courtesy Elaine Thompson/AP News

What about the more than 250,000 people who die each year due to medical malpractice? Perhaps doctors should be concerned with those numbers.

“’Do you have any idea how many bullets I pull out of corpses weekly,’ wrote a San Francisco-based forensic pathologist. ‘This isn’t just my lane. It’s my f—ing highway. Who do you think removes bullets from spines and repairs (or tries to) livers blasted by an AR-15? The tooth fairy? This literally is medicine’s lane,’ wrote another doctor. Some doctors said they own guns but still understand the need to treat gun violence as a serious public-health issue. Indeed, as one doctor noted, if a virus killed the way guns do — randomly, unpredictably, 20 children in five minutes in one place, 58 people in 15 minutes somewhere else — people would be screaming for action from the medical and scientific community.

“Not all deaths or injuries can be prevented, but there are policies that could reduce the carnage. Fund national research, ban assault weapons, keep guns out of the hands of domestic-violence offenders, require safe storage of firearms: Those are among the recommendations of the American College of Physicians in the recently published paper that provoked the NRA.” – Washington Post Editorial Board, It’s Time to Follow Doctors’ Orders On Gun Violence

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

180 COMMENTS

        • You can be a philosopher and be a doctor. Its a degree: doctorate, but there is a difference between an Medical Doctor (M.D.) and Doctor of Philosophy. Guess what medical examiners have: an M.D. They just aren’t physicians.

        • @pg2
          Sure they do. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot – all were philosophers and economists. Words kill far more effectively than guns at the strategic level.

        • “Assault” is a criminal problem. Not a medical problem.

          Why doesn’t the doctor advocate for the lack of human choice too, since apparently that’s their “f-ing highway.”

          If I have a medical question I’ll ask a doctor. Public policy, my rights, responsibilities, and existential philosophies – not so much.

    • “’Do you have any idea how many bullets I pull out of corpses weekly,’ wrote a San Francisco-based forensic pathologist.”

      As a matter of fact, yes, yes I do know… assuming he’s the only pathologist/Medical Examiner in San Francisco (he isn’t) and works 24/7 (he doesn’t), then it’s fewer than 1 per week.

      Oh wait…. SFME is an appointed position by the Mayor. Some San Francisco politicians: Dianne Feinstein, Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Leland Yee….. SFME has to keep the politimasters happy.

      • As I have read here and other places. Don’t let the antis set the terms of the discussion. Don’t play their game. Instead we could point out the following:

        Medical Malpractice accounts for 200,000 to 500,000 deaths annually. It’s the third leading cause of mortality in America.

        In contrast, 30,000 deaths are caused by someone with a firearm. It’s 10,000 deaths if you don’t count suicides.

        A subclass of weapon is not as effective at killing you as by seeking care by those who promise to do no harm. You are 20 to 50 times more likely to die by receiving healthcare than being murdered by someone with a firearm.

        • Not that it matters, but the numbers have gone up, and are pushing 14,000 for the last couple of years for homicides by firearm.

        • Great, Mark, but has anyone addressed what that number would be if you did not have to see a *doctor* after being shot?

        • Actually, “medical malpractice” causes some number of deaths.

          Firearms cause exactly none.

          Life malpractice causes quite a few deaths, sometime using firearms … just like doctors sometime use pills wrong, injections wrong, surgery wrong…

    • Forensic pathologists are doctors, and when there is a crime committed they are employed to assist investigators to determine the cause of death.

      He’s definitely a doctor. But I imagine if he gave us more information, it might weaken his argument quite a bit.

    • Does he ever look into the backgrounds of his specimens? The vast majority would not be upstanding citizens.

      And how does he know if a projectile came from a AR-15? Does it leave a distinct impression on the bullet?

  2. If you read the Nuremberg trial transcripts you will discover that it was doctors who ordered and supported the extermination camps in World War II Germany.

    It was doctors who performed medical experiments on children and their parents in those camps as well.

    A medical degree means nothing to me. It depends on how you use it.

  3. Obviously, some of the comments written by these “Doctors” sound like they were written by a ” hysterical housewife, crazy cat lady, an aggressive nosy neighbor, etc…” In my “Professional” opinion, THEY should seek psychological counseling…Sounds like there might be a little bit of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” lurking in some poorly misfiring neuron…

    • About the only thing worse than Trump Derangement Syndrome is Trump-Cruz Derangement Syndrome.
      My neighbors have it.
      Mainly caused by too much Maddcow in the TV viewing diet.

    • For my part, I don’t take seriously anyone who flaunts their credentials and then immediately uses “literally” to qualify a figure of speech.

  4. Enormous difference between emergency medical care and routine medical care. One saves lives, and the other, well the numbers are pretty clear.

  5. “‘This isn’t just my lane. It’s my f—ing highway.”

    If it’s your ‘highway’, doc, start demanding for a national speed limit of 35 MPH. It will save over 10,000 lives annually, and the only ‘cost’ will be a little inconvenience of taking a few more minuets to get to where you are going…

  7. Dear “doctor”, removing bullets is your lane. Removing civil rights is not.

    As far as “doctor’s orders”, doctors don’t order shit. Like attorneys, doctors give advice and provide services. They do themselves, and their patients, a disservice when that advice is based in ignorance.

    • Medical doctors almost entirely follow a script, a formula in their day to day practices. Very little real doctoring is done with contemporary medical care.

      • I’d love to know your definition of “real doctoring”… leeches? You sure don’t believe in medical advances in the past 100 years, based on your other posts.

        • Pull the string, watch the dummy go….Joe, emergency medical care saves lives. Day to day, or routine medical care, is a holocaust. The numbers don’t lie, even though many people trying to obfuscate these numbers do lie.

        • Joe, try this, what study or studies gave you the conclusive proof you needed to recommend vaccines to your patients? Which study or studies definitively showed the benefits of vaccines outweighed the risks? Which safety tests gave you the conclusive proof you needed to sleep at night knowing these products are rigorously tested enough to administer to 1 day old infants, toddlers, and developing children? Which aluminum safety studies gave you the confidence to administer injected aluminum, a known neurotoxin, without guilt? If you choose not to answer or if you dance around these questions with CDC statements or 1 line bumper sticker slogans, then youve etablished yourself as a charlatan who makes comments on subjects you know little or next to nothing about. Good day.

        • Well I’d say I touched a nerve… there are hundreds of millions of vaccines administered yearly in this country, if the “toxins” were bad, wouldn’t we see adverse effects?

          Where are your studies showing adverse effects? And actual double blind/placebo studies showing adverse effects, not some website with no peer review system that could be construed (not misconstrued) as a conspiracy website. As you have clearly (and erroneously) stated before, the gold standard is double blind placed controlled studies… so which studies do you base your views on?

          Out of curiosity, since this is a gun website… do u actually own a gun or do you have to wait until after you turn 18?

        • Exactly what I expected from you joe, dancing around the questions and refusing to directly answer anything about a procedure you claim is safe and effective, and a product you profit handsomely from recommending. And throwing in some weak ad hominem….so predictable joe.

        • If it looks like a 🦆, and sounds like a 🦆, it’s probably a 🦆. Quacks prescribe remedies/elixirs/magic potions that are not scientifically proven.

  8. The 3 top “killers” in the country are Heart Disease, Cancer and medical malpractice…lets at least get priorities straight. These are things more easily addressed than the human animal’s propensity for violence to his fellow man, regardless of the tool used. Removing guns from the equation will just add more numbers to other methods, baseball bats, stones, fists, trucks, etc…

    • Let’s not gloss over the fact that one of the biggest means of income for doctors (not all but many) is via incentivized prescription “recommendations” pushed by pharmaceutical companies with obvious kickbacks going to doctors and the heath organizations (hospitals) they belong to.

      Instead of trying to resolve a medical issue by addressing the source, it’s easier and more lucrative to throw pills at it. Lord knows, most of the mass shootings in this country happen with chemically unstable people who are usually on (and off again) a chemical cocktail of hormones (serotonin, dopamine, fill-in-any-other-hormone here) and psychotropic drugs.

      How about some accountability? What is your lane, doctor is how about showing some standards and put down the damn script pad for a second, forget about your 2nd yacht, and actually try to solve someone’s medical issues than to merely make it tolerable. My uncle has Parkinson’s and, last I checked, of the many symptoms that come with it, one symptom that was NOT associated with Parkinson’s disease is forgetting who you were or where you are; turns out the drugs they gave him caused chemical amnesia.

      Great job. I guess they were literal when they call it “practicing medicine.” Each person’s endocrine system produces hormones differently to a degree, so really not a single doctor knows for sure how one (usually more than one) drug will affect someone. When we go see a doctor, we’re essentially paying them to learn from any potential mistakes they might make from treating us (where the “practicing” comes in).

      The whole medical system needs a reboot. Back in the 1950’s (I was born in the late 70’s..), a doc could make a house call for a sick patient and charge the family around the cost of an oil change. Now? You’re lucky if your copay is that cheap, assuming you can even afford the ridiculously monopolized insurance.

      Now I’m not a big fan of China’s government or their policies (communism, like fascism, is repressive toward creative thought, innovation and free-thinking). However, doctor’s there do not receive payment until they’ve cured/effectively treated a patient; their pay is directly correlated to the outcome. That’s an interesting concept. You don’t go to a mechanic to practice vehicle servicing, you pay for the result.

      Granted, some things are not solvable (yet), but writing scripts willy-nilly is a huge problem. It should only be done as a last resort.

      So no, doc, it’s not your lane, or your highway. You guys cause far more drawn-out suffering and uncertainty than ever before. Might as well go back to bleeding patients to get the “bad blood” out. It’s at about your current level of actual scientific process (minimal), where most medical journals are closed off behind a ridiculous paywall and if you don’t pay up, you’re on your own to figure out how to treat something.

      Shame on you all who perpetuate the current status quo.

        • Woof! So much ignorance. I literally know, more than just in passing, over 100 practicing physicians, over the past 15 years I have worked with over a thousand easily (don’t keep track). Not a single one gets any kind of incentive for prescribing a certain medicine or company’s product. In fact, I think Medicare calls that fraud and you get prosecuted for it.

          As for paying a mechanic only when the job is fixed, I’ve had plenty of times where I’ve gotten repairs done, they haven’t fixed the problem, and then had to come back for more repairs, guess what, I had to pay each time… weird huh? Maybe I need a new mechanic

  9. I’m completely in support of large scale evidence based research on the effects of gun violence. There’s no reason it shouldn’t be done. And attempting to suppress it looks a lot like this:

    Big Tobacco: Smoking is good for everyone! Everyone should smoke! You don’t need to research smoking at all because it’s good for everyone, and if you do research it you absolutely shouldn’t use that information to suggest that smoking is bad for you and that people should not smoke!

    Subsequent research on smoking occurs which proves many of the above claims to be false and it becomes clear why someone did not want smoking research to happen.

    I’m not saying guns and smoking are the same. Just that the NRA’s attempt to suppress research into the issues looks a lot like Big Tobacco about smoking or Big Pharma about opioids. “Nothing happening here, don’t look this way, all is good, only we’ll spend millions of dollars to make sure you don’t get real data on it!”

    TTAG readers generally believe that the numbers are on the side of firearms owners, so why not let the research happen that the doctors want? If what people keep saying here is true that should come out on the side of gun owners and strengthen that side of the argument.

    Saying “what about this and what about that” has nothing to do with the argument at hand. We are not talking about opioids (which keep in mind Big Pharma originally told doctors that these drugs were not addictive back in the late 90s and this is how that whole thing got started, it wasn’t the ACA that caused it, the opioid problem well predates ACA). We are talking about guns. I keep seeing all these “but what about X or Y” arguments that look to me like they are actually avoiding what these doctors are saying about guns.

    • I welcome an unbiased large-scale study because I am confident it’ll prove the anti-gunners wrong. The issue is that most of the time these studies are funded and done by people with very biased viewpoints so the result is unscientifically biased as well.

      • @L

        Exactly. Forbes published a great article about how research on gun violence also needs to include data on lives saved by guns.

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#15a4927e5edc

        But saying that no research should happen because it gives the NRA night sweats is just complete bullshit. We research other stuff. And in the absence of large scale research, yea, all you are going to have is small, biased studies.

        • What are you talking about? Research gets done all the time and the NRA can’t/doesn’t do anything about it! I think you are refering to politically biased CDC research. CDC does pleanty of firearms related research but is prohibited from conducting research for politically biased reasons. Your asertion that “the NRA blocks research” has been so thoroughly debunked, it baffles the mind that we are still talking about it in the comments section anymore…. Do some research and look past the liberal/Democrat bumper stickers.

