Dr. Wayne Riley (courtesy cspan.org)

TTAG reader Anais writes:

While surfing channels today and trying to avoid an overload of sappy Christmas movies, I found instead an overload of gun-grabbing rhetoric on C-span. Over the roughly five minutes of Dr. Riley’s comments which I listened to before before deciding holiday sap was infinitely preferable [click here to watch.], he managed to parrot almost every talking point used by the anti-gun crowd since San Berdoo . . .

Dr. Riley & those like him consider firearms to be within the scope of their profession, are actively calling for blatant government violations of patient confidentiality, and thereby hope to provide another angle for ultimate disarmament. Because according to these learned elites, the good of the community always trumps individual rights.

23 Responses to C-SPAN Celebrates Christmas with a Repeat of Docs Against GLOCKS

  1. As I recall the first tenet of the Hippocratic (not hypocritical) oath is: “First, do no harm.”

    How do doctors reconcile an anti-2A and anti-gun position when they are forced to treat innocent gunshot victims in their ERs and operating rooms who were denied the ability to defend themselves or others because the all-knowing government and AMA and CDC decided they could not be trusted with firearms?

    What are these people supposed to do when confronted by some criminal or deranged terrorist who does not give a damn about anti-gun regulations and laws, call their doctor? Only after the fact, I suppose, if they are still able.

    • Why would Docs be against Glocks? Glocks are perfectly functional (if less than fashionable) firearms. Are these just “rich and snobby Docs” demanding fancy guns like Sig Sauers, H&K, Kimber, Korth, Pythons, etc?

    • Actually, “First do no harm”, is Galen, not Hippocrates. The reason for docs to be against Glocks is the same reason for anyone to be against Glocks, mainly they are not 1911s.

  2. What, no “Docs Against Medical Malpractice?”

    When doctors stop killing their patients, I’ll listen to what they have to say. Until then, please doctors, STFU.

    • With so many preventable medical errors that need to be addressed, with so much documented nonsense, twaddle and agenda-driven sophistry being exposed in the last 50 years of medically-directed hectoring about our diets… yea, I have to agree.

      • Please keep the anti-physician rhetoric to yourselves. I happen to be a physician (a doc FOR Glocks), and I know that most of the medical malpractice statistics are just as much bullshit as the ones against firearms.

  3. “Preventable medical errors persist as the No. 3 killer in the U.S. – third only to heart disease and cancer – claiming the lives of some 400,000 people each year. ”

    Google “medical deaths statistics” for your choice of sources.

    • The numbers vary, 1/4 million at least and this is a very conservative number because it assumes all medical/pharmaceutical deaths are reported. The number is too big for most people to find believable, despite these numbers being documented.

  4. I I listened to part of Dr. Riley’s propaganda speech about “gun violence” and his war on guns
    AND IT MADE ME SICK.

  5. The writer says that, “Dr. Riley & those like him consider firearms to be within the scope of their profession….” I think I may be in the minority here but I believe that firearms are within the scope of his profession….. as a political activist. Sure he masquerades as a doctor, but if he took a pro-2a public stance his hospital would probably can his butt for not being politically neutral…. Disgusting.

  6. My wife is one of those pesky health providers, but she actually lover her Glocks. She keeps one at work. She has patients seeking drugs every day, and she will only prescribe them if someone actually needs them. She has come home rattled from patients that get pissed when she tells them ‘no’,’,and their office has called the police more than once. These Dr’s are completely biased. If they think firearms should be in their scope of practice, then so should swimming pools, cars, bathtubs……. With Obamacare, you’d be lucky to find a provider that actually gives a damn about you after the paperwork and billing/coding is done.

  7. For those of you that missed this one (or didn’t click the link to watch it), the neutral ground where they decided to host this rational discussion on gun violence and public health was Charleston AME Church, site of the Charleston shooting. Even my partner who isn’t really into shooting looked at me and said “Really? Because that’s not a politically loaded place to talk about guns.”

    • Good catch.
      Not only are they waving the bloody shirt, they’re dancing on the spot where it happened. They’ve done the same at Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc.

  8. Not all doctors support people like this guy in leadership positions. We didn’t all support Obamacare even though the AMA supported it. Not every teacher supports using Union dues to elect Democrats.

    While doctors shouldn’t be asking random patients if they own guns, if someone is suicidal I do ask just so family can keep tabs on the guns and prevent someone who’s not thinking clearly from acting impulsively. If people don’t want that question asked EVER then you need to push tort reform so I don’t get sued repeatedly for doing my job.

  9. The only time I ever ask a patient about guns is when I think they own rural property here in South Florida.
    Then I ask if I can go “plinking” on their property.
    There is nowhere to leally shoot outdoors here except at the the 3 county outdoor shooting ranges, all of whom prohibit rapid fire, human or animal shaped targets and tannerite.
    I also am against Glocks for use by Docs cause Glocks are so famous for negligent discharges.
    If a doctor or nurse want a striker fired pistol, I recommend one that does not require a trigger pull to field strip.
    Our entire Anesthesia department is a bunch of gun nuts uh, enthusiasts.
    We treat gunshot victims in the operating room
    We do not agree with the doctor in the above article.
    All of us support the second amendment

  10. I seem to recall a TTAG piece from July 20 by Dr. Robert Young (“Where Guns Are The Issue, Data Is As Data Does”) published under Dan Zimmerman’s byline. This piece called attention to phony gun research and the statistics generated thereby. In addition, I doubt that any of us believe the government’s assertions that “40% of gunshow sales are performed without background checks,” or “90% of the guns used in Mexican murders come from U.S. border-state gun shops.” Why then would anyone uncritically accept the assertion that 400,000 deaths per year occur by medical misadventure in a climate where the Federal Government is doing everything within its power to control the delivery of medical care in this country? Do you suppose it is remotely possible that the political elitists who use bogus studies to justify limiting your access to firearms, might invoke a similar strategy with respect to your health care?

    • Listening to this guy made me recall the same article by Dr. Young, and I had a similar thought as your question.

      “Do you suppose it is remotely possible that the political elitists who use bogus studies to justify limiting your access to firearms, might invoke a similar strategy with respect to your health care?”

      The ACA was rammed down our throats using the same strategy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *