Mike Weisser (courtesy huffingtonpost.com)

Mike “The Gun Guy” Weisser writes for huffingtonpost.com. As you might expect from someone who pens for a publication that never met a Mom Demanding Action for Gun Sense in America that it didn’t like, a website that wants all Americans to live in Everytown for Gun Safety, a media outlet that never ceases Brady Campaigning to Stop Gun Violence, Weisser isn’t what you’d call firm on gun rights. It’s a fact we’ve highlighted again and again and again and again. In the past, Mike’s reached out to TTAG to offer us the olive branch. That didn’t work out so well. So now Mike’s thumbing his nose at America’s most popular firearms blog . . .

Doctors Should Tell the Truth About Guns, the HuffPo headline above Weisser’s latest screed proclaims. Despite the fact that we’ve trademarked that phrase, we’ll let it pass (this is the Internet after all). But there’s no mistaking Mike’s malicious (mischievous?) intent. His shot across TTAG’s bow begins thus:

Last week I attended a conference on medicine and gun violence in which a cross-section of researchers and clinicians focused on how to figure out if patients are at risk for gun violence and how to intervene appropriately when such a clinical situation appears to exist. The problem raises medical, legal and ethical issues involving proper patient care, privacy, liability and other questions that the medical profession has been wrestling with for a long time but have really come home to roost this year.

Funny how our invitation to the National Medical Council on Gun Violence conference got lost in the mail. It’s a bit early to call the NRA, GOA or the Massachusetts-based Gun Owners Action League to see if their invites suffered a similar fate, but I’m thinking yes. But not Mike’s. Hmmm.

Notice the word “if” in Mike’s description of the conference’s goal: to “figure out if patients are at risk for gun violence.” Here’s the National Medical Council on Gun Violence’s official mission statement:

Our mission is to pursue research and collaborative efforts leading to the creation and dissemination of evidence-based resources to aid health care providers whose patients present them with gun violence as a medical issue.

How do patients “present” physicians with gun violence as a medical issue? They get shot. Or they know people who’ve been shot. Or — and this is the big one — they have a gun in their home. Well, some docs feel that’s enough to justify medical intervention. Maybe even most. But one thing’s for sure: Mike ain’t got time for the ones who don’t.

Throughout the conference I kept listening to presentations which were based on an assumption about medicine and guns which I’m not sure is really true. And it goes like this: in order to effectively raise the issue of gun risk, the physician must first determine whether a patient is, indeed, a risk to himself or others if he has access to a gun. And if the physician determines that the patient is, in fact, a health risk if there’s a gun around, how do you determine the degree of gun access without infringing on his right to own a gun whether he’s a risk for gun violence or not?

The reason I’m not comfortable with this assumption is because I happen to believe one simple thing about guns, namely, that if there is a gun lying around, locked or unlocked, the risk of gun injury is simply much greater than if the gun doesn’t exist. To borrow a phrase from the late Elmore Leonard, “Don’t fool with guns in here, okay? The goddamn piece’s liable to go off.” Now researchers can parse all the data with a fine-tooth comb from today until next year, but the bottom line is exactly what Leonard says: if it’s around, sooner or later it’s going to go off.

So MTGGW starts off semi-anti-gun; asserting the indisputable fact that a gun in the home increases the risk of (and I’m presuming here) a negligent discharge, a non-self-defense-related homicide or suicide. But rather than balancing that risk against reward – as we must do with all potential dangers – Mike states that a gun in the home will “go off” and create tragedy.

It’s a short step from “guns go off” to “guns shouldn’t be in the home.” Mike “the Gun Guy” reckons docs should spread the former message in the obvious hope that patients will get the latter. But before Mike makes that point, he feels obliged to take a break from the action and state his pro-gun bona fides.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not anti-gun, no matter what many people who read this blog and others will choose to believe. I currently own two black guns, a Colt H-Bar and a Ruger Mini-14, along with a Mossberg tactical shotgun, a Marlin 30-30, without doubt the single best deer gun ever made, and one of those Remington 700s in 270 Winchester which might go off even if the trigger isn’t pulled.

Not that I’m against handguns, for that matter, because I also own every Glock 9, the two John Browning masterpieces, a Colt 1911 and a P-35, a Walther PP in 22, another Walther PP in 32, a little TPH for when I’m out walking in shorts, three or four K-frame Smiths and just for good measure, a Beretta 92. And I almost forgot the two Sigs, the new little guys in 380 and 9. But as much as I love my toys, I know one thing – put a round in the chamber, pull the trigger and if someone’s standing in the direction in which the gun is pointed, they’re going down.