        • The constant claim that the NRA blocks “gun violence” research is based soley upon its support of the budget amendment that prevented the CDC from doing research intended to promote gun control, rather than epidemiological studies intended to identify the sources of “gun violence.” The parallel calm that no “gun violence” research is being done because of theis amendment is also demonstrably false. Not only did the CDC do some research at the request of the Obama administration, the fat is that there is a ton of privately funded research being performed at any number of universities. The sad fact is that the most prominent “studies” are funded by Bloomberg with an obvious intended result. For one., Bloomie endowed the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health with $1 billion. They named the school after him, and perform research at his bidding. He also pays that so-called PhD of public health from Harvard, who should be ashamed of his clear research bias that eliminates any data that contradicts his preconceived outcome. And of course there is John Lott and Keck, but that can’t be “research” because it comes to a contrary result.
          Another thing to consider is that all of these studies do not look at anything under a microscope, they do statistical studies. M.D.s can do statistical studies, but most most are researchers with additional training in statistics. The guys in public health are all statisticians. To sum it up, any ER doc or pathologist who thinks that “gun violence” is his “f—–g highway” without any statistical studies of the people being autopsied and the reason they are dead on a table is talking out his or her ass.

        • What was that? Is the astro-turf talking again?

          “I’m not saying guns and smoking are the same. Just that the NRA’s attempt to suppress research into the issues looks a lot like Big Tobacco about smoking or Big Pharma about opioids.”

          “Big Tobacco”, “Big Pharma” is just smearing by association. “the NRA’s” is just an attempt to disarm (<- see what I did, there) people you already disagree with, by smearing their interest organization.

          Not making an association – just making the association: and it's incorrect. A membership organization pursuing their interests is not an industry association pursuing theirs. The rest of the implied similarities are just as wrong.

          If it were about an honest data, it wouldn't be about government studies: politically motivated, and on guns the CDC already got caught burying data that came out wrong.

          If it were about violence, it wouldn't be about guns. Much more violence is done, sadly, other ways.

          If it were about solutions it would look up-stream of restrictions; look at individuals and situations that go violent.

          That bit was crafted agitprop, fed to useful idiots to repeat.

      • @L: I agree. Gun owners are “gun shy” about government-sponsored research. It seems – almost inevitably – to be biased. However, we are throwing-the-baby-out. This is foolish on our part.

        Some research is really hard-core objective facts. As one very simple example, CDC gathers data from local registrars of “Vital Statistics”; births and deaths. CDC already has all the data on deaths; including those where the cause of death is a gunshot. And, whether it’s deemed to be a suicide, homicide or accident. It’s not perfect. (E.g., CDC defaulted to “accident” when the motivation was not known. So, it’s data on gunshot “accidents” became grossly overstated.) But, it’s comprehensive.

        IF CDC simply published the raw data it has compiled on death by gunshot then we could get a handle on whether, for example, Old Fat White Farmers are suiciding or whether young teen Black females are suiciding by gunshot. Inquiring minds want to know because the data will reveal the potential efficacy for safe-storage – or not. It is precisely this kind of data that government-employed bureaucrats want to keep under tight control.

        Other research isn’t quite so hard-core objective facts. Nevertheless, even when conducted by government-employed bureaucrats it can be done well. In 1996 – 98 CDC did some very extensive data-gathering on DGUs. Gary Kleck praised the quality of the questions posed. (OK, admittedly, he has a bias because CDC’s data tended to support Kleck’s earlier findings on DGUs.) We shouldn’t be surprised to find that CDC never analyzed this data nor published any conclusions. It kept its possession of such data secret for 20 years.

        Nothing stands in our way to demand of our Congress-critters that they mandate CDC to carry-on with precisely this study of their own design – and publish the results. E.g., to continue posing these questions to residents of 10 states per year on a 5 year cycle to produce a longitudinal study covering all 50 states. Publish the raw data for researchers – public and private – to analyze.

        As it happens, DGU research is non-trivial. It’s difficult to settle on definitions. Did the self-defender pick-up his gun off the nightstand because he heard a bump-in-the-night? Or, did she actually see an intruder and rule-out the possibility of it being, in actuality, a child retrieving milk at midnight?

        If the phenomena is found to occur frequently (apparently a million instances annually) then it will pay to refine the research questions. Of what value (in peace-of-mind) is knowing he had a means of effective response even if it were but a bump-in-the-night? Of what value (in calculated preservation of life) of each actual intruder identified?

        So long as there is no compressive professional research, everything we see in gunwatch.blogspot.com is dismissed as mere anecdote.

        • The same CDC whose response to multiple requests to compare the long term health outcomes of vaccinated people vs un-vaccinated people is that they ‘don’t know how to perform such a study?’ Sounds like a competent and trustworthy agency to me…..

        • “So long as there is no compressive professional research, ”

          Why is it up to government to do more research? Anyone think government is not biased toward increasing government power? Anyone think government can be an honest broker? Do you know what the letters C-D-C stand for? Why is it that a few thousand deaths by firearms constitutes a disease? Why are not all forms of death and sickness tracked by CDC considered diseases and/or public health issues that need government intervention? Are we going to be satisfied to see government categorize anything it doesn’t like as a disease? The current medical definition of disease can already be stretched to anything that adversely affects a system (of any kind). With the current definition, one could categorize solar flares as a disease.

    • “I’m not saying guns and smoking are the same.” No, you’re just saying that the NRA is lying its face off just like big tobacco did. What could possibly be objectionable about that?

      And research on guns is allowed in the US, it’s not banned. The Dickey amendment was a fairly narrow proscription, and very, very well justified. The CDC was clearly conducting research in a partisan manner–go research THAT.

      • @Protestant

        I just think it’s ridiculous and a political bad move for the NRA to tell doctors to “stay in their lane” about something that is reasonable and widely supported – large scale research about the effects of gun violence – when they have gotten so far out of their lane in terms of saying that such research doesn’t need to happen even though they are not a public health agency. Let he who lives in a glass house throw the first stone.

        • @Elaine: It’s arguably bad tactics for NRA to admonish doctors. NRA doesn’t need to. Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership exists to carry this noble mace. Their articles are re-published with permission here on TTAG. You may browse their archives at DRGO.us.

          DRGO welcomes article submissions from authors who are not doctors. They are especially solicitous of submissions from professionals in the medical field; so, I encourage you to contact them. (They also accept submissions from fellow travelers with no connection to medicine. They publish my ramblings occasionally.)

        • A typical practicing physician does not engage in any of the statistical studies that would support their pre-determined opinions. ‘Ban ARs!” they say, without looking at the statistics that establish that the use of such firearms is rare (<1%) in comparison to the vast majority of deaths associated with the use of firearms. And that as horrific as mass shootings are, they account for a statistically minuscule number of fatalities each year compared to the 12-14,000 deaths and 70,000 to 80,000 nonfatal injuries from other firearms. Thus their opinion is without a scientific basis in suggesting that a ban would reduce "gun violence." and so forth and so on. A reasoned opinion would conclude, as did a DOJ study performed at the end of the Clinton AR ban, that there were no statistically discernible impacts on the rate of "gun violence" as a result of the ban. Just as a reasoned opinion would conclude that "gun violence" is not reduced by "universal background check" laws. California has had one for years, yet there are still neighborhoods in LA that are unsafe, and the rate of "gun violence" is unchanged. Or look at Chicago, which had a handgun ban for over 20 years until overturned by the Supreme Court–it is still one of the most violent cites in the US.

        • The only reason CDC got into the gun research scam was in order to get free money for producing propaganda. If we are going to waste taxpayer money researching what to do about a Constitutionally protected natural right, we should be hiring scientists who know something about the subject and how to research it, which MDs certainly do not, other than by chance. Assigning this research to the Pentagon would be a better choice than CDC.

    • Except as noted in my comment below smoking kills 480,000 people a year in the US. Gun deaths are hovering around 35,000. Those numbers aren’t even close. In fact it would take almost 14 YEARS for gun deaths to equal ONE YEAR of deaths related to smoking. But gun deaths are a ‘health epidemic”, go figure.

      • Smoking is not a crime and is victimless, and deaths related to smoking are technically suicides, which should not be counted.

        • @L: Excellent analysis! I commend you for your brevity. Lots of insight in so few words.

          Hmmm. Smoking: 480,000 “suicides”/year. Gunshots: 33,000 suicides/year. 14.5/1 is the ratio. Hmmmm. I wonder what the gross tax revenue (Federal and state) on tobacco taxes are. Excise and sales. I wonder what the gross tax revenue (Federal and state) is on Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 (Pittman–Robertson Act) plus NFA stamps and state sales taxes are.

          Remember, alcohol Prohibition was repealed when FDR decided he could no longer suffer the loss of excise tax revenue during the Great Depression.

          Maybe we gunnies (and archers) have it all wrong! If only we advocated for doubling the excise taxes on guns and ammunition with the proceeds earmarked for expansion of abortion clinics we could completely gut the gun-control movement!

          Being men of principle, it would be critical to craft the language of any such enabling legislation so as to stay on the right side of the moral line. The earmark should be for Planned Parenthood’s “contraception and women’s health” services with an absolute ban on diversion to abortion.

          Doubling the Pittman–Robertson taxes would be far cheaper than maintaining NRA and all the other gun-rights activities we now must support.

          Naaah. Gunnies are men of principle. The idea of any tax increase, whatsoever, even to defend the 2A, is beyond the pale.

        • Prohibition was repealed when one more state demanding it would have resulted in a Constitutional Convention.

    • @Elaine-“Effects” of gun violence, and not the cause of gun violence? Elaine, why are you only concerned with the “effects” of 1 type of violence? “Large evidence based study”-using your own words, what exactly does that mean?

      • @PG

        For example. This is one from my field.

        The CDC is currently conducting long term, large scale research on the effects of childhood trauma on adult health. What this means is that they have to collect data from a large population and track it over time to see if people who have experienced childhood trauma have poorer health outcomes as adults. Because of the scale and costs of such a study, pretty much only a large federal agency can do this kind of work.

        What this research is showing is that people who experience a certain amount and type of childhood trauma have something like a 400% larger chance of being sick as adults even if they follow a perfectly healthy lifestyle. This research is also starting to show that there may be ways to ameliorate those issues with certain types of supplements and treatments early in life. This data has been invaluable in my field and will continue to be. It means we can do earlier interventions, talk to people about the impacts of childhood trauma on their health, and provide information for them to counteract the negative effects as soon as possible.

        A large number of pediatricians have signed on to the meausres wanting research. I assume that part of their interest would be how the effects of gun violence impact kids not only in childhood but later in the lifespan.

        • How would these large scale epidemiological studies define trauma, and how would they define and separate different types of trauma, and compare that data to what exactly? Is there a non trauma placebo control group? Epidemiological studies are notoriously prone For bias and manipulated results.

        • @Elaine: I too have recently begun to read about early childhood trauma. I find it very disturbing; and also inspiring.

          Recall the “nature vs. nurture” debate. The correlation of violence, low productivity, and other social ailments, with particular demographics is overwhelming. What accounts for this? I, for one, discount “nature” heavily. Yet, social scientists (arm-chair and professional alike) are keenly aware of “culture” on such dependent variables. What if this early childhood trauma is transmitted culturally? I.e., the “hand that rocks the cradle” over multiple generations conveys the phenomena of early childhood trauma from one generation to the next. Both a grand-parent and a parent convey it to children. These children reach reproductive ages and grand-parent and parent convey it again to their children. When this occurs regularly throughout a neighborhood, community, city, it seems the norm. Nothing exceptional to question. We stop to gawk at a plane crash but hardly slow down to glance at a car crash.

          Should we be far more concerned with the consequence of this early childhood trauma then we are about gunshot wounds? It’s really hard to put your finger on the evidence of the former; the surgeon digs the bullet out and shows you a PowerPoint slide of its expanded state on a tray; he shows you the wound it makes. Very visual. No one is taking pictures of prisons filled with young Black males; nor pictures of listless drugged teens sleeping through classes.

          So, it seems visually appealing to get rid of the guns (so that they may be replaced by cutlery, clubs, fists and feet). The data will improve with statistical significance. So long as we don’t take pictures of the prisons and classrooms.

          Is there a taboo about inquiring into early-childhood parenting practices? Why should this be? Can we imagine any “sacred cow” who must not be disturbed in the quest for political correctness?

