’m smart, so I must know.
Worthy of Dr Trump.
If we do what he wants, you end up with modern day Mexico right?
Hows that working out for you?
Amazing how neurons could aline in a way that could produce a logic train such as this. The failure is not of his thoughts but his research notes…nothing in the Constitution identifying public health as a right that shall not be infringed.
A Dr. who should join a different profession. He has nothing new or feasible to say. If he was worth his salt as a medically trained people he would focus on the causation or the why of violence. Try conflict resolution behavioral efforts or socioeconomic study. Fear divides, maybe the Dr. should consider a more uniting approach. But hey, Obama hasn’t learned this lesson either.
Medical schools take a “treat the symptoms” approach now a days.
He should concentrate on “practicing” medicine. Maybe someday he will get good at it.
Controlling guns one zip code at a time.
Am pretty sure the bad guys would keep updates on the gun free zip codes.
Apparently Sean Palfrey MD hasn’t heard that his experiment was already tried in entire US cities, with disastrous results. I doubt he’d argue that Washington D.C has been a crime-free paradise until the laws were recently struck down.
“If, after a year, for instance, the firearm-related injuries and deaths dropped, other regions could be incorporated, through the electoral process, to institute similar ordinances.”
Aside from the natural, civil and Constitutionally protected RKBA not being subject to the democratic process or social utility, that comment alone shows that he is not serious, because that is a really big IF. You will note that hos basic presumption is that this fascist scheme would absolutely work and people would see the light and more and more people would vote to restrict our Second Amendment protections.
You will also notice that nowhere in his screed does he include any mechanism for what should happen if his plan turns out to be the abject failure we all know it is destined to be. When the whole thing results in more violence and death does the electoral process then come into effect and allow voters to tell him and all his ilk to fuck off and leave us alone?
Fascism:
We have decided what is best for you. If you know what is good for you, you will not argue with us.
This comment posted some time ago is sitting around waiting for moderation, probably because I included profanity on Sunday. Here it is self-moderated:
“If, after a year, for instance, the firearm-related injuries and deaths dropped, other regions could be incorporated, through the electoral process, to institute similar ordinances.”
Aside from the natural, civil and Constitutionally protected RKBA not being subject to the democratic process or social utility, that comment alone shows that he is not serious, because that is a really big IF. You will note that his basic presumption is that this fascist scheme would absolutely work and people would see the light and more and more people would vote to restrict our Second Amendment protections.
You will also notice that nowhere in his screed does he include any mechanism for what should happen if his plan turns out to be the abject failure we all know it is destined to be. When the whole thing results in more violence and death does the electoral process then come into effect and allow voters to tell him and all his ilk to go off and leave us alone?
Fascism:
We have decided what is best for you. If you know what is good for you, you will not argue with us.
I get the sense that he’s completely unaware that this very experiment has been going on for at least a century, with predictable results. So news flash, the murder rate in Iowa is way, way less than the murder rate in Chicago, despite the fact, or more appropriately because of the fact that there are far fewer restrictions on gun ownership in Iowa than Chicago and the percentage of households with guns is much higher in Iowa. Problem solved. End gun control. For the children.
End high-population-density cities. Problem solved.
This is PRECISELY the kind of nonsense DRGO was established to counter.
turn over a cow pie and guess who turns up? Mike ‘Thegunguy’ Weisser. Palfrey and his wife(twin sister?) are both members of the Executive Board over at National Medical Council on Gun Violence. It’s Mike Weisser’s baby(although he’s very coy as to his involvement). Why would a ‘gunguy’ found a National anti-gun group?
Mikey is a “gun guy” like Ozzy Osbourne is a Baptist preacher.
Or you could say he is anti gun like Alice Cooper’s a baptist preacher. 🙂
Apparently Mike was an FFL, but he was such an ass his business failed–so he became an anti-gun crusader with an alleged “gunny” credential to pay the bills. The liberals buy it, not much anyone else.
Anyone else realize which communities he’s actually targeting for disarmament? Paging #WeWillShootBack… #WeWillShootBack to the white courtesy phone…
“Through this process, if one method of decreasing gun-related violence was shown to be superior to others, the zones would steadily increase in size and new techniques could be tried and added.”