Mike may know guns – he certainly has a few – but he’s profoundly ignorant about gun rights and those who cherish them. For one thing, guns are not “toys.” The People of the Gun love to shoot, and often shoot for fun. But I don’t know a single one who refers to one of their firearms as a “toy” – unless they’re being ironic. Even those who do use the T word know enough not to do so in a publication read by legions of anti-gunners.

Nor would a genuine gun rights guy suggest that anyone “standing in the direction in which the gun is pointed” when it’s fired will be hit and die – an implication Mike makes by deploying the phrase “going down.” It may seem like a small point, but when you’re discussing guns with people whose opinion is informed by ignorance and fear, it’s important to get your facts straight, and not play to their emotion-based preconceptions.

Alas, Mike knows exactly who’s reading his stuff. Like so many “I believe in the Second Amendment but…” types, Weisser wants it both ways. He wants HuffPo huzzahs and “gun guy” street cred. Not even Karl Wallenda could manage that high wire act – if only because the wire doesn’t exist. Either you’re for gun rights or your not. Mike’s not.

It’s all well and good that physicians are concerned about how to make guns safer, how to keep them out of the “wrong” hands, how to lock them up or lock them away. But I think what doctors should do is always tell all their patients that a gun can cause real harm. And they should say it again and again. My internist doesn’t ask whether I smoke before cautioning me not to light up a cigarette.

Pediatricians don’t ask parents whether they fasten the child’s seatbelt before reminding them to make sure the kids ride safe. The role of the physician, every physician, is to reduce harm. Not having a gun reduces harm. The patient doesn’t agree with the doctor, that’s fine. But the physician did what is required and expected, which was to tell the truth about guns.

“Not having a gun reduces harm.” Really? And here I was under the impression that the exact opposite is true. That gun ownership reduces harm. Americans exercising their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms prevent genocide and protect their pursuit of happiness, to the tune of an estimated one million defensive gun uses per year.

Doctors shouldn’t be forbidden from talking to their patients about the risks of gun ownership. But anyone who suggests that doctors should be “required and expected” to tell their patients “again and again” that a gun in the home is going to “go off” and hurt them, that gun ownership is a bad, bad thing, is aiding and abetting those who would degrade and destroy our firearms freedom.

And that’s the truth about Mike Weisser.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

105 COMMENTS

  1. Mike is another case of huffpro getting what it doesn’t pay for. Huffpro is nothing but hack writers working free.

    • won’t argue that HuffPo is a hack publication, but just a little FYI, with the exception of a very few, pretty much every writer for TTAG works for free. Most of us get nothing for penning the articles we do.

      • HuffPo is indicative of old media writers trying to find their place in new media. Huffpo uses old media cast offs who have no expertise other than writing. They’re certainly not subject matter experts. In contrast, most of the writers here are occasional writers who are subject matter experts.

      • I think it was the point of “hack writers” more so than the “free” part. Those hack writers used to be paid writers and old media got rid of them and they moved over to huffpo.

        Huge difference though is that here the writers all have other jobs and do this in between. Unlike there, TTAG “hires” gun experts who can write eloquently about subjects they have intimate knowledge of. Huffpo “hires” writers, then lets them write about subjects they have a tangential knowledge of.

        It’s the difference between hiring a computer engineer to write about computer issues, and hiring a writer who knows some computer stuff.

    • Not entirely true. Do a huff post search for author Dennis Santiago. He is a close personal friend of mine and also a firearms instructor of various disciplines. He is indeed very pro gun and his writings do follow.

      • Since Santiago is more common than Smith, why don’t you save us some time and give us some links to your friends work. Huffpo hangs itself out there as a premier media outlet when it’s really just a bunch of no pay or low pay per diem writers trying cling to a career that ended a decade ago. This is the same outfit that had a writer confuse common foam ear plugs with rubber bullets and just last night it got trolled with a fake source that it fail to vet before using to publish a fake account of the latest St Louis shooting. Huffpo isn’t exactly the model for quality of accuracy, and if reports are correct it’s not a model for profit either.

    • I found this on Yelp…He seems like an all around POS and needs to be boycotted. Believe it or not, there are lots of hunting/fishing/shooting clubs/ranges in this central Mass. area. Somebody has to be spending $ in his store. Friends don’t let friends patronize POS’ How about it GOAL guys?
      Name: Mike Weisser
      DBA AS:
      – Greylock Gear and Leather Co.
      91 W. Main Stret
      Ware, MA 01082
      855-799-0908
      And on Amazon.com as GreyLock
      – Ware Gun Shop
      91 W. Main Street, Ware, MA 01082
      Tel: 413-967-7456
      [email protected]
      – WARE SHOOTING ACADEMY
      – Former Importer of ISSC, before ISSC saw the light and terminated his license in favor of Legacy Sports.
      Blogging at mikethegunguy.com
      Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/
      The Health Care Blog as MIKE R. WEISSER http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/tag/mike-weisser/
      Here he is extoling the wonderful virtues of Rejina Cincic’s PSA telling kids to steal their parent’s guns and turn them in at school.
      http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/7592705-the-best-gun-video-psa-the-best
      Phone Numbers:
      413-967-8070
      413-967-7456
      Emails:
      [email protected]
      [email protected]
      [email protected]

      What? You still need more proof that this man is no good, just take a look at comments on the many gun forums he has pissed on:
      http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_8_55/535533_Who_the_heck_is_this_Mike_Weisser_hemorrhoid__anyway_.html
      http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/219673-Who-the-heck-is-this-Mike-Weisser-hemorrhoid-anyway

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/gun-responsibility-should_b_3175393.html

      Feel free to tell Mr Weisser you are on to his scam and definitely do not do business with him… ever, as scammers and thieves never change their way. You have been warned.

  3. “…I happen to believe one simple thing about guns”

    Meaning he has no interesting in learning something about guns, no interesting in discussing anything about guns, and is even less interested in discussing (or even hearing about) anything that doesn’t fit within his one simple belief.

    This man needs to be shunned from polite society.

    And if shunning isn’t an option we can always mock him and ridicule his simplicity.

    • I immediately rule out anyone who says or thinks a gun will “go off”. Unless they are talking about a Remington 700. Then carry on.

  4. Isn’t the entire purpose of trademarking to prevent someone from misusing or profiting from a phrase? I am not a legal happy person as I have to deal with intellectual property attorneys way too frequently, but in this case I don’t think you should give this guy a pass.

    • I don’t think that covers satire or fair comment. Whether those apply to MTGGW’s piece is debatable.

    • I’m certainly no expert, but I think the difference in capitalization might be enough to get HuffPo off in court on it.

      • Capitalization, plural vs singular, and slight changes do not give you a pass. The trademark holder can claim your work is confusingly similar.

  5. Well, he seems to be pretty reasonable.

    No, wait, that’s not quite the word I was looking for…oh, I know- “full of ridiculous ideas that make my head hurt”. That’s the word I was looking for.

  6. I’d like to see this alleged gun collection. Particularly the GLOCK 9. I’d also like to see how the guns are allegedly stored. Lastly, I’d like Mr “Gun Guy” to analyze the risk of medical errors, and how they vastly exceed negligent (what he would call accidental) shooting deaths and injuries.

    The biggest danger regarding gun ownership is to criminals. As an “insensitive” gun owner, I don’t lose much sleep when one gangbanger injures or kills another. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of hunters can prowl the woods during gun deer season with incredibly low injury rates. Their drive to the deer stand is more dangerous than hunting with high powered rifles.

    So if I doctor wants to evaluate my “presentation” of gun risk, without prioritizing greater risks in an intelligent and factual manner, than that bozo with all of his fancy degrees will find himself unceremoniously fired. And I’ll still be armed.

      • Oh, certainly. But it was an odd way for the author to phrase it. Not something I hear around “gun guys,” at any rate. Still worth poking fun at in my book.

        • @Marcus- Great observation and I use it as a challenge question when I see somebody open carrying, not that it scares me, quite the opposite depending on the carrier, nor is it my business. I enjoy guns so striking up conversation over one isn’t that hard and I prefer they know my Glock 30 is in .45, and the other gun isn’t their concern at the moment.

  7. Sadly, it seems if some people are eager to tell others how life should be lived. The internet has given so many a voice to meddle in somebody else’s business.

  8. I find it extremely funny that doctors are now the point of attack for these fools. Especially when the facts show that my doctor is more dangerous than my firearms.

  10. “But I think what doctors should do is always tell all their patients that a gun can cause real harm.” Any person that doesn’t realize handling a firearm in an unsafe manner can cause serious harm is a complete moron and more than likely the idiot you see on the highway cutting across 4 lanes of traffic, no blinker at the last second. A quick Google search of “how to handle a gun safely” turns up almost 8 million hits. It’s not necessary to have someone that doesn’t know anything about firearms discuss the anti’s talking points with patients.
    “But anyone who suggests that doctors should be “required and expected” to tell their patients that a gun in the home is going to “go off” and hurt them, that gun ownership is a bad, bad thing” I would most likely be asked to leave and never come back after kindly explaining how the Doc is ignorant of anything firearms related.

    • A gun can’t “cause” anything. It’s an inanimate object. Anyone who uses such phraseology including “gun violence” should be shamed or ignored.

  11. Replace the phrase “gun violence” with simple “violence”. Done! Now we have a safer world. Instead of warning patients about the dangers of guns we can remind them that every day there are more common dangers present like…”cars are heavy and travel at high speeds and according to the laws of motion can kill you.” or “there are at least five items in your home that can poison you if you decide to drink them.” Or why not ” knives are sharp and stairs are tricky buggers to navigate safely. So no home with stairs should have any knives because it is inevitably you will impale yourself like a cocktail weeny.”

  12. Since mikes guns are liable to go off at any time, he should send me the mini14, the two Walther PP, the p35, and the small 9mm sig, which is presumably a 938. I will also take his glock 26, and 34, if they are gen 4.

    For the children, medical science, and safety, of course.

  13. “focused on how to figure out if patients are at risk for gun violence and how to intervene appropriately ”

    It is clear, just as an example, that every resident and visitor to Chicago is at risk of gun violence, let’s hear these supposed “doctors” opine on how to intervene appropriately. If their answer is to arm all Chicago residents and train them to defend themselves, this effort is valid, otherwise it is just totalitarian silliness.

    • Correct. As well as LA and NYC. And obviously all physicians need to start asking about gang membership when taking histories. Also ask if they work at convenience stores, liquor stores, check cashing places, or banks and if their place of employment has been robbed in the last 18 months and if there were any burglaries or muggings in their neighborhoods in the last 6 months.

  14. Informal poll:
    I’ve had an average of 5 guns for 40 years. I must be the “later” of sooner or later because after 200 gun years none have yet to just “go off”.

    You?

    • Let me thing about it for a second………… Uh, no. None of mine have gone off all by themselves either. Although I store mine under tin foil hats. That must be the trick.

    • It is a stain on MA gun owners that live near “Gun Guy” Weisser’s gun store that he’s still in business.

      If I was retired, and lived nearby, I know that I’d make it one of my little ongoing projects to drive him out of business so that he doesn’t have to worry about selling guns “that go off”.

  16. I’m so tired of this B.S. phrase “gun violence.” There is no such thing as “gun violence”, it’s a made-up term designed to demonize an inanimate object in order to make it easier to ban the ownership of it. We as self-defense rights advocates should not help propagate it by using it.

    • Good point, much like the often used phraSe, “gunmen” when describing people committing a crime with a firearm.

    • “Gun violence” is as nonsensical a term as “assault weapon.”

      There are issues with thug violence, with gang violence, with domestic violence, with suicides, with negligence, and other violence problems that may (or many not) involve firearms. Lumping them together as “gun violence” is political propaganda and avoids attempting to solve the real problems (thugs, domestic abusers, depression, etc.).

  18. Heck! Jim Croce already did the research for Chicago, dont’cha know?
    .
    “The South Side of Chicago is the badist part of town.
    If you go down there, you better just beware.
    …..
    lllll

    .

  19. Huff post is one the most blatant propaganda vehicles. All media is a propaganda vehicle to some extent, huff post doesn’t even try to disguise it’s purpose. My feeling on Mike the gun guy is that as a business man he believes the trends are shifting away from gun ownership, and he wants to jump ship before it’s too obvious and be able to profit by selling himself as an ‘expert’ for the other side.

  20. I don?t care abiut this pitiful old whore, Mike the Gun Guy, or his fellow propagandists at HuffPo.

    What I am interested kn is the subtext of The Narrative being advanced in the name of Health and Science at NMCGV. No info about who is behind it or funding sources, so the key will be reading the “thought leaders” talking points and back history, to uncover the agenda, the players, and the money.