          Elaine, you work in this field – I understand. Do you have any insight as to why Progressives – of all people – pay so little attention to early-childhood emotional environment concerns? Is there a lack of expertise in the Progressive community about early-childhood experience and its impact on rearing-up generations of successful adults?

        • @Elaine, I suspected you wouldn’t try to answer the hard questions about the “large scale evidence based” study. Given the massive amount of variables in the demographics alone, the NRA is smart enough to understand this study is fatally flawed to begin with and the study’s results will reflect whoever paid for the study.

        • Virtually all “studies” discover that the beliefs of those who funded the study are (coincidentally) absolutely true.

    • The problem with all of that is that any findings contrary to gun confiscation propaganda will be suppressed. Case in point is the CDC study on DGUs.

    • “Elaine D. says:
      November 16, 2018 at 08:25
      I’m completely in support of large scale evidence based research on the effects of gun violence. ”

      Nothing governmental stops research; civilian agencies/organizations are free to spend their money on whatever research they want. What is not permitted, is government-funded research for the purposes of political agendas. You really need to know what you are talking about…not to mention that medical malpractice kills ten times the number of people killed by firearm use (oh, everybody needs medical care, so the risks are just part of living – but no one needs a gun).

      Doctors who claim to be trauma specialists pulling bullets out of gunshot victims never seem to mention how many people in their EDs were shot by lawful gun owners vs. the number shot by criminals/gangers (who are never affected by gun laws – or any other law)

      If a trauma doctor doesn’t want to pull bullets out of victims, there are other specialties they can seek. It is revealing that doctors who whine about “gun violence” don’t seem to complain much about all the other forms of death. I am certain the number of deaths from all causes far outstrips gunshot victims – CDC lists gunshot deaths at about number 100 on the list of causes of death. (yes, I know…CDC is not a reliable source when data doesn’t fit the narrative)

      • I will remind you, Sam, that Jim Dickey later regretted having given in to the pressure of the NRA that created the Dickey Amendment, and stated before he passed away that he wished he had taken a different path because of the effect the amendment had on the kind of research people now want to see.

        • “I will remind you, Sam, that Jim Dickey later regretted having given in to the pressure of the NRA that created the Dickey Amendment,”

          Which means precisely what? One person’s regret does not justify demanding the taxpayer fund political activities. Why is it you people cannot seem to get anything done without burdening the taxpayer? Why is it you people default to government intrusion as the solution for everything?

          You keep dancing around the fact that government research into deaths from gunfire is not prohibited – only using the research for political purposes. That has not changed.

        • The chilling effect of the Dickey Amendment on large scale research is largely attributable to the CDC wanting no part of a research study it can’t spin to push its own political agenda.

          Place blame where it is due.

        • on the kind of research people now want to see.

          You mean gun control/anti-gun research that attributes individual chosen decisions that were illegal acts rebranded as “gun problems.” The problem becomes the gun. The solution becomes the elimination of guns, instead of accepting it as a cultural, moral, existential dilemma based on individual choices from individual people. The problem isn’t that people are imperfect. The problem isn’t that people aim, and miss the mark in their lives and in their decisions. The problem is that guns exist, and if only the guns can be eliminated, can they usher in the utopia magically free from violence with guns gone, and smiles on everyone’s faces.

          • “The solution becomes the elimination of guns, instead of accepting it as a cultural, moral, existential dilemma based on individual choices from individual people.”

            Correct. All that other stuff (fixing society) is just too hard and boring.

            The country is now just about 50-50 Left/Right (at best). Favoring the path of least resistance, the nation is likely to more and more embrace the easy rout of gun control.

            It helps to know the root cause of so much favor for removing guns from non-criminals.

      • @Sam: We all are missing something very big about the statistics on gunshots. Remember that the FBI data, such as it is, shows that gunshot violence is VERY strongly intER-racial, and sparsely intRA-racial. This is a HUGE clue.

        As a thought experiment, imagine a really simple state where ALL – EVERY LAST INSTANCE – of a person of one race were shot by a person of that same race. Can you imagine such a hypothetical? Well, then, it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that almost all Black victims would be criminals shot by other Black criminals. Almost all white victims would be criminals shot by white criminals, and so forth.

        The number of righteous Blacks shooting criminal Blacks would be too few to notice. Remember, righteous Blacks are generally too poor to invest in guns and practice and are culturally disinclined to take up the practice. The number of righteous whites shooting criminal whites would be too few to notice. Yes, the whites have more guns; but, whites have a lower propensity to pursue a criminal career.

        Moreover, the righteous strive to avoid shooting in a self-defense situation. Criminals are less scrupulous about shooting.

        So, in this hypothetical world, the phenomena of a criminal shot by a righteous self-defender would be so anomalous as not to be noticed as other-than-noise. Moreover, when the criminal is on your gurney, how do you know whether the shooter was righteous or not?

        What I have described is, of course, purely hypothetical – counter-factual. The facts are that there is SOME inter-racial violence. Occasionally, a white guy shoots a Black guy. Might be a white cop shooting a Black criminal; or, vice versa. Might be a Black civilian shooting a white criminal; that too happens. But these intER-racial shoots are the exception, not the rule. And, whoever the wounded individual on the gurney might be, one has little (or no) insight about the shooter. If a Black guy tells the triage nurse that he didn’t know who the shooter was, he was covered in a white sheet, how is the nurse going to gain any insight into the real facts?

        Bearing in mind how the foregoing description is likely to prevail for decades – even centuries – to come; I now invite you to contemplate the growth of defensive keeping and carrying of arms. Now something like 7% of the adult population hold CWPs. That might grow to 14%, then to 21%, conceivably to 42%. Why will the ratio of intRA- to intER-racial gun violence change? Why would it be any more apparent from an examination of the gunshot patient that his shooter were righteous or criminal? The triage nurse and trauma surgeon are likely detect no change in their observations.

        Our perceptions of the “data” and the meaning of the underlying facts are very distinct phenomena. The map is not the territory.

        We PotG are motivated by many considerations other than the observations of workers in Emergency Rooms. All of our observations are more-or-less fuzzy. None of us should delude ourselves by assuming, unquestionably, that our observations of the “data” are clear-cut. Nor that shifts in the data mean what we might imagine they mean. A reduction in gunshot wounds observed, while knife wounds not counted, will lead to very misleading conclusions.

        • “The map is not the territory”
          Null-A; good one.

          “A reduction in gunshot wounds observed, while knife wounds not counted, will lead to very misleading conclusions.”
          That doesn’t matter because….guns. If the violent death/injury rate did not change after complete confiscation of guns, the Left would not care at all. I know why that is, but fact remains the gun-grabbers would be satisfied that guns are not accessible to law-abiding citizens.

          BTW, ethnicity (there is only the human race) cannot be the motivator, instigator, propagator, percolator or aerator, for any activity. Naughty, naughty.

          • I agree with you. I struggle to get to the heart of the motivation for gun-control.

            We PotG are inclined to think that there is a great plan in Congress to impose a tyranny on the people; and so, they should want to disarm us first. I agree with the logic; however, the timeline is too long for that to be a realistic motivation. Congress-critters should be able to figure out that before their plan of disarmament could succeed they will be retired and collecting their pensions. Far too late to do anything with the power a tyranny would achieve.

            The best I can imagine is that Congress-critters loath the proposition of being seen as impotent to “do something”. Very well, my suggestion is that they dance around a May-pole to show that they are “doing something”. That demonstration will do less harm and be just as effective as background checks, crack-downs on rogue FFLs, etc.

            The worst I can imagine is that Congress-critters do whatever they do for the money; campaign contributions, direct and indirect. Any candidate who comes out for gun-control can request support from Bloomberg; which support will be forthcoming. Any candidate who comes out for gun-rights will face opposition from a Bloomberg-sponsored candidate. There is no up-side to being for gun-rights; unless, of course, being anti-gun in your District/State is a non-starter.

            The only rational decision is to be anti-gun or neutral. Except in those Districts or states where gun-owners make either proposition untenable.

            Now, my logic backs-up to Bloomberg and the people he urges to contribute to the cause. What makes any given individual embrace a talisman or taboo? We all are subject to this phenomena; but, few of us are billionaires. We are all just as stubborn as Bloomberg about our talisman or taboo. You will never get me to part with my rabbit’s foot!

            Talking Bloomberg out-of-it is a futile proposition. And, then, for that matter, talking Jack/Jill citizen out-of whatever their respective talisman or taboo might be is equally futile.

            The best opportunities I think we have are two-fold:
            1. – In those Districts/states where we have the best established voter base, build that base. It’s not unrealistic to move a substantial minority position of 45% to a majority position of 55%. The House of Representatives is really too hard to wrangle with. The Senate is easy. We have 40 right-to-carry states; all we need is 1/2 of their senators +1 and we can filibuster any gun-control bill. With 51 senators we can stop any legislation whatsoever. Why can’t we get 41 out of 80? Approach 51 out of 80%? If we can’t do that then we don’t have and will never get the political clout we need.
            2. – the judiciary is – at least as a theoretical matter – a rational body. SCOTUS ruled our way in Heller, McDonald and Caetano. If we can get Trump re-elected in 2020, and Pence elected in 2024 and re-elected in 2028 we can populate the Federal judiciary with Constitutionalists. They may be Constitutionalists on lots of other issues (e.g., commerce), but, that’s all we need.

            • “2. – the judiciary is – at least as a theoretical matter – a rational body. SCOTUS ruled our way in Heller, McDonald and Caetano.”

              I recommend a re-read of those decisions; they are squishy, and lower courts ignore them as they please because there is no enforcement mechanism upon courts (or even Dimwitocrat states/cities).

              “If we can get Trump re-elected in 2020, and Pence elected in 2024 and re-elected in 2028 we can populate the Federal judiciary with Constitutionalists.”

              Kavanaugh is commonly thought of as a strict constitutionalist. Reading his thoughts/opinions, he is a traditionalist. That means if a violation of a constitutionally guaranteed right has been tradition and history, he defers to history and tradition.

              Being a jurist should be simple: what is the wording of the constitution? Is the matter at hand clearly inside or outside that wording? If outside, everything related falls and is declared unconstitutional. Instead, the federal courts look for ways to make rulings that dodge the actual constitutional principle. Case in point – “shall not be infringed”. There is no room for interpretation, not margin for “common sense” exceptions. It shouldn’t matter that nineteen SC judges prior made hash of the constitution.

              The SC last ruled on 2A matters in 2010. Look at the violations since. Look at the cases the SC has chosen to review, and the 2A cases they refused. The conclusion, as Justice Thomas observed, the Second Amendment is a second class “right”, and of little importance to the maintenance of the Republic. The very first case they reviewed that concerned regulation of gun ownership should have been resoundingly slapped down by the SC; it wasn’t. Equivocation on principle is not just a character flaw of elected politicians, but federal judges as a whole.

              Federal judges, especially SC judges go to the same law schools, clerk for the same judges. The current SC all graduated from what normals would consider “elite” liberal universities. There can be only so much divergence of thought.

    • There is no suppression of evidenced based research on the effects of firearms use in this country. Zero. That is pure left wing anti-gun propaganda.
      There are multiple private and state funded organizations that have done exactly that. Studies abound. The US CDC is not, nor has it ever been, banned from it. The Dickey amendment specifically says that no funding to the CDC may “advocate or promote gun control”. That was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It does not say that evidenced research can’t be undertaken. The CDC has actually done research on the effects of firearms use since then, but Democrats like to pretend it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t support their disarmament agenda.
      As far as the “research doctors want”, did you not read the statements the NRA was responding to? The doctors in question aren’t asking for research. They’ve already made up their minds and have repeatedly told us the outcome of said “research”. Those doctors are free to do their own research, on their own association’s dime, at any time. What they are demanding is that my tax dollars to pay them to promote the removal of my civil rights, and nothing less.

      • @jwtaylor

        And no matter how credible a piece of research would be, if it was by anyone identified as being in any way vaguely “left,” it would be regarded as socialist propaganda for that reason alone. Regardless of how well it was designed, regardless of questions asked, regardless of scope, scale, or methods.

        I just find it ironic that the “left” gets accused of acting on “feelings alone.” I see exactly the same thing coming from the Right anytime anyone suggests that more factual information could be gathered and evaluated. That study doesn’t count! That’s biased propaganda! No data from anyone who votes blue can ever be real for any reason! How is that not about “feels” just as much as what Lefts get accused of on here?

