Your firearms, according to a new slogan from the anti-gun crowd, pose a danger to public health. In the minds of anti-gun folk, that means you have no right to bear arms. They are now trying to say that their right to live a healthy life trumps the Second Amendment.
Dr. David Hemenway, a Harvard University professor of health policy and the directory of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health was the first to try out this new manufactured crisis tagline. He proclaimed to CNN that, “The evidence is overwhelming that firearm violence in the United States – firearms killing people, scaring people, injuring people, is an enormous public health problem.”
The context of that conversation involved the American College of Physicians (ACP) declaring firearms violence to be a crisis in the United States. In a March 7 statement for the record before a U.S. House Appropriations, the ACP claims a series of so-called “common-sense approaches” to reducing firearms injuries and deaths across the nation. Those include most of the usual suspects: banning “assault rifles,” requiring universal background checks, outlawing mag clips that hold more than a few rounds, restricting concealed carry, etc.
That same sentiment is echoed by liberal media and liberal politicians across the United States. The reason isn’t that firearm violence is a massive problem. The relatively few actual deaths and injuries that occur daily and annually mostly amount to outliers.
Outliers are statistical anomalies that do not represent the norm. They are aberrations that do not represent the norm. That means they do not represent a “crisis” or even a particular problem in our society.
The only real problem is, outliers are so unusual, that they draw lots of attention when they occur. Think Hurricane Katrina and claims of pending doom-and-gloom predictions of continued massive storms battering the U.S. coastlines.
That outlier event was followed by 11 years of not one single hurricane strike anywhere in the United States. No media reports highlighted the relatively long-term calm. They only highlight the potential doom-and-gloom, because that grabs people’s attention.
It also helps to sell a political viewpoint and narrative. Specifically, that firearms, and certain ones in particular, are so threatening to general public health that they must be banned.
When firearms account for a very small percentage of deaths in the United States, those who hate firearms and the Second Amendment seize upon any outlier event, like a mass shooting, and present it as the norm. The prior ban on military-style firearms, the so-called “assault weapons ban” enacted in 1994, proved pointless. Military-style firearms were used in only a very small percentage of killings, and the ban had virtually no effect on firearms violence or public health.
Yet, in their zeal to erode Second Amendment rights and eventually do away with the right to bear arms altogether, the anti-gun crowd is targeting public health. They say people have an innate right to live free from the fear of potential firearms violence.
The simple fact is, firearms violence accounts for a very small percentage of deaths in the United States. And, in most cases, those deaths involve related criminal activity and would not end due to a ban on military-style firearms. It would not even end if the Second Amendment and right to bear arms were eliminated altogether.
Targeting firearms also is a political tool that helps anti-gun liberals to differentiate themselves from their political opponents. A compliant mainstream media enables them via sensational headlines and increasingly to influence political and social thought, facts be damned.
A quick check of federal records shows that firearms account for a relatively small percentages of deaths across any age group. The Centers for Disease Control shows the most prolific non-natural killers of people in the United States are accidental poisoning and vehicular accidents.
For young children, homicide, suffocation, drowning and car accidents are the most prolific killers. Firearms account for a tiny portion of deaths among youth and very young children in the United States. Yet, we have liberals at Harvard University, in the media, and on Capitol Hill, declaring a false crisis and threat to public health.
Anti-gun liberals want to use our taxpayer dollars to fund studies designed to affirm firearms are a menace to society and a threat to public health. They will not use those same studies to affirm the positive effects of the Second Amendment.
We need a list bye year for the last 20 years that categorizes from most to least the number of deaths and cause to see a honest source for our concern for how Americans are dying.
The solution to the criminal gun violence that is committed in this country is simple. All people above the age of 18, WILL be REQUIRED to carry a firearm at all times, just like the most peaceful country in the world, Switzerland. They have almost no crime because all citizens of legal age are required to own and train with firearms on a regular basis. Therefore, if you know that everybody you see that is an adult, has a firearm, this country would be a lot more peaceful.
So, all you gun haters and sheeple, take your anti gun ideas and shove them where the sun never shines, and remove yourselves to the communist country of your choice after renouncing your US citizenship, and never come back. WE DON’T WANT YOU HERE!!!!
I have an idea! Let’s actually lock up people arrested for gun crimes, and leave them there. I bet that once you actually do this, gun crime will fall. Eventually, once all the criminals are locked up, gun crime will fall. There will always be new criminals, but it will be on a much smaller scale.