    This is Obamas, Difi’s, Harris, and Bloomberg, Gates, Hanauer, and Soros way to leave a ‘legacy’.
    Follow The Money, Discover The Networks, and start with the people. They have a history and leave tracks. Look for federal and think tank grants that launder that money to obscure sources. Look for payoffs later in technologh grants, to favored insiders and corporations, like, Solyndra, where VCs get paid out at 30x, by taxpayers after angel round, and/or buy assets cheap after the BK, like A123.

    This is career stuff for young investigative reporters. The Left has to puff this up in FAR less time than science-based broad-based scientifically valid, multi-year and peer reviewed by academia. So this will be either a house of cards, if used to justify top down Executive Action, like in CA, or the beginning of the next perversion of Science for progtard power, AKA the agitprop still being lamely rolled and smoked in the discredited Global Warming scam.

    Find the hockey stick, find the liars, find the money, then fire the bureaucrats and politicians, and prosecute those who collude to steal taxpayer money for these elaborate, RICO ready, white-collar crimes.

  21. The Doublethink is strong with this one.

    “if there is a gun lying around, locked or unlocked, the risk of gun injury is simply much greater than if the gun doesn’t exist. … if it’s around, sooner or later it’s going to go off.”

    vs.

    “I own [an assortment of name-drop guns].” He even hints that he carries concealed: “a little TPH for when I’m out walking in shorts.”

    So he is apparently a homicide/suicide just waiting to happen, who wants everyone ELSE to get rid of all of THEIR guns?

    Makes me imagine a doctor lecturing me on the evils of tobacco while chain-smoking right in my face.

    • Yeah. Quite a dichotomy there.
      Typical statist progressive.
      “You can’t have them, but I can”.

      • Aw you took my point. A gun for me but not for thee. This cretin must rank up there with Judas or at least Quisling. BTW I don’t advertise how many guns I have. Somebody might steal ’em…

  22. P.S. read how they are already talking about using data to “stop” the next Elliot Rodgers.
    Your medical history is already fully accessible at the fusion center, as are your doctors electronic health records, at the insurance companies and third party data brokers. The only people prevented by HIPAA from that access, is essentially YOU.

    Remember “parallel construction” . Think through the implications on the mental health side, and the existing capability that enabled by bad actors, misusing what is already known, about you, your family, your buying habits, your location, and your thinking, based on words on the innertubz.

    Orwell had only the barest inkling of what knowledge and power is held by those with the data, unconstrained by laws.

  23. I went to the site. Mike has a Phd. in economics. That explains alot. The Ivory Tower Disease. Looking down from Mount Olympus at all of us peasants living short, dirty and brutal lives needing our “betters” to tell us how to live.

    And if we don’t follow their “recommendations”; they will force it at the point of a law, backed by the point of a gun; for our own good, of course.

      • As Prager says….

        If someone graduates today with a non-science or non-business degree they are most likely dumber than the day they entered the university.

        If they continue on to post-grad work, now they dumb AND dangerous.

  24. “… I think what doctors should do is always tell all their patients that a gun can cause real harm…”

    You mean… you mean… guns are *dangerous*??? They can *cause harm*??? Why, I have never heard of such a thing!!! I never even imagined it! Thanks for telling me, I don’t know what I would have done without that important piece of information!!!

    In other breaking news, water is wet and is dangerous because you can’t breath it, so be careful you don’t drown when you go swimming.

    • Wow! I didn’t realize guns could be dangerous, either. I think I’ll slam down a few cocktails and go riding my motorcycle, wearing only my swim trunks, while I ponder this new information.

  25. Hey doctors, obesity is an epidemic in the US. Here’s an idea. In order to buy certain foods, you must first get an EKG and get a permit from your physician saying that you are low risk for heart disease. Then you must present your permit at the fast food counter, and sign a form sayin that you are indeed the consumer and not purchasing for a third party.

    There are better things to be doing for people with 8+ years of college education.

  27. Whenever a socialist brings up the issue of mental health and guns it is a pretext and lead in to their cherished notion that ANYBODY who owns a firearm is necessarily crazy. That is what all the earnest sounding hand wringing is about when he moans over the ethical and medical issues, how can we foist this upon the largest number of people before they figure it out.