Of course, if after trying their little gun ban experiment, crime was found to increase you’d NEVER de-institute any sort of gun control. From the perspective of guys like this, the only solution is MORE control. Never less.
If he wants to truly do this as an experiment, for every zip code with controls, you’d need another zip code that’s full Constitutional – no NFA, Constitutional carry, no background checks, no nothing. But a true scientific control like that will never fly, because it isn’t “common sense.”
“Communities around this country could vote to establish site-specific, enforceable local ordinances, such as firearm-free blocks, zip-codes, towns or cities. If, after a year, for instance, the firearm-related injuries and deaths dropped, other regions could be incorporated, through the electoral process, to institute similar ordinances.”
Ok, let’s take this a step further, Dr. Since he thinks we can vote out the second amendment, how about the first, fourth, or fourteenth. How about we vote segregation back in and see how it works? I mean, it would only be for one city and just for a year “to see how it works.”
“Some gun owners believe that local gun bans would place their non-gun-carrying members at greater risk. The only way to know is to study it this way. Current”
We can already do that, look at Chicago, DC, or Detroit. They’re largely “gun-free-zones” and they have some of the highest homicide rates in the entire world.
How about we try this idea, I’ll keep my guns, you keep your no-guns, and if you try to force me to hand over my guns, I’ll just hand over the bullets instead…
I would not be surprised if he attended one of those liberal hippie dirt hugger iv league school that believes in socialist or communist formes of self rule by means of the richest of us chose who and what should be the rules. Oh wait, thats how it already is… My bad…
Keep our personal property at the popo house? Yeah, right, that’s the american way.
Perhaps cars should be left at popo’s when one has a party.
He got this idea from the Brits. Which is a nearly gun free paradise with a crime rate four times higher than the US.
People like this should be concerned about their own health (i.e., lead poisoning).
I hope he never gets to my zip code. I live in a city so small it only has one zip!
How do people get so out of touch with reality?
I think he should be allowed to test his theory in south Chicago and he has to go door to door and inform those folks of his good idea
“Current gun-owners would be allowed to keep their guns in gun shops, armories, or police stations for use in agreed-upon areas outside of the gun-free zones.”
It’s been said a trillion times before, criminals will *not* be subjecting their firearms to this policy. Why is this such a hurdle for gun grabbers to understand?
Hey uh, Dr. Sean Palfrey MD, can we have a discussion about accidental medical mistake deaths in the USA which number around 400,000? Until then, I cordially invite you to STFU. 🙂
This is not stupid at all, in the sense that it’s just another suggested way to throw up on the wall and see if it sticks to achieve anti-gunners’ ends. Of COURSE he knows this plan would gradually lead to outlawing all guns everywhere, except maybe shotguns or .22 rifles kept in lockers at the target, skeet or trap range. That’s the idea. Duh.
RF, we’ll all be much more effective proponents once we realize the ONLY thing the antis really care about is outlawing guns. No matter how stupid the conclusion that less guns equals less crime is, they’ve already taken that decision and only care about reaching their desired end.
We can preach logic and reason to the undecideds only, but not the liberal zealots.
Where do they even find these people? It’s bizarre
“Through this process, if one method of decreasing gun-related violence was shown to be superior to others, the zones would steadily increase in size and new techniques could be tried and added.”
And when it falls flat on its face… then what? Just one more rule/restriction/law until you twist enough data so you can claim the desired result?
Yeah… think I’ll pass and just keep and DEFEND my rights, thank you very much….
I really didn’t think a single human could ingest that much paste.
“…and through the electoral process people could vote in unicorn riding white suited, safety rangers, with wizard wands (only non phallic shaped ones in case anyone gets offended) topped with daisies, to spread joy and brotherly love, all while singing kumbaya.”
This theory could work to eliminate gun involved violent crime.
HOWEVER
In order to do so, roadblocks would need to be set up along the perimeter of the GFZ’s and anyone entering would need to be thoroughly searched in a manner that makes a TSA search look like a handshake. Without such enforcement, the GFZ’s would only disarm the law abiding, who weren’t going to hurt anyone anyway. Obviously, such enforcement would be a slap in the face to the 4th Ammendment.
Yes, because gun free zones in individual buildings have worked wonderfully. This retard should have his medical license revoked, because clearly he lacks the cognitive skills to perform his job.