        • Provide me an example of where the NRA, or any mainstream Republican organization is saying fact based research shouldn’t be done.

        • Well….Sinister has a specific meaning in Latin. Which is why “the Left” is the proper and perfect description of people who want to suppress natural, human and civil rights of those they do not like.

          But to your complaint, if there is no federal funding of research designed to make a political point, guess who cannot use federal funding to make a political point? “The Right”. No federal funding means no political viewpoint is subsidized by government. You people keep looking to government to solve all your inconvenience. Soros, Bloomy and Gates can easily fund endless political research into violence and guns. Why do they not? Because they know it would be a waste of their money – better to waste the money of the taxpayer to accomplish political goals.

        • Elaine, the problem with any scientific research conducted by someone who desires an outcome is the likelihood of obtaining the results they desire. The more they want that outcome, the more likely they are to get it. Gun owners are extremely suspicious of “scientific” research conducted by anyone on the left, because they have been the victims of abusive, unscientific, fake research pushed by people with an agenda. Frequently these have been people working at the CDC or other government agencies.

        • @Elane: You make a good point. Most – not all – researchers are in academia or in government. We PotG are going to be suspicious of everything every researcher publishes because of a reasonably based concern for bias.

          Back around 1980 I studied econometrics in graduate school. Ironically, at that time, I had a terminal in my home and could run multiple regression analysis (computationally intensive) for free at leisure. I was surprised, and suspicious, that I (a mere student with no talent to speak of) could get Student’s t statistic values >3 implying statistical significance > 90%. This was too good to be true! Like shooting ducks in a barrel.

          It took decades of maturity, working with raw, dirty, data, lots of reading and reflection to realize that my intuition was correct. Statistical analysis was far more art than mathematics. (I studied matrix algebra in high school and graduate school. Once you have seen – let alone performed – a matrix inversion required for multiple regression computation you will prefer a career in trauma.)

          The scientific method relies upon repetition producing consistent clusters results to establish validity. And, even so, that validity MUST remain forever subject to doubt. Recall that Einstein complained that if the Quantum theory were found to be valid he would prefer to be a cobbler or a croupier rather than a physicist. We all very stubbornly stick to what we want to believe; and, I no longer believe in just about anything with the fervor of a zealot.

          You were correct when you commented above that much of the interesting research is so expensive that it is beyond the resources of any private individual or even a private organization (such as the National Rifle/Restaurant Association.) The low-hanging fruit (such as Student’s t) has long ago been plucked.

          So, we need government researching the area of guns. Bloomberg and Joyce Foundation aren’t going to fund it; if they did, we wouldn’t believe their findings. NSSF or SAMMI won’t do it; if they did, the Progressives wouldn’t believe. If government does it there will be some mandate for openness that will help. Other researchers will be able to reproduce the results – or make additional or differing findings.

          Even so, statistical research is really dense stuff. Notwithstanding my study – OR, I should say because of it – I do not have confidence in my own ability to understand the results well enough to be convinced. (E.g., I just spent $40 and hours reading “Anti-depressants and suicide” in Journal of Health Economics. Fascinating; but the statistics were far beyond my ability to judge. Bottom line: Increasing the consumption of SSRI’s by 1 pill per capita would reduce suicide by 5%. Extrapolated, 1 suicide prevention costs $22,000; cheap at twice the price. Never mind the increase in productivity and ancillary cost savings from the “incidental” reduction in depression suffering.)

          I think society will get more bang-for-its-research dollar by choosing public-health research topics apart from guns. E.g., see https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/11/13/18088202/gun-control-gun-violence-jennifer-doleac and https://www.theregreview.org/2018/11/09/gun-regulation-costly-not-only-option/. Look at the potential for discovery and application into early childhood trauma which you justly draw to our attention.

          The partisans on both sides have dug their trenches on gun-control. As much as I pray for more research, it’s not going to cause any attrition of the troops in either trench. Conversely, research into other public health topics is likely to be less politicized. (Less, not free of.) And, the leverage to do good works with the knowledge to be discovered is far greater.

          As to the “public health” implications of guns. Well, I think that R.J. Rummel completed the definitive work on this subject and nothing new, more approachable, nor more ghastly is likely to follow. I pray that no one will feel the need for further longitudinal study. (His lifetime work is a large body. You might thumb through Death by Government as a good summary. I was moved just by a short appendix covering the period of Mexican history called the Porfiriato. My mother-in-law’s father was a Colonel in Diez’s Federalies army.)

        • @MarkPA-

          “The scientific method relies upon repetition producing consistent clusters results to establish validity. And, even so, that validity MUST remain forever subject to doubt”- Your statement blew the lid off the vaccine “science is settled” argument. Also, would love to see you put the rubber to the road on this and explain where the vaccine industry has used the scientific method to even make the statement to begin with. But this being a gun forum I understand if you choose to avoid this request. Having read your “Public Health Officials Lie—That’s What They’re Paid For” article, maybe you could offer some insight into this.

          • @pg2: Kind of you to honor me with an invitation to comment on something.

            “Your statement blew the lid off the vaccine “science is settled” argument. Also, would love to see you put the rubber to the road on this and explain where the vaccine industry has used the scientific method to even make the statement to begin with.”

            I confess that I have given no study whatsoever to the vaccine controversy; albeit I am aware of it.

            My education is in the dismal science of economics, not biology. As such, I am by inclination highly tolerant of collateral damage. Life in the real world is difficult; mortality and morbidity are inevitable. We have a term “creative destruction” to characterize the phenomena of inefficient industries (or workers) failing and giving way to more efficient interlopers. It is exceedingly rare that there is some better solution.

            One example of an ideal solution was the eradication of smallpox. What was once an insurmountable plague was literally cabined in a few vials stored in the US and Russia. It was accomplished within a lifetime. (Admittedly, it wasn’t absolutely perfect. A British lab worker became infected with a cabined sample. A box of vials was discovered in an unlocked room in NIH.) Well, now it’s over; probably, almost certainly.

            I have no doubt but that some people died and others became gravely ill because of smallpox vaccinations. I didn’t; nor did my wife. I am grateful. I can feel sorrow for whoever suffered because they were inoculated. And yet, there was no viable alternative. If vast numbers were to be protected, some would have to suffer and die. If the disease was to finally be eradicated, lots of people with no meaningful risk of exposure would be inoculated. I was born in Minnesota with little prospect of leaving the northern MidWest. I didn’t NEED to be inoculated. But I was.

            Eventually, I would travel around the world. I’ve worked in India and Singapore among other places. I am grateful that smallpox was eradicated long before I had to spend time in such places. I’m even glad that I have some latent immunity to smallpox even decades after the disease was believed to be eradicated.

            That’s my thinking on the subject. I can’t say more.

            Oh, by the way. I acknowledge the scourge of death and injury by gunfire. I’m also aware – having read Death by Government (R.J. Rummel) of the conclusion that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. I hope my reasoning illuminates my conclusions.

        • @MarkPA, no invitation to comment is required on these or any internet forums, but glad you did. My study/degree was economics as well, until grad school, so I feel your pain. Reading Ed Griffins “Creature of Jekyll Island” could have more efficiently and accurately taught economics in a fraction of the time. The Smallpox story is more complex than the 1-2 sentences it has been reduced to for public consumption. The historical data doesn’t support the theory that the vaccine eradicated smallpox. Isolation and quarantine at the end of the day is what effectively curbed the spread. That along with vast improvements in living conditions including sanitation, plumbing, clean drinking water. Dr. Suzanne Humphries details this history very well in her book “Dissolving Illusions”, and the smallpox chapter is well referenced and cited. I catch a lot of flack here for questioning the push for mandatory vaccines, but it strikes me as hypocritical best case scenario for gun owners/alleged supporters of the Bill of Rights and the principles of individual liberties this country was founded on to support total government control over something as serious as potentially dangerous medical/pharmaceutical procedures. When we lose the right to make our own informed decisions, medical or otherwise, we are lost. The 2nd Amendment will be a meaningless artifact.

          • @Elaine; I’m grateful that you are on TTAG. And, you have reminded me once again how foolish I am to say anything outside my lane. Everything is more complicated than I imagine. I thought my knowledge of smallpox was good enough to serve as an example of my viewpoint; wrong again. But, you have shed enough light to leave no reader misguided.

            The more I think about the gun question the more I am convinced that I don’t have the answer and no one else does either.

            There is an old book about the English experience with gun control with a famous remark. If you need the exact citation I’ll go find the book and look it up. Anyway, the remark was that in the 19’th century any criminal or lunatic could walk into a gun shop and walk out with his purchase no questions asked. And yet, there wasn’t enough gun crime in England to get anyone excited.

            Parliament was offered a few opportunities to legislate gun control; few were willing to entertain the thought. Until the Bolshevik revolution and the return of soldiers from WW I. The outbreak of labor violence shook confidence in the Labor government. My take is that they would not be seen to have done nothing to maintain their firm grip on the power of government to keep order. That, and only that, inspired them to impose gun control on pistols and rifles but NOT shotguns. Crime, per se, had NOTHING to do with their motivations.

            Today the demographic situation in England is totally different from what it was prior to – say – the mid 20’th Century. Now, of course, they seriously consider cutlery-control to be a solution.

            I’m convinced that – in America – the horse was out of the barn long before we had barns to shelter our horses. I made my first gun at age 10; I was so proud I showed my Dad. (He was not impressed.) With CNC machine tools any fool can finish an 80% receiver to be a complete AR-15 “firearm”. All the other parts are available mail-order. (It’s like when I was a child and could order a battle rifle for about $15 mail order.)

            Having studied economics, you’re familiar with cottage industry, clandestine manufacturing, smuggling, to say nothing of an inventory of 400 million plus/minus a few tens of millions and theft from that inventory. Albeit you are an immigrant (IIRC) you must, by now, have a familiarity with the range of American sentiments about the Constitution and laws by Congress/legislatures. As more laws get passed, there will be more contempt for the law.

            Whatever it is that the public thinks it knows about gun control, it’s wrong. E.g., “machine guns are illegal”. I invite you to browse the wares offered for sale on http://degroattactical.com. You can get anything you want, in Alice’s restaraunt. It helps to be a millionaire; but one can get along on a smaller budget.

            Mind you, I don’t rule-out all gun-control laws a priori. I think that some might be Constitutional; albeit, ineffective. I believe that there might be some effective gun-control laws; albeit so vastly beyond contemporary political correctness as to be not worth considering except for debating points.

            “When we lose the right to make our own informed decisions, medical or otherwise, we are lost.” Yes. I’m very troubled by the history of drug-control. As examples, pot and psychedelics. We were assured – by no higher authority than Federal public health officials – that there was no conceivable medical purpose to either of these drugs. And so, they were made beyond reach even for legitimate research. Through the perseverance of those willing to defy the law we have learned enough to know that government was lying to us all along. (Some of us are not surprised).

            This experience deeply troubles me. America undertook its foolish experiment with Alcohol Prohibition – but it did it by-the-book. Today, there is NO RIGHT to alcohol anywhere in America. Nevertheless, we have learned to live with it. I think there IS a right to ingest whatever non-lethal medicine one wishes to use after competent advice from a physician of one’s choice. I am deeply troubled by the power exerted by the Federal government to deny this right without Constitutional sanction.

            I can say the same thing about guns; albeit, there is the complicating aspect that there is a right to arms guaranteed Federally which even the States must not infringe. If there is any power to regulate guns, most of it belongs at the state level. And, even here, I’m not sure how much power might exist after McDonald.

            I sympathize with the flak you take on mandatory vaccination. I’m not sure where I settle on my conclusions. Fortunately, I’m not interested in the question to dwell on it. The little economist in me has a lot of tolerance for mandating vaccination. The larger libertarian in me recoils at the idea beyond a manifest emergency.

            • “Mind you, I don’t rule-out all gun-control laws a priori. I think that some might be Constitutional…”

              Not THAT is an interesting statement in light of “shall not be infringed”. Any exception means any exception is permissible (though remaining a violation of the Second Amendment). One person’s idea of a permissible exception means another person’s exception is just as valid.

              Once you allow an infringement, there is no moral authority to deny more. The matter simply becomes a contest of political power, needing no justification other than “might makes right”. The founders established a means to make the constitution more “reasonable”. Meaning that what was a prior unconstitutional act can be come constitutional. Changing the effect of the constitution through regulation is not defensible as a constitutional act.

              • @Sam: OK, so, one gun control is that a person who was once an American citizen who has renounced his citizenship becomes a prohibited person.