Dr. David Hemenway, a Harvard University professor of health policy and the directory of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health was the first to try out this new manufactured crisis tagline. He proclaimed to CNN that, “The evidence is overwhelming that firearm violence in the United States – firearms killing people, scaring people, injuring people, is an enormous public health problem.”
I hope that Dr. Hemerway comes out of a store and walks to his car. There a masked mam with a gun, ask he for his money. A white man packing a gun with permit. comes over to help him. I would not.
at 67 years old I never thought I would see them denie/ ban free speech once that’s done there next operation will be for you not to own a fire arm. that’s why I all ways carry a sharp knife too, ask a police officer what he/she thinks about that’ you’ll be supriesed at what they say. yea I’d rather have a fire arm but they will never take all the knives, the gun grabbing crowd are all commies, not real Americans. & know Im not Mexican!
If we are all still wearing masks, exactly how can guns be a health hazard. I think that we should inoculate these anti gun lunatics with lead, then we should all e safe.
Once again the scum endeavors to convince the stupid that guns are the problem; NOT SO! The problem is politics. The second amendment has two items, (1)help the country when outsiders try to invade and (2) when politicians try to send the country into a dictatorship the citizens may protect themselves.
How about we pro-2A just give all the anti-2A lead poison
This B.S. set of LIES has been tried before. The ONLY reason the DEMOCOMMUNISTS want the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, is that WE are the deterrent that will stop their quest to take over this country, and turn it into a communist-controlled third-world banana republic cesspool, and all citizens into “subjects” they will then be free to use, abuse, TAX and REGULATE to death, or if you refuse to kowtow to the communist “masters” you will be arrested, “transported ” to a fema “reeducation camp” for “reprogramming” or “ELIMINATION” if you still refuse to accept to communist agenda.
DOUBTS? Type fema camps and guillotines into your search engine for a “preview”, if you DARE.
I have seen the stacks of black “family-sized” coffins and guillotine at an Army base I worked at as a civilian contractor. No “conspiracy” here ..Comply or DIE. Unless we PATRIOTS take BACK our country from the FRAUDULENTLY “elected” pair of chinese communist bought and owned “puppets”, dementia-joe and the constitutionally-ineligible “anchor baby “HO”, and their communist “deep state “handlers” that are destroying our country. WAKE UP AMERICA. (before we no longer HAVE a country.)
Rousing a private owner to violence is almost impossible. This nation is home to at least 120 million private owners who have never committed a crime beyond unintentional vehicle or zoning rules. In all of my 80 years, including a hitch in the Marine Corps, I’ve never even brandished a firearm in anger.
Implementation of the notion defined in this article would mobilize the largest armed infantry ever seen on this earth. Besides, disarming potential victims would have the opposite effect by mobilizing the criminal element in this nation. Let’s face the fact that this is another ruse to support a radical socialist movement.
Gun violence is the go-to-term for grabbers and confiscators. It’s brilliant for public relations and incendiary to owners of firearms. Nobody says, “That gun is violent.” Literate persons say, “That person is violent.” Violence is a quality that applies to people and actions, not objects. The term is wrong in many ways, but psychologically, it is powerful.
Although use of the term is clever, democrats cannot grasp the fact that criminals don’t ask government’s permission to use or even possess a firearm. Nevertheless, “gun violence” has become a mainstay of the democrat flimflam because it narrows the focus to fit the objective. The objective of course is to disarm the American public. Think about it. Have you ever heard the term “gun gentleness” used by a politician or anyone else?
No? Then ask yourself why the democrat party doesn’t focus on just violence instead of gun violence. Fact is they’re after guns, not violence. They couldn’t care less about the entire field of violence because it commingles criminals with peaceable, lawful citizens and deflects from their intended focus on peaceable, lawful citizens.
Democrats hope to transform arms owners into dependents. Once they’re dependent on the government, democrats will choose which of them they’ll allow to own arms. Democrats want citizens to believe making the U.S. safer for criminals will make it safer for their victims. Only a poor political leader would disarm his people while howling about the peril they face?
That wouldn’t make any difference unless the Constitution is altered. I heard this on a Law and Order rerun and do not know its origin but it worth remembering and quoting; The Constitution cannot ban what it explicitly permits.