    This in contrast to the notable and highly publicized crop of dingbats in recent years. They did not need a calm afternoon in the quiet room or a long Alpine chat with kindly Carl Jung. By all reports they were widely known and in some number of cases (Virginia Tech being the most egregious but Newtown and the LA maniac as well) equally widely feared. In other words, in the face of a manifest danger there was not a need for multiple diagnoses, divining rods or those guys from the football game with the stakes and chain; these jokers were flat out nuts and everybody who came into their sphere knew it.

    That is the modifier for all Mike’s ‘concern’s’, concerns which I am relatively certain he would want applied to all gun owners…’Why is it again you feel the NEED to own a deadly weapon?’ and the bona fide maniacs in excruciatingly plain sight be damned. As John Irving sagely opined in ‘The World According to Garp’, the children and pets of the rich are never accountable for their own acts of violence.

    Merry Christmas and a Happy, Prosperous New Year, and death to socialism.

  29. PS: for any of you aspiring gun journalists, you are going to need stats and science background or ability to acquire enough to explain in laymans terms, some creds in gun world or ability to get access to it, the abikity to ujderstand and write about the law, and here is a resource cited by Eugene Volokh, at WAPO,

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/10/journalist-law-school/

    and some mentors, and helpers who can use your content, like RF, and too many others to list, but I’d read Instapundit, Breitbart, Blaze and look ahead to fellowships in think tanks as an adjunct to writing income to pay the bills. And at other succesful motivared, talented bloggers and journalists, Malkin, Totten, Balko, the pjmedia, etc etc.

    The massive corruption and collusion on the left is only beginning to unravel, and as the double down, they get more reckless, and more obvious….grist for the mill.

    Merry Christmas, Peace on Earth, and Keep Calm and Carry On. The Truth always Wins if you stick with it.

  30. So is the glock 9 an upgraded version of the infamous glock 7? If he owns them all, that would explain why I’ve never seen one.

    Yes, I know what he meant, but it’s an odd way to phrase it.

  32. What kind of pansy ass doctor does this guy have? All of my doctors have asked my if I smoke, etc… And none of them have mentioned it again after I say I don’t smoke.

  34. We should all make it a point to immediately find another doctor should our doctor even ask about guns. And make that point clear to both doctors, so they’ll know which side their bread is buttered on.

  35. “Not having a gun reduces harm.”

    Does everyone remember the nice 18 year old mom (with baby) in Oklahoma who was home alone and stopped a home invader with a shotgun? (This happened about two years ago right after Christmas.) Let’s ask her if not having a gun reduces harm.

  36. His comment about “not having a gun reduces harm” is true if you ONLY consider the fact that there is potential danger involved in owning a firearm. It completely ignores the potential benefits of owning a firearm.

    But there is also potential danger involved with owning and/or using:

    bleach
    furniture polish
    carpet cleaner
    oven cleaner
    drain cleaner
    all-purpose cleaners
    turpentine
    kitchen utensils
    kitchen appliances
    electrical devices
    power tools
    hand tools
    ladders
    car polish
    automobiles
    lawnmowers
    pesticides
    shovels
    rakes
    ATVs
    medications
    grills
    pet care products
    etc.

    MANY products are potentially dangerous. Focusing ONLY on guns is unwarranted. Focus more on having a clean and tidy house – falls kill many people. Swimming pools do too. Focus on a proper diet – obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. cripple and/or kill many more people than firearms.

    Focusing on potential accidents in general is fine – many accidents cause injury and/or death. An explicit focus on guns is unwarranted. It only exists because of the media heavily focuses on negligent discharges by gun owners and because there is widespread bigotry against guns and gun owners.

    If a doctor said something like “whatever household products you have, ensure that they are safely handled and stored” that would be great. But that’s not what anti-gun bigots want. They want to get rid of firearms by any means necessary.

  37. “if there is a gun lying around, locked or unlocked, the risk of gun injury is simply much greater than if the gun doesn’t exist.”

    And tiger attacks are rare in countries without tigers.

    What price is too high for liberty, when we already pay a much higher cost for the simple privilege of being able to drive ourselves when we want, where we want?

  38. Not having a gun reduces harm to bad people intent on hurting us.

    There, fixed it for you.

    If your Remington 700 goes off by itself maybe you should clean the trigger. Or better yet sell your toys to someone else because clearly you’re not wrapped too tight yourself.

  39. “The role of the physician, every physician, is to reduce harm”

    Mikey, I believe the oath is “do no harm”. Nice try though.