                Is this gun control law sensible? No! It’s perfectly silly. It’s abhorrent on its face. Is it Constitutional? Yes, of course. It couldn’t be more clear that just such a person is no longer a member of the class “the People”. Can he appeal to “the right of the People to keep and bear arms” which “shall not be infringed”? No; he can appeal only to his Creator.

                What about a person convicted of a felony? We will presume he has completed his sentence. May he be stripped of his Constitutional rights? I’m not completely convinced. I think he probably can, but I’m open to give fair hearing of the arguments pro and con. Now, why it is that non-violent felonies are treated identically with violent felonies baffles me. Is this Constitutional? For the sake of argument, for a moment, let’s suppose it is Constitutional. Then why are certain “financial crime” felonies excluded. E.g., price fixing. Is that not a denial of equal protection under the law?

                Then, 2-year misdemeanors. Why should it be that a crime designate a misdemeanor gets the same treatment as a felony? I suppose if the crime carries a penalty >1 year then there is some reason for it. However, if the person convicted is not sentenced to a term >1 year, then it seems dubious. Same for a felony where the person is not sentenced to >1 year.

                What about mental incompetents? If a person is insane to the point where he can’t be convicted for a crime then can he be deprived of some Constitutional rights? I’m not convinced that this is unConstitutional.

                How about laws that do not impinge on keeping or bearing? E.g., manufacturers being required to engrave their maker’s mark and a serial number? Given that nearly all manufacturers voluntarily adopted this procedure before being required to do so, I have a hard time seeing how this law even approaches an infringement.

                We have plenty of really big fish to fry. Most important is the right to bear arms in public places (streets and sidewalks). Why is Washington DC Shall-Issue while NYCity is Won’t-Issue? I think we dilute our energy and credibility by arguing an unspecified “absolutist” argument when we could be taken seriously by arguing the DC vs. NYC Circuit split.

                I agree that “shall not” and “infringed” is strong language. However, you have to make a case that a specific law really does “infringe”. Does it “break” the right? Does it make the right “feeble” or “ineffectual”? We should be focusing on those cases where it is indisputable that the law “breaks”, “enfeebles” or makes “ineffectual” “the right” to “keep and bear” “arms”.

                What “arms” are we interested in? A garrote? How does a garrote serve the effectiveness or efficiency of the militia? How is it in common use for lawful purposes? There must be some objects which are weapons but to not deserve to be taken seriously as within the contemplation of the 2A’s use of “arms”.

                What is “the right” to “bear” arms? Does anyone have “the right” to “bear arms” on another person’s private property over the proprietor’s objection? What if the property is a place of public accommodation? Tough questions. I’m not perfectly clear which right trumps the other. I think we should concentrate on the right to bear arms in public places beginning with public rights-of-way, moving on to public buildings such as post offices. I think it’s foolish to start the argument about, for example, a prison.

              • Haven’t proposed that there are no gun control laws, only that exceptions lead to exceptions, each predicated on some theory of “common sense” or utility, or safety.

                Since we have no actual examples of a person renouncing US citizenship and acquiring another, we have to deal with the SC rulings that foreign citizens benefit from the full array of constitutional protections inherent in US citizenship. Thus, you example would have a right to keep and bear arms (not theory, but actual fact – foreign citizens have a constitutional right to purchase firearms in the US). Thus, the person renouncing citizenship is a citizen of a foreign nation, living in the US, and having full constitutional rights – owning firearms.

                The other examples are less “gun control” than results of adjudicated criminal convictions. The underlying theory of felons not having voting rights, or the right to a firearm is not based on any constitutional principle other than being denied certain rights as a result of “due process”.

                While a structural part of the constitution (not an amendment), the “due process” clause actually negates the idea of unalienable rights (which is not stated in the constitution; the constitution is the embodiment of the DOI, unalienable rights being presumed protected). One can possibly pose that it is constitutional to eternally deny natural, human and civil rights to someone who committed a crime, but I find no support in the constitution for such a back-door life sentence. This theory of justification is bastardized by unlimited power of legislators to declare any act they do not like as a felony – there is no check/balance on such (and we see so many “crimes” elevated to felony in order to deprive permanently a person’s right to keep and bear arms (felons who have served their jail time and parole have fulfilled the bargain to be able to be full citizens – there is no constitutional justification for denying full citizenship after completing a sentence for any crime). The room for mischief is great, and observable.

                Another theory of “due process” is that jail time is insufficient, and a person is to be denied the right of self-defense while in prison/jail. While it may be tweaked to allow denying a person a right to a firearm while in police custody and trial, once that person enters the gates of jail/prison, they should have full right to firearms for defense. Before you rise to object that having firearms in prison/jail puts the jailers at risk, there is no constitutional right to safety. Indeed, there is no constitutional right to make balancing the rights of criminals and jailers easy or safe. The constitution is silent on the matter, and where the states do not delegate power to the central government, the government must adjust, not the citizen. The situation of guns in prison is not easy to reconcile, but rather than allow regulations and non-constitutional amendments to control, politicians should be forced to meet their obligations to deal with such direct conflict of rights – without violating the constitution.

                I submit that restrictions on gun ownership as a result of a judicial sentencing are not actually “gun control” laws in the commonly understood concept – making illegal that which is constitutionally protected. The problem is preventing such perversion of human rights and “due process” based on legislation rather than constitutional amendment. Thus I have a split mind on restricting “gun rights” for people convicted of crimes, vs. making illegal that which is protected under the Second Amendment. However, this puts me on a slippery slope of allowing exceptions to the natural, human and civil right. Indeed, it calls into question the disingenuous proposal that convicted criminals have full constitutional rights in prison, except….

                The answer to the chaos is we should be adhering as closely as possible (not as closely as convenient for society) to the absolute wording of the constitution, in all respects. If any restrictions on citizenship are permitted as a result of crime, they must be specific, unambiguous, limited in severity and duration. No person should be required to petition for restoration of rights (which is simply “guilty until proven innocent). Restoration should be concurrent with satisfactory completion of sentence. But that still leaves the potential to make all crime a felony.

              • “Haven’t proposed that there are no gun control laws, . . . ” So that point is clear. There is a possibility that a law concerning guns does not impact upon “the People” which might not “infringe” upon “the right” “to keep and bear arms”. If such a law might exist, it would be Constitutional.

                ” . . . only that exceptions lead to exceptions, each predicated on some theory of “common sense” or utility, or safety.” I agree that there is a slippery-slope. And, it’s far easier to discover that one is on that slope than it is to get off that slope once one starts slipping.

                “Since we have no actual examples of a person renouncing US citizenship and acquiring another, we have to deal with the SC rulings that foreign citizens benefit from the full array of constitutional protections inherent in US citizenship. ” By its nature, it’s unlikely that an expatriate (one who has renounced his citizenship) would wish to keep or bear arms in America. Nevertheless, it’s a theoretical possibility that we can use to sharpen our understanding of the Constitution.

                If you read the language of the Constitution and amendments you will see that the language varies a bit from place to place where a “right” is enumerated. In the 1A, there is a reference to “the People”: “. . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” However, this reference doesn’t seem to apply to the freedoms of speech or press. Therefore, it appears that we can round-up aliens assembling (albeit peaceably) or those having the temerity to petition for redress of grievances. (That we do not is by grace of Congress.) The right to arms runs exclusively to “the People”. Therefore, such aliens who keep or bear arms do so by grace of Congress. (Probably excepting green card holders.)

                Thus, I reason that you are mistaken in writing: “Thus, you example would have a right to keep and bear arms (not theory, but actual fact – foreign citizens have a constitutional right to purchase firearms in the US). Thus, the person renouncing citizenship is a citizen of a foreign nation, living in the US, and having full constitutional rights – owning firearms.” Unless you can explain your reasoning here, I hold that no alien (green card holders probably excepted) has a right of appeal under the 2A.

                “The other examples are less “gun control” than results of adjudicated criminal convictions. The underlying theory of felons not having voting rights, or the right to a firearm is not based on any constitutional principle other than being denied certain rights as a result of “due process”.” I think you are correct here; in the main. What I’m not quite clear on is which Constitutional rights may be revoked after conviction with “due process”. I’m amenable to toying with the possibility that a felon’s right to speech might be revoked; however, his right to advice of council in a subsequent prosecution would seem to survive as an inalienable Constitutional right. I’m not sure it’s worth-while sorting this out; possibly it is. If we could sort out this question we might be able to reason our way to which felons and misdemeanants likely justify a revocation of 2A rights and which do not.

                “While a structural part of the constitution (not an amendment), the “due process” clause actually negates the idea of unalienable rights (which is not stated in the constitution; the constitution is the embodiment of the DOI, unalienable rights being presumed protected). One can possibly pose that it is constitutional to eternally deny natural, human and civil rights to someone who committed a crime, but I find no support in the constitution for such a back-door life sentence. This theory of justification is bastardized by unlimited power of legislators to declare any act they do not like as a felony – there is no check/balance on such (and we see so many “crimes” elevated to felony in order to deprive permanently a person’s right to keep and bear arms (felons who have served their jail time and parole have fulfilled the bargain to be able to be full citizens – there is no constitutional justification for denying full citizenship after completing a sentence for any crime). The room for mischief is great, and observable.”

                I concede that your reasoning in the previous paragraph is pretty persuasive. It strikes me as though there might be some crimes so heinous – treason for example – that they should justify stripping Constitutional guarantees of certain rights (voting, arms, peaceful assembly, petition for redress of grievance) for life. Others, e.g., right to advice of council, confrontation of witnesses, probably not.

                “Another theory of “due process” is that jail time is insufficient, and a person is to be denied the right of self-defense while in prison/jail. While it may be tweaked to allow denying a person a right to a firearm while in police custody and trial, once that person enters the gates of jail/prison, they should have full right to firearms for defense. Before you rise to object that having firearms in prison/jail puts the jailers at risk, there is no constitutional right to safety. Indeed, there is no constitutional right to make balancing the rights of criminals and jailers easy or safe. The constitution is silent on the matter, and where the states do not delegate power to the central government, the government must adjust, not the citizen. The situation of guns in prison is not easy to reconcile, but rather than allow regulations and non-constitutional amendments to control, politicians should be forced to meet their obligations to deal with such direct conflict of rights – without violating the constitution.”

                I’m not sure how to work-out the difficulties you raise in the previous paragraph. I think that a person has a right to life; and therefore, a right to self-defense. However, the right-to-arms to an effective means of self-defense is a third derivative. I think the solution to these problems might be found with persons who are in the custody of another. Minors are in the custody of their parents. Incompetent adults are in the custody of a guardian. Such persons have some, but not all their rights. Which they do not have I’m not clear on; nor am I aware of the reasoning for making distinctions between rights they have/don’t-have. In any case, I think it’s futile to try to argue that a state government (or Federal) lacks the power to deprive children or incompetents of effective individual exercise of their rights. So, for example, it’s pointless for us to quarrel with Vermont which forbids children under 16 of their right to bear handguns. If we want to be absolutely sure that we won’t be taken seriously by mainstream voters, we could argue for the right of prisoners to keep and bear arms in prison.

                “The answer to the chaos is we should be adhering as closely as possible (not as closely as convenient for society) to the absolute wording of the constitution, in all respects. If any restrictions on citizenship are permitted as a result of crime, they must be specific, unambiguous, limited in severity and duration. No person should be required to petition for restoration of rights (which is simply “guilty until proven innocent). Restoration should be concurrent with satisfactory completion of sentence. But that still leaves the potential to make all crime a felony.”

                I agree with your reasoning. Nevertheless, I think we need to prioritize our efforts. I sympathize with felons and 2-year misdemeanants who have completed their sentences. Likewise, I sympathize with DV misdemeanants. Yet, no matter how much I can sympathize with such cases, I feel compelled to question where to direct our energies.

                I think it’s much easier to make a case for a “second chance” for “many”. It’s much harder to make a blanket case for “all” felons convicted of crimes no matter how heinous they might be.

                What do we want? If we want to stand on some heartfelt principle in order to signal our virtue, well then it’s perfectly clear that every felon who may complete his sentence “deserves” restoration of whatever rights might have been suspended. Conversely, if we want to improve the chances for millions of persons convicted or committed, then the place to begin is (I think) restoration of funding to the DoJ to grant restoration of rights. And, then, to petition Congress and state legislatures to narrow the classes of crimes (bases for commitment) that automatically result in loss of 2A rights. Even these efforts should, I think, be given secondary priority. First, we need to get traction on the right to bear arms in the last 10 Won’t-Issue states. This step is part-in-parcel with normalizing (de-stigmatizing) the keeping and bearing of arms for personal self-defense by those who have clear records.