These a-holes don’t realize something very similar to this was tried in the past, by the Soviet Union.
We already know the number one way to reduce violence: Lock up violent criminals and keep them locked up. Number two: let people arm themselves to protect against violent criminals. And these two things, the left will not advocate. So, they are not serious about this issue from the outset.
I thought this experiment was already being tried in many communities across the nation. Works swell in the major metro areas such as Chiraq.
This person must be attacked as MORALLY wanting. Not understanding individual rights, the rule of law, a constitution, etc. He is projecting (falsely or not) certain RESULTS.
Right & Wrong and NOT about results.
“Some gun owners believe that local gun bans would place their non-gun-carrying members at greater risk. The only way to know is to study it this way.”
So…you’re willing to sacrifice people’s lives to test out your theory? Is the Hippocratic Oath just not a thing anymore?
All wrong, wrong, wrong!
Guns are a form of medicine! The old “hot lead enema” has long been proven as a form of behavior management, and easily fixes all problems and complaints permanently.
Anything else y’all need splained to you?
I meant “Behavior Modification.”
Nice! Magical thinking! I thought you grew out of that in early childhood?
Literally laughing out loud. But when these same quacks start pushing mandatory vaccines, they’re suddenly credible experts.
Imagine the fun that the police will have when then come around to collect all of the guns for the approved armories.
Living proof of the adage that there’s a chasm of difference between “intelligent” and “wise.”
Yes, publicly and proudly mark off a zip code as gun free. Criminals will love you for it.
So we’re supposed to outline with stunning clarity where it’s safe to rob, rape and murder with absolute impunity? Note to self. If you decide to become a psycho killer burglar rapist, go to that guy’s town first.
Using a similar approach for speech violence, communities around this country could vote to establish site-specific, enforceable local ordinances, such as speech-free blocks, zip-codes, towns or cities.
Using a similar approach for religious violence, communities around this country could vote to establish site-specific, enforceable local ordinances, such as religion-free blocks, zip-codes, towns or cities.
Using a similar approach for due process, communities around this country could vote to establish site-specific, enforceable local ordinances, such as due process-free blocks, zip-codes, towns or cities.
Do you think they’d go for any of those? Some animals are more equal…
“If, after a year, for instance, the firearm-related injuries and deaths dropped, other regions could be incorporated, through the electoral process, to institute similar ordinances.”
Or more likely, based on what actually has happened at the state levels, the injury and death rates will remain level or even rise, and rather than declare the experiment over, the local areas will put the blame on surrounding areas which WEREN’T gun free, and insist that we must ban guns in those areas, and try for another year. In this manner such a gun ban would spread, not because of its effect on crime, but in spite of its lack of effect.
My neighbors have no authority over what items I keep in my home.
Not so sure I agree, when the public safety excuse is conjured, the public has more rights than the individual. At least that’s where we’re headed.
What this bearded doc proposes is straight out of the doctrine of “communitarianism” that has been advanced by Amitai Etzioni for decades now. Google the noun and the name. Essentially it’s communism at the local level not unlike the “committees for the defense of the revolution” that have enforced Cuban state power at each city block since around 1960. Your neighbors bang on your door and demand, “Where are the guns!!?”
Etzioni is a militant gungrabber and gun rights advocates are his main target.
Maybe he didn’t get the memo:
“We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie.” – D.C. v. Heller (2008)
FROM HUFFPO: (see other GREAT comments)
You could also apply the public health technique of the “quarantine,” to wit:
1. Pick a few very violent neighborhoods, and block them off so nobody can leave.
2. Go into these neighborhoods and conduct warrantless searches of random individuals and homes.
3. Arrest anyone found to be in possession of anything illegal.
4. Also arrest anyone that has a reputation for being a tough guy, on suspicion of probable -past or future crimes.
5. Interrogate these people using whatever techniques are necessary to get them to identify other neighbors who might be guilty now or in the future of any crimes.
6. Give these people a secret trial without a jury. Upon conviction, lock them up for life.
7. If this works in the chosen violent neighborhoods, expand the program to others.
I mean, hey, if we’re going to toss out the Bill of RIghts, why stop with the Second Amendment?
RIK LII
I wonder how Dr. Clown would like it if we voted to limit the zip codes in which he could run his mouth?
Comments are closed.