  40. Going to the doctor puts you statistically at higher risk of death than having a gun in the house. If it only saves one life! It’s for the children!

  41. “Last week I attended a conference on medicine and gun violence”……Meanwhile…

    Just across the hall they were holding a conference on underwaterbasket weaving and ingrown toenail aftercare…Because of the similarities of the two…

  42. The three palmed cards here are as follows. Take away any one, and Mr. more two-faced than Janus’ argument falls apart.

    – “May have a health impact” leads to “a public health issue, adressible by the medical system.

    Not necessarily. Medical care’s job is the wellness of the patient at hand, is it not? Broad “public health policy” is something else. Presumed torts – harm to others through what you do – are well-handled as, er torts. Break someone’s leg to get them to do what you want, and it’s not a public health issue, it’s assault, battery, and a tort.

    – A doctor, in working with a patient, is accountable to someone other than the patient for what s/he is to do: what’s right.

    Well, no. Controlling access to health improving interventions, to force compliance with other mandates that come from other people is … extortion. Not blackmail, extortion. Do what we want or we will hurt you (like take away access to the meds you require to stay alive, because you are “non-compliant” with something else we want.)

    BTW, we’ll make you pay for that intervention, applied to yourself and others, whether you want it or not.

    – Your choices which may impact your health are our business, because health.

    This is the hang-gliding argument. Because one may be injured quite badly form hang-gliding, and way more frequently than most other recreational activities … nothing. We let people decide to hang-glide with nary a peep. We even tolerate their falling from the sky on top of other people. Doing so stupidly, we may charge or prosecute. You land on someone because of your hobby, make them whole. Before I’ll listen to Mr. more in concern for your health than in anger, I want to see similarly impassioned advocacy to ban hang gliding as a public health issue.

    With all the words in the article, the author didn’t even try to make the three arguments on which his case depends … before he can even try to make a case.

    This is people who think they are smarter than everyone else, looking for more ways to tell other people what to do. Again. Some more. One wonders why such folks aren’t more interested in living their own lives, vs. everyone else’s.

    Seriously, I’m way too busy having my own fun to work that hard to meddle. I got stuff to do.

  43. I’m going to delete that earlier comment.

    I’ll say that this Mike guy has a rectum, too. Does that make him an expert or proponent of gay sex?

    John

  45. glad I’m in a state that does not allow docs to ask. Then again, all mine are either ex military or have them on their staff, adn carry every day, so no problem there!

  46. Let me understand; a gun in the home is very likely to go off and hit someone at random, not aimed. Yet the same anti-gun groups say having a gun in the home makes you less safe, though you may take careful aim, and still you’ll probably miss.
    So aiming a gun is never more accurate to hit a proposed target than a gun which fires out of the blue at no particular target?

    This medical spin-up is a precursor to our new traitor Surgeon General. The questions to asking a patient about a gun is unconstitutional, I can’t imagine an MD asking this.
    In an inpatient observation of someone who is likely or is severely, chronically mentally ill, I can see the logic of a Psychiatrist to engage these questions. I believe this is already done in such cases and no reason to discuss. Unless your objective is to scare the crap out of the public regarding firearms. A guy like Mike wouldn’t do this, would he?

  47. Do NOT give them a pass. From what I have heard from the legal team at my company, you may loose the claim to your trademark if you do not actively protect it once you find it is being used by another party.

  48. As a physician I wonder how many orders of magnitude more alcohol kills per year than gun violence.

    Perhaps a medical, social, legal experiment to prohibit alcohol sales should be considered.

    In addition – anyone recall the right to alcohol in the bill of rights?

    The nibbling at second amendment amazes me.

    I like to ask anti’s why they think they have a right to speak or write on the issue – then why I am to respect the first amendment when they don’t the second – and if they don’t like it – repeal it outright.

    Somehow the most verbose have little to say thereafter.

    I have little to no ability to see an individual’s future – I can speak from a statistical basis but what is to happen is digital – will or won’t. I didn’t get an invite to the conference either. Perhaps the invites only went to the more intelligent among us – to change law and policy – for those of us they just don’t understand.