                Look at the politics. We will get greater traction in an argument for why a battered wife should have a right to bear arms in defense of self against her abuser. We won’t get any traction in defense of the guy convicted of abusing her. I am fully aware that he may have been unjustly convicted. It’s the PR.

              • To the readers: this is a long discussion of the implications of a non-absolute Second Amendment. If such is not interesting to you, please hit “DELETE”, no one will be insulted

                @MarkPA
                My sentence, “Since we have no actual examples of a person renouncing US citizenship and acquiring another, we have to deal with the SC rulings” , was incomplete – I should have written that we have no example of a person renouncing US citizenship, and NOT acquiring citizenship of another nation.

                “There is a possibility that a law concerning guns does not impact upon “the People” which might not “infringe” upon “the right” “to keep and bear arms”. If such a law might exist, it would be Constitutional.” Regulations that do not disrupt the right to bear arms, are not “gun control”. For instance, requiring a manufacturer to impress a serial number on each “firearm” does not interfere with purchasing, or possessing firearms individually (unless such technology does not exist, or ALL manufacturers refuse to bear the additional cost). Laws that prohibit the possession of a home-built firearm that has no serial number, or is required to be registered with government are interference. The “commerce clause” is the greatest potential threat to the Second Amendment.

                “If you read the language of the Constitution and amendments you will see that the language varies a bit from place to place where a “right” is enumerated.”

                Not quite. While called “enumerated rights” (because the protected rights of the people are numbered in constitutional amendments), the phrase is not stratified, regardless where, or if, “the people” is included verbiage. But following your 1A example, 2A specifically identifies “the right of the people”. Overall, the constitution is not a catalogue of individual rights. It is a list of powers the government has been delegated by superior actors, the States. Amendments 9 and 10 state that all the rights retained by the people are not called out specifically in the constitution, nevertheless, those rights exist solely with “the people”.

                “Therefore, such aliens who keep or bear arms do so by grace of Congress. (Probably excepting green card holders.)”
                Courts have interpreted the constitution thus: Foreign citizens have the right to keep and bear arms while resident, but I think there is an exception regarding concealed carry.
                https://wdfw.wa.gov/help/questions/118/What+are+the+firearms+possession+rules+for+non-U.S.+citizens%3F
                https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/firearms.pdf
                https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/nonimmigrant-aliens?page=1

                Since governments love to control, I think there are no individual rights that can justifiably be denied a convicted felon who completes the court sentencing (including being released early for whatever reason). Governments are too tempted to categorize all offenses against the public as felonies. A term of sentence less than life without parole should never be justification for permanently relieving someone of their constitutional rights, once sentence is completed. If a person is so dangerous as to not be allowed to vote, or inhabit all the rights of citizenship, that person should not be released from jail.

                ” It strikes me as though there might be some crimes so heinous – treason for example – that they should justify stripping Constitutional guarantees of certain rights (voting, arms, peaceful assembly, petition for redress of grievance) for life.”

                See above. If a crime is that heinous, a life sentence without the possibility of parole should be the only permissible response to the crime. However, if it turns out that such a person is later legally liberated, then all rights should unquestionably be restored…without need of petition of restoration.

                “The situation of guns in prison is not easy to reconcile, but rather than allow regulations and non-constitutional amendments to control, politicians should be forced to meet their obligations to deal with such direct conflict of rights – without violating the constitution.”
                “I’m not sure how to work-out the difficulties you raise in the previous paragraph. ”

                I am not sure either, however, any law that prohibits the possession of firearms by prisoners is merely an “exception” based on “common sense” (actually, political power to pass and enforce such laws), or other such equivocation seemingly acceptable to politicians and the public. This is the eternal problem. If there are certain “unalienable” (not “inalienable”) rights, then where is the justification for alienating those rights? Rights are either absolute, or they are not. If not, then they can be alienated, regardless of the bold declaration of the founders. If “rights’ are God-given (or naturally existing outside human approval), then they are absolute. For humans to later decide that some adjustment must be made for “the common good/welfare”, humans then usurp the power of God, or Nature. And then we get to situational ethics – might makes right.

                “It’s much harder to make a blanket case for “all” felons convicted of crimes no matter how heinous they might be.”

                Actually, it is easy; a thing is, or it isn’t. If a felon deserves no “second chance” that felon remains jailed for the natural term of life. It is illogical to argue that a person convicted of a most heinous crime can be half in, and half out of prison. Such reasoning states that such felon can be trusted to walk among other humans, but cannot vote? Cannot be trusted with firearms? What is the justice supposedly served by such mental sleight-of-hand?

                “First, we need to get traction on the right to bear arms in the last 10 Won’t-Issue states.”

                What you describe is mere incrementalism, fighting the war trench by trench, subject to being repealed by the next legislature. What we need is an unequivocal ruling by the Supreme Court that 2A is absolute. Barring that, a new constitutional amendment reinforcing the words to be clear that no law shall address the individual and corporate RTKBA, no how, no way, not never – the Second Amendment is absolute and immutable.

              • “I should have written that we have no example of a person renouncing US citizenship, and NOT acquiring citizenship of another nation.” This does NOT matter. America is not going to regard someone as a member of the class “the People” who is not a US citizen (or green-card holder or perhaps a few other narrow exceptions such as in US military service) who is not a US citizen. If an individual who was once a US citizen and renounced his citizenship he will not be a US citizen. Whether he is “stateless” or a citizen of one or many other countries won’t matter. He is simply outside the class of “the People”.

                “For instance, requiring a manufacturer to impress a serial number on each “firearm” does not interfere with purchasing, or possessing firearms individually (unless such technology does not exist, or ALL manufacturers refuse to bear the additional cost).” OK, so, we seem to agree that it is possible to have a law concerning guns that might not necessarily “infringe”.

                “The “commerce clause” is the greatest potential threat to the Second Amendment.” Yes, but that’s yet a separate topic.

                “If you read the language of the Constitution and amendments you will see that the language varies a bit from place to place where a “right” is enumerated.”

                “Overall, the constitution is not a catalogue of individual rights. It is a list of powers the government has been delegated by superior actors, the States.” That is true. Nevertheless, there are rights embedded in the body of the Constitution. And, there are rights that were introduced (or removed) in the Amendments. In any case, the entire document does both. It enumerates certain powers of government, and implies others. It enumerates certain rights of the People (or persons more generally), and implies others. And, the courts have laid down decisions that – for practical purposes – expand on the foregoing.

                “Courts have interpreted the constitution thus: Foreign citizens have the right to keep and bear arms while resident, but I think there is an exception regarding concealed carry.
                https://wdfw.wa.gov/help/questions/118/What+are+the+firearms+possession+rules+for+non-U.S.+citizens%3F
                https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/firearms.pdf
                https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/nonimmigrant-aliens?page=1”

                I do not find this conclusion in the link to Washington state law. This is an area that is not fleshed-out. I’m pretty sure that there is no SCOTUS decision on topic.

                “. . . I think there are no individual rights that can justifiably be denied a convicted felon who completes the court sentencing . . . ” Each of us can think whatever we like. Nevertheless, when a judge issues an order the subject of that order is still going to be taken to prison.

                “Rights are either absolute, or they are not. If not, then they can be alienated, regardless of the bold declaration of the founders.” I wish it were that simple. First, you have to look at the language. The 4A guarantees the “right” against “unreasonable” searches and seizures. Yes, if the search/seizure is “unreasonable” then it’s absolutely forbidden. If it’s deemed “reasonable”, you are out of luck. Look at the 3A; the “right” “guaranteed” there is probably among the most squishy of all. The 1A is deemed to exclude libel and slander; you have no “right” to damage another person by libelous writer statements or slanderous speech. So, saying a “right” is “absolute” doesn’t get you home.

                “If “rights’ are God-given (or naturally existing outside human approval), then they are absolute. For humans to later decide that some adjustment must be made for “the common good/welfare”, humans then usurp the power of God, or Nature. And then we get to situational ethics – might makes right.” Yes, there are innumerable rights endowed by our Creator. Yet, only some of these are enumerated. )Some enumerated rights our Creator probably never weighed in on. E.g., the 7A right of trial by jury for suits at common law in amounts exceeding twenty dollars was probably not specified by any higher authority than the ratifying legislatures.)

                I think that we will agree that the right to arms is properly derived from the right to life. However, I doubt that the Creator intended to confine it to “the People” of the United States. Now, I take it that you and I disagree on the meaning of “the People”. I hold that it means the community of citizens (and perhaps green card holders) of the United States. I take it that you believe it means all of Gaia’s children regardless of citizenship.

                In any case, there is a distinction to be made between those rights endowed by our Creator and those that we the People have bound government to respect. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they were precisely identical.

                “Such reasoning states that such felon can be trusted to walk among other humans, but cannot vote? Cannot be trusted with firearms? What is the justice supposedly served by such mental sleight-of-hand?” Yup. That’s the way it is; and, its tough. A felon may be guilty of such a heinous crime that he is a danger to everyone around him. That was the case before he was apprehended. And, it may continue to be the case after he is released. You see, a judge, a governor/President or by operation of law, may release this person to be at large among us. We elect legislators to prescribe maximum prison sentences that, presumably, accord with our appetite to be taxed to maintain prisons. There is no magic to the possibility that prisoners will be released notwithstanding that they remain a danger to others.

                “What you describe is mere incrementalism, fighting the war trench by trench, subject to being repealed by the next legislature.” Precisely. That’s how most battles are won; how most wars are won. Trench by trench, foxhole by foxhole.

                “What we need is an unequivocal ruling by the Supreme Court that 2A is absolute.” My recommendation is that you not hold your breath. Some kinds of decisions are intrinsically binary. That is, it’s hard to reach a conclusion about the matter in dispute that somehow divides the baby into two parts be they equal or unequal. It’s winner-take-all. E.g., gay marriage. It’s difficult to imagine how SCOTUS could decide that the states had/lacked the power to deny gay marriage. Other decisions are intrinsically difficult to make other than by drawing some line in the middle. E.g., abortion. SCOTUS couldn’t have banned all abortions under all circumstances. Nor were they likely to have authorized all abortions under all circumstances. (You may prefer different examples; but I hope that you can see the point in making some such distinction.) The right to arms is one which I think falls into the latter category. I can’t imagine SCOTUS writing a decision that would constitute a “blank check” of any kind. Even if they could, they wouldn’t. They are going to carve-out aspects of “the right” piece by piece according to the issues at stake in each case they decide. This is going to be a long drawn-out process.

                Moreover, we must be careful not to seek more relief in any single case than we judge 5 justices are sure to be willing to grant. Look at Heller, McDonald and Caetano. The relief sought in each case was narrowly defined. And so, it was relatively easy to get 5 justices (Caetano was unanimous) to agree to a holding and the rationale.

                When we seek relief beyond what 5 justices are prepared to grant we get nothing. They simply deny cert. We are left treading water.

                “. . . a new constitutional amendment reinforcing the words to be clear that no law shall address the individual and corporate RTKBA, no how, no way, not never – the Second Amendment is absolute and immutable.” I’ve thought of such a clarifying amendment. My conclusion is that we aren’t going to be able to get any language much better than what we have. Writing “absolutely, positively, cross-my-heart and hope the Justices die if they don’t do what we want” isn’t likely to give us much.

                Instead, I think we ought to make a “Put-up or shut-up” argument to the Antis. Tell them if they want to re-write or repeal the 2A then they should get the 38 states to ratify it. Until then, they have to get used to the idea that there really is a “right” to “arms” that “shall not be infringed”. And, that makes the draconian restriction of guns to government and men of means impossible. So, how about we start talking about root causes.

      • Again, JWTaylor is inarguably correct.

        I would like to add I take issue with the phrase “gun violence.” You do not refer to “knife violence” or “car violence.” And domestic violence is not called “fist violence.” What we need is significantly better mental health care and fewer gun free zones. Our nation’s mental health system is a mess. A terrible mess. It’s broken.

        It’s not the guns, Elaine. It’s the mental state of those involved. I would love to see more work done on the mentality of those committing heinous acts. JWTaylor is correct that the NRA does not suppress research. I might not agree with everything the NRA does but they remain our biggest dog in the fight. Until there is another entity powerful enough to fight back against leftist gun grabs and nonsensical blaming of inanimate objects, well, the NRA is it.

      • Problem was, the *only* thing the CDC was doing was advocating and promoting gun control, so the prohibition effectively stopped their efforts. Because they SHOULD have been stopped.

    • What actual use is research into gun violence? There are already suicide and crime statistics available, there have already been a number of studies. The data isn’t exactly unclear. Deaths from firearms rise and fall and fluctuate by the year and the research isn’t going to find a definite cause because the cause is likely a really complicate mix of societal pressures. The cause is probably more like meteorology being influenced by economic status, culture, individual upbringings, drug addiction levels, mental illness levels, police practices, and it all comes together to form your “storm” of gun violence.

      I don’t have confidence that people are going to be able to pin down any actual correlation between gun violence and any causes. I mean if someone wants to do this useless research, they can go right ahead, I just don’t want to pay for it.

      • @Reggie

        Sure. There is absolutely every possibility that research may show exactly what you just described. But that’s not a reason for it not to happen, or to say that whatever is found should not be used in public policy advisement. Research often, maybe even usually, turns up a lot of things that are surprises, some good, some bad.

        • Like I said, if individuals want to research that, go for it, and as far as I’m aware, private entities are entirely capable of doing the research themselves. I just don’t want to pay for it with my tax money. I don’t want to pay for 90% of things the government does, really.

        • “But that’s not a reason for it not to happen, or to say that whatever is found should not be used in public policy advisement.”

          Using taxpayer dollars to pay for propaganda designed to justify removing a constitutionally protected right via mere regulation is a perversion not to be tolerated. If you (and yours) want to repeal the Second Amendment – go for it (you know you will lose, which is why you want to deny a civil right by policy and process). Use the process, or quite simply, shut up.

          As you continue to avoid, evade and deny, data is collected and published. What is missing, is federal funding of campaigns to squelch an enumerated right using cowardly subterfuge. You offer nothing unique regarding the politics of guns, only the same drivel we have endured since the ’60s.

          You, and yours, cannot solve the issue of criminal use of guns, so you always want to punish the innocent. The rationale for punishing people who have committed no crime is that someone might commit a crime with a gun, so we need to hobble innocent people as a preventative. That is simply justification for imprisoning babies at birth because they might grow up to be criminals. As someone noted, we already know all there is to know about why people commit crimes, and why they use guns. There are no mysteries to be solved. The only avenue remaining is to dig deeper into what is already known, and fix society, fix twisted brains, fix people.

          Your underlying theory is nothing more than belief that removing one weapon type will immediately reduce the number of violent deaths to statistical insignificance. History tells us that long before firearms were perfected, humans were perfectly capable of destroying one another on a massive scale. It isn’t the tool, it is the person. People are flawed beings, from the get-go. Evil exists. Can you imagine the reduction in crime if we simply conducted search and destroy missions in the gang and crime infested neighborhoods? Wouldn’t fix people, but it would drastically impair the conduct of violent criminal activity.

          Ever wonder why you read nothing about the hundreds of mass shootings in inner city schools? It’s because they don’t happen. How ’bout the medical profession study that?

        • Most “gun” violence happens in democrat controlled big cities by gang bangers fueled by the illegal drug biz caused by prohibiting them in the 1st place. So, the solution is to legalize/decriminalize drugs and disband the left wing radicals of the Democrat party, if you factor out the 20 counties with the most violent crime the U.S. would be the safest country on Earth!

        • Most diseases that American’s suffer are lifestyle related. Heart disease, type 2 diabetes… We already know this and we know what the cure is. Perhaps it should be public policy to turn off all TV broadcasting, Internet, communication, for a certain time everyday and mandate that we get off our fat asses and go for a walk. Perhaps it should be public policy that baked goods and sugar should no longer exist. The government could make perfectly balanced nutritional bars and deliver the amount that you are required to eat a certain time each day. Who needs the enjoyment of eating a delicious steak and drinking a Coke, it’s for the public good.

          100% of people will die of something, maybe just need to outlaw death.

        • What Reggie is complaining about is generally referred to as a boondoggle, an excuse to spend somebody else’s money on something desirable to yourself. I agree with him, particularly concerning “studies” which would spend my money without giving me input on the results, which would normally be whatever the fund source wants them to be. Useless, and a waste. Just deal me out, and pay for it yourself!

    • Unless and until you start using knife violence, hammer violence and foot violence to describe assaults using those means stop with the ‘gun’ violence garbage. Violence is violence irregardless of what is used.
      As a post script the CDC has no business studying any type of violence whatsoever.

  10. If today they ban assault rifles, tomorrow they “expand the definition” and try to ban all semi autos.

    Yesterday they mandated a 3 day waiting period, today it’s a 15 day waiting period, tomorrow 60.

    Yesterday domestic abuse removes the right to own firearms, today POTENTIAL domestic abuse removes the right, what do we think tomorrow will bring?

  11. “… more than 250,000 people…die each year due to medical malpractice…people would be screaming for action from the medical and scientific community.”______crickets.

  12. I still fail to realize how less than 15000(no suicide) related gun deaths a year is a “health crisis”. Number of known guns is 400 million. So 400,000,000 guns cause 15000 gun deaths. there’s also that little inconvenient 2nd amendment thing.

    Registered cars in the US – 220,000,000. Most recent deaths in a year 70,000. This is more of a “health crisis” but I dont see doogie howser md complaining about this. Also NOT a constitutional right.

    Smoking in the US kills 480,000 people a year. Where are the protests in front of the cigarette factories? Where is the vocal movement? Entertaining to say the least.

    Asbestos kills 12-15,000 people a year. So same as violent gun deaths. Not a “health crisis” even though the same numbers apply to gun deaths and that apparently is……

    Or maybe we should be concerned about this embarrassing fact about infant mortality in the US. “The United States has the highest first-day death rate in the industrialized world. An estimated 11,300 newborn babies die each year in the United States on the day they are born. This is 50 percent more first-day deaths than all other industrialized countries combined.” But not a health crisis.

    But guns are a health crisis. Whoever buys that I got a great deal on a flaming bag of dog shit. Only $5.99!!!!!

    • Cigarettes are a bad example; there were tons of protests & propaganda back in the 90s to destroy an industry that made a lot of money in non-Democrat areas (and made a lot of money off Democrats). Now they are using the exact same playbook to go after the firearms industry.

    • But… you can’t get anywhere in the Progressive Mafia without turning everything into a crisis and exploiting it…

    • @John: Your statistic of 11,300 babies dying on the first day from birth per year in the US is an interesting example of statistics. I do not question the figure; I don’t know one way or the other whether it’s correct.

      Rather, I wonder what it means. A lot goes into having a successful gestation. I don’t know exactly what; but there is a lot to it. Obstetrics is a medical specialty in its own right. Probably a reason for that.

      Is America’s rate larger or smaller than that of other countries? What are the circumstances in other countries? Do we count dead babies the same way? I doubt that Cuba counts them the same way we do. What are our demographics and their proclivities compared to those of other countries? Do risky pregnancies get terminated by abortion elsewhere at a higher rate than here?

      E.g., in America high demographic women regularly defer childbearing to their later years giving rise to higher risk pregnancies. When they get pregnant in their late 30’s/early-40’s they really WANT those babies; they don’t want a do-over. I’m sure they are mortified when the baby dies shortly after birth. In lots of other countries women undergo their childbearing at historically traditional ages: teens, twenties. Then, they use contraception when they have completed their families. That’s got to have a huge impact on their infantile mortality figures.

      I make no claim whatsoever to any real insight into the facts underlying these statistics. Instead, I’m merely cautioning readers (who likely haven’t spent their lives up to their knees in dirty data) to take great care when trying to read meaning from statistics. There is less to be found that is clear-cut beneath the number than is implied by the precision of the number.

      • The point of showing numbers in this post is to show how hypocritical, daft, and moronic calling gun deaths a “health crisis” is when statistically there are a lot more things out there that would warrant a “health crisis” due to the number of deaths caused per year.
        Where is the outrage over all these other statistics that represent mostly MORE deaths per year than guns? There isn’t any on the level of “guns are bad see” because its not the CURRENT CONCERN of people who want to remove our constitutional rights under the pretext of “caring”. Its a laugh riot and pathetic if you have any gray matter between your ears.

    • Because the others aren’t rights, they can get rid of them whenver they want. Need to get rid of the rights first, then you can get rid of the privileges

  13. Okay, how about we make military doctors generals and require a medical degree from all police officers from now on? Come on! They said it themselves, this is their area of expertise!

    • Interestingly, there is a graph of deaths by homicide over the ages covering recorded history and some pre-history in Europe. The rate/100,000 of homicide plummets over time. And, when did the point of inflection occur?

      Right about the time of the invention, development and popularization of firearms!

      What a remarkable coincidence. What might account for this? One hypothesis is that Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” governed when the power to commit homicide was vested in the few who were strongest. When that power was countered by “the great equalizer”, the opportunity for an unprovoked attack had to be weighed against the risks of an effective response.

      Naturally, there are vastly too many independent variables being ignored in this observation. Hobbs probably explains most of it; his Leviathan brought homicides down from the thousands/100,000 to below 100/100,000. Even so, the kings’ armies were armed with firearms.

  14. It’s easier to treat most gunshot wounds than to reattach a head severed by a machete.
    Weapons don’t really matter…..where there’s a will, there’s ALWAYS a way.

  15. These dumbass doctors don’t even ask what the poor widdle kids (avg age 26) they pull bullets from did or didn’t do to deserve it. They don’t see any difference in a justified shooting or a spree killer. In a drug dealer who catches heat from a competitor, or a single mother who shoots a high prowler breaking through her window to rape her. All they see is the additional work it creates for them. Completely amoral assholes whose only interest in public safety is personal profit and the ability to claim moral authority they can hold over the heads of others.

    These trauma doctors lose all sense of perspective because they spend too much time ‘indoors’ so to speak, and are completely out of touch with the real causes for what is in front of them. Because a baseball bat creates an injury that is easier to treat than a gunshot, guns should be banned and we should be left with nothing but clubs. Rape is infinitely less physically traumatic than a would-be rapist’s gun wounds, so the former is preferable. And that’s the extent of the calculus in their mind. An utterly lazy mindset, that should be highly disturbing to anyone unlucky enough to be a patient.

    Shut up and get back to work on what the public dole pays you to do, you lazy sawbones; stitching gangbangers back together so liberals don’t have to feel bad about orchestrating the social collapse of the inner cities.

  16. The quote is perfectly understandable. A specialist specializes in the tree; a generalist strives to understand the forest. We have lost sight of the Renaissance Man. Our economy thrives on having experts at the helm; and holding the scalpel.

    Achieving the privilege of appending the acronym “MD” after your name doesn’t come from a liberal education. It comes from studying the sciences for 4 years, just for the chance to study them for another 4 years, just for the chance to pursue a residency for 3 – 4 years followed, possibly, by a fellowship.

    Then, they give you a scalpel and let you cut bullets out of bodies. All the expertise on the topic is thoroughly understood by Army surgeons. Civilians have nothing to add.

    By this reasoning, we should understand where the American medical community is coming from. And, we should pay it no more attention to guiding public policy than we pay to Army surgeons. How much should we care what Army surgeons “really feel” about hollow-points and why the United States never signed the Hague Convention of 1899?

    We should, instead, heed the advice of the Renaissance Men of the Founding Generation who concluded that: “A well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state”. Likewise, Marx: “. . . the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, . . . ” To say nothing of the thought of Mao: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

    Precisely how we, the People ought to: “. . . institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness . . . ” is a matter of too great importance to be left in the hands of craftsmen such as barbers and surgeons. It is vastly more important to diffuse political power as broadly as possible, taking care to preserve diverse constituencies. It was precisely this design which was the object of the members of the Constitutional Convention. A Senate to represent state constituents; a House of Representatives to represent the People; an ‘electoral college’ to choose the President. Judges appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serving for life. Not the design of a mechanic or scientist; rather, that of intellects who understood human nature and its frailties.

  17. Oddly enough, this doctor, and every other doctor gets highly paid for removing those bullets, etc. Sell your $75k car, and your $750k house and do these surgeries for free, and then we’ll talk. Otherwise STFU, and keep your gloved hands off my weapons.

      • ” Being a doctor has become too much of a social status in this country.”

        Got cross-ways with a doctor once. To put an end to his tyranny, I pointed out that he, a doctor, was no more important or essential than the mechanic who tunes my car. Still remember the absolute shock on his face.