  49. Virtually every media outlet is anti-gun and has on its staff low paid, under paid and non-paid writers, and I use the term writers loosely.
    Here in Spokane, we have the Spokesman Review which is known to churn out vomit inducing anti-gun garbage regularly. Their “writer” Shawn Vestal, is the responsible party for creating the worthless childlike scribblings and is THE reason they lost me as a print subscriber. Yes, me paying THEM money to continually insult me and my firm belief in second amendment rights went by way of the dinosaur and is ancient history, just like many of the print newspapers in the country have or are becoming extinct. Their days of manipulating public opinion already have or are coming to end, as well as their jobs as revenues evaporate and papers are no longer profitable. When the Spokesman Review is finally gone, in Curly Bill Brocius famous last words to Wyatt, I’ll simply say…”well, bye?”

  51. I need to ask my doctor if I may be at risk for vehicle violence. I’m sure he’ll say yes, because I own a vehicle. Guess I better sell the ol’ Chevy, since it’s for the safety of myself and others. Then I’ll petition my city council to ban all other vehicles so I’ll be safe on my walk to work at the auto parts store. I mean, it’s only common sense.

  52. The guy is a total creep and supposedly the ATF shut down his store recently for sloppy record keeping.

    http://www.ammoland.com/2013/11/deadbeat-mike-weisser-ware-gun-shops/

    “Manasquan, NJ –(Ammoland.com)- Mike Weisser, proprietor of the Ware Gun Shop in Ware, MA is a con-man, deadbeat and enemy of the Second Amendment!

    How can we make such bold statement?

    Because we know first hand, fact is he owes AmmoLand Shooting Sports News for advertising we ran for him, when he was doing business as “Grey Lock Holsters” in 2012. On good faith we ran his ads, as we do with all our advertisers, and after making him loads of money he stiffed us for $1800.00, dodging all our phone calls and emails ever since.”

  53. I clicked on the conference that good Mike referenced. The second paragraph from the end contains a single sentence, “Mike Weisser, a former gun store owner from Ware, launched the idea for this conference.” He attended a conference that was his own brainchild, fair enough. I don’t think anybody will throw a conference together until some serious cash and sponsorship shows up. Mike portrays himself as a man of the people and independent. Since he’s no longer employed(that I can tell) where does his money come from?

    He still won’t acknowledge me for calling him out about his racist comment regarding Colion Noire.

    • @ Baird Tarr: Re “Since he’s no longer employed(that I can tell) where does his money come from?” — I wondered about that too. Does HuffPost pay him or does he get money from that kind of association? Don’t actually know. I’d never heard of Weisser until yesterday when a stumbled on his HuffPost piece.

      I noticed his crack about Noire too – I think it was probably because Noire made a comment about Kim Kardasian’s support of gun control (as if “celebrity votes” actually mean anything).

  54. Just got an email from Mike Weisser! Really! He emailed me because I’d posted in response to his latest HuffPost piece about his “defense” of Kim Kardasian who had made her version of a “celebrity vote” for gun control (of the Democrat flavor). He was making fun of those who criticizes Ms. Phat Rump for making such an obvious “celebrity votes for” move. And that’s why he emailed me with: “And what are you trying to parade? How bright you are?”

    I suppose he thought/thinks I’m going to be cowed by his “status” as a blogger on the payroll of HuffPost.
    My reply to him reads: “From what you write below, we can see how bright you’re not. So it follows you’d be sensitive about our comparative intellectual abilities. Have a nice day, Mike.”

    And that’s about it – except to say Mike Weisser is a fraud like so many in the Gun Grudge Community. As Mr. Farago says, Mike’s only pretending to be a real “gun guy” and misses that he unconsciously leaves out “gun gals” who’re at least worth mentioning, I’d say. Pretending like that – also, I believe, shows that Weisser thinks he’s pretty clever, the “wolf in sheep dog clothing” as it were.

  55. Does anybody actually know if this guy is anything he says he is? Former gun dealer? NRA member? Owner of “50 or 60” guns? Doing some hasty content analysis on what he writes, I think there’s a considerable amount of BS in there. It’s a rare gun owner indeed that spouts all the gun-grabber boilerplate as fact, I’ve never met one.

    • mike the gun guy, or more appropriately Mike the dumb guy. He might have been around alot of guns but that does not make him an expert or who shit what he is talking about.He is more than anything a paid hack for Huff Huff post…that is it.

  57. cenforce d is a combination drug containing 100mg of Sildenafil citrate of Dapoxetine hydrochloride, used in the treatment of erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation. It helps men get and maintain erection and improve ejaculation time.

Comments are closed.