        Doctors (all medicine men/people/things/entities/identities) are merely employees (contractors, if that makes them feel better) of the patient, to be hired and fired at will. I generally presume all of them graduated in the bottom half of their class.

        • There was a doctor radio show I was listening to a few years ago. He said the following;

          Doctors who got A’s go into research
          Doctors who got B’s become surgeons
          Doctors who got C’s become general practitioners
          Doctors who got D’s become nutritionists

          He was mocking nutritionists, but I don’t think he was that far off on the rest.

        • @ams- slight variation of what was said at my school…A students make the best researchers, B students make the best teachers, and C students make the most money.

  18. I’d be willing to bet this guy has literally never, ever pulled a bullet fired from an AR-15 out of someone.

      • @HP “I’d be willing to bet this guy has literally never, ever pulled a bullet fired from an AR-15 out of someone.”

        Don’t you know that there are hundreds of deaths and injuries every day that are caused by AR-15 bullets? The AR-15 is the most common firearm used in crime and violent death.

        Yes it is; saw it on the internet.

  19. “if a virus killed the way guns do — randomly, unpredictably”

    Except, that’s not how guns kill. The majority of deaths by gunfire are suicides. The majority of those are males. Males tend to use more lethal means of suicide and to perform the act at a time and place where they are less likely to be discovered and rescued precisely because they are serious about dying. In only a minority of cases were there truly no warning signs. They’re hardly random and not all that unpredictable.

    Most of the rest of deaths by gun fire are drug gang related. You’re not going to stop that violence any more than you can stop the illegal flow of drugs nourishes it.

    “Who do you think removes bullets from spines and repairs (or tries to) livers blasted by an AR-15? The tooth fairy?”

    I don’t that thos has occurred at some point. If you’re a forensic pathologist in a major city, you’re going to see a lot of strange [stuff]. This guy makes it sound like a common occurrence.

    Still, rifles of all kinds are used in but a tiny, low single digit percentage of firearm homicides. The suggestion that AR-15s, a highly demonized and heavily regulated firearm in California, specifically are regularly used in criminal violence there is utter hogwash. He just tossed out the infamous AR-15 imagery purely for rhetorical inflammatory effect.

    He’s proven only that he has no clue what he’s talking about and no shame in leveraging his professional credentials to advance his personal, political agenda.

    • Didn’t even realize this idiot was in California. Additional proof he’s talking out his ass.

      Would also like to add that “AR-15 bullet” is also a stupid thing to say. A bullet doesn’t know what gun fires it. All it knows is its powder charge and the barrel length. I bet this ‘doctor’ doesn’t even know what a 5.56 round looks like. Shoot, there’s an AR variant for any caliber you want nowadays, anything could be an “AR-15 bullet.” Too bad they don’t teach common sense in the 8 years’ education for doctors.

  20. Funny how this come from San Francisco, Ca. with some of the strictest gun control in the country. You’d almost think gun control laws don’t work…. 🤔

  21. “Emergency room doctors pull cue balls, vines & gummy bears out of human orifices every week. That doesn’t make them experts on pool, horticulture or chewy candy.” -An Coulter

  22. most of the [honorable doctors] will cry a bowl full of tears about some hoodlum with a bullet in his ass then turnaround and give you a prescription for a lethal poision for cancer treatment . knowing that there is a non-lethal natural remedy for the complete removal of the cancer, SAFELY . they just can’t make 5000% profit from it.

  24. Lawyers everywhere are licking their chops about the possibility of medical malpractice lawsuits against the doctors who have cared for the people committing crimes with a firearm. “It was foreseeable and you failed to be proactive in reporting your patient to the local authorities.” I’m a little surprised that the medical profession has not figured out that they’re taking on huge legal liability by pushing this approach.

  25. You would think that with all of their education doctors should be able to understand a simple statement. Take as an example j
    the second amendment.

    • “You would think that with all of their education doctors should be able to understand a simple statement. Take as an example to the second amendment.”

      Oh, they understand it perfectly. They don’t like it. Every single gun control toad understands with perfect clarity. They just don’t like it, and believe that in a democracy the constitution cannot be allowed to stand in the way of doing the right thing. Therefore, simple legislation and regulation are valid, moral, mandatory. Changing the constitution is too difficult (the Left, and their babies just hate hard work). Changing people is too hard. Changing society is too hard. Just pass laws and be done with it.

  26. I could not help but notice that the Docs completely ignored the 500,000+ annual, defensive gun uses. It isn’t very scientific to reach a conclusion when only looking at one side of the issue. By definition, their opinions are biased.

    • Very few of those who are the object of a DGU are wheeled in on a gurney for inspection by a trauma surgeon.

      On occasion when that does happen, the Dindu reports that he didn’t recognize the perpetrator but recalls he had a white sheet wrapped around him at the time. Wasn’t wearing shoes. Didn’t seem to be fully alert and well-groomed. If female, was wearing hair curlers.

  27. As a gun owning physician, I must comment on the recommendations:

    1. Fund national research.
    They always call for more research. If it is politically motivated, (and it will be) it will be worthless.

    2. Ban asssult weapons.
    There are no legal assault weapons. There only semiautomatics.

    3. Keep guns out of the hands of domestic offenders.
    No mention of the mentally ill or even criminals. How many of Chicago’s murders would be stopped if we would only crack down on domestic offenders ?

    4. Safe storage of firearms.
    More kids are killed from not properly using or failing to use car seats than obtain a firearm and firing it, accidentally or not. How many defensive gun uses do not happen because the firearm cannot be accessed fast enough (due to “safe” storage). No stats on that.

    Overall this is BS. Some day we are going to have to fight for our rights. It is as simple as that.

    • Very good points. One quibble:

      “How many of Chicago’s murders would be stopped if we would only crack down on domestic offenders ?”

      We don’t have specific data on point. However, we can make some reasonable conjectures.

      Knowing what we know about the demographics of Chicago gunshot murders, what can we say about the probability of the shooter? Male? Late teens, twenties, early thirties? Is this demographic in the age-group typical of serious “courting” behavior? Beyond puppy-love; long before hanging up one’s spurs? OK, great. Given this demographic, what do we know about the degree of domestic tranquility typical of the household wherein these men pursue their procreative urges?

      OK, now, what do we know about Domestic Violence / Intimate Partner Violence? Is a gun sufficient to the purpose at hand? Is it necessary? What of the efficacy of cutlery, clubs, fists and feet? Half of DV/IPV deaths are by firearm; what of the other half?

      Let’s eliminate (we have the magic of imagination) the gun. What is the efficacy of the substitutability of cutlery, clubs, fists and feet? What would be the likely shift in DV/IPV deaths?

      The trauma surgeon seems to be able to trace the root-cause from the bullet all the way back to the “primer”. And, what does he find behind the primer? The firing pin.

      Insight so profound we could expect it from a mechanical engineer.

    • “2. Ban asssult weapons.
      There are no legal assault weapons. There only semiautomatics.”

      Yes, there are. They cost about 20 thousand dollars each and require an extensive background check and a 200 dollar tax stamp to legally transfer. And about 9 months for 100 percent legal ownership in most states.

      Would you like a full-auto M-16, AK-47 or M-P5, sir?

  28. Propaganda, nothing else. Also, is he okay with handguns rounds? The AR15 seems to be the issue, and I am sure he deal with that a lot, like 3 times a year, maybe? What a joke

  31. Here’s an excerpt from the Hippocratic Oath:
    I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art. I will not use the knife, not even, verily, on sufferers from stone, but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein.

    When “doctors” – it’s hard to call them that when they participate in abortion – stop murdering baby humans and actively pursue it’s end, then I might listen to them. If a Dr. isn’t performing abortions then he or she should be actively fighting to end this atrocity. It is the most vile violence that exists! It never ceases to amaze me that people who are “experts” in one area think that that expertise translates to another area.

  32. Hey doc, do you know how many people I have known, who were killed or harmed by your fellowship? You are sworn to do no harm, yet you would cheerfully harm the aggregate of innocent civilians who legally carry firearms every day for defence. My wife and I might not be here today if I had not been armed when a group of bad guys thought we looked like a soft target.

  33. The doctors, and their supporters, missed an important point…..

    Guns don’t cause crime, death, or injury.

    Guns are USED to do all that. But they don’t cause any of it.

    Don’t let them control the language.

    • “Guns are USED to do all that. But they don’t cause any of it. ”

      Au contraire, mon amie. If a gun were not available, a gunshot could not occur. If the gunshot could not occur, the death from gunshot could not occur. QED, ispo facto, post hoc ergo propter hoc, XYZ, ten-two and even.

      • Did you remember to carry over the two?

        Or do they not do that in whatever this new math is that they are teaching children of today?

          • @jwm responding to Chip in Florida
            “Do you even math, Bro? He was supposed to divide by 1.65”.

            Ah rats; you got me. I always forget that 1.65 thingy.

        • “Did you remember to carry over the two?”
          “Or do they not do that in whatever this new math is that they are teaching children of today?”

          Uh oh. Carrying over the two is unimportant, and even thinking it relevant is an obvious, nay blatant, declaration of white privilege. You want to watch your tongue, lest you end up an object of ridicule on CNN, and find Antifa at your door, burning pentagrams on your lawn. Tsk. Tsk.

  35. Once again, DR. NO, there is NO SUCH THING AS GUN VIOLENCE.

    Guns are inanimate tools.

    There is only criminal violence.

  36. Elaine is showing her true colors, again. I said and I believe that she’s only here to be one of those, “I own a gun and support 2a, but…..” phonies.

    • Elaine refuses to answer direct questions, she’ll cherry pick her questions and when she does answer it’s always an emotional, not fact based response. She seems to be trolling this forum.

  37. “Who do you think removes bullets from spines and repairs (or tries to) livers blasted by an AR-15? The tooth fairy?”

    I have an answer. A tiny fraction of the 1.1 million doctors in America will ever see a spine or liver blasted by an AR15, given that AR15s are involved in such a small number of crimes in this country.

    If this doctor thinks that the inverse is true, then he is probably on the wrong side of a straight jacket.

  38. I’m thinking that the medical community needs to fix their issues BEFORE commenting on anything else. Why? Based on an analysis of prior research, numerous studies have estimated that more than 250,000 Americans die each year from medical errors. On the CDC’s official list, that would rank just behind heart disease and cancer, which each took about 600,000 lives in 2014, and in front of respiratory disease, which caused about 150,000 deaths.

    Medical mistakes that can lead to death range from surgical complications that go unrecognized to mix-ups with the doses or types of medications patients receive.

  39. Society is better off with most of the people he pulls bullets out of being dead. So it is a net gain.

    WWJCS – What would Jeff Cooper say?

  40. What he fails to mention is that most of those shooting are self inflicted its called suicide. Nor does he mention that more people are stabbed to death and bludgeoned to death. Because he has an agenda.

    • true. about 2/3 are suicides and about 1/3 are murder.

      what is also intersting is that the suicide rate in gunless south korea is higher than the American murder rate and suicide rate COMBINED.

      that means a randomly selected south korean is MORE likely to die from an act of violence than a randomly selected American! removng guns doesn’t sole the problem.

  41. Then we need to blame cars for drunk driving, forks and spoons for people being fat, and pens and pencils for spelling errors.

  42. Speaking of highways how about a study on alcohol related violence and drunk drivers related incidents. Also shoot me if I’m wrong but isn’t San Francisco in California? The one of the most gun controlled states in America

  43. 600,000 to 1,000,000 preventable child deaths per year in America alone. about 50 times more people are murdered in the womb than outside of it. about 20 times more than murder and suicide combined.

    abortion is the developed world’s largest cause of preventable deaths.

    abortion doctors are the worst mass murderers in American history.

    strangely, most anti-gun folks don’t care about the far greater carnage of abortion.

  44. Who does this pompous piece of crap think he is? More people die from medical mistakes, including malpractice, than are killed by guns each year. Stay out of my business.

  46. Doctors who are incompetent murder and injure more citizens then law abiding firearms owners.
    When the medical community cleans up these sorry excuses for MD’s then we can talk.

    As it stands now, you just pack up and move to another state and hang your shingle up.

  47. I wonder how many of the deceased that the “good” doctor autopsies are true innocents, someone who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when they were shot and killed?

    I suspect the doctor doesn’t have the facts needed to comprehend the reason his “patients” found their way into his realm. But then the forensic pathologist may not want to know the real reason the deceased became that way. It might not correspond to his desire to be the expert in all the negative things that society has to deal with.

Comments are closed.