Methinks Adam Weinstein has found himself an editor. The formerly incoherent, rabidly anti-gun writer has written a post for his civilian disarmament paymasters at Bloomberg’s thetrace.org that almost makes sense. In fact, Bridging the Debate Over Florida’s ‘Docs vs. Glocks’ Law contains some helpful insights into the issue. What Weinstein doesn’t say: the Florida law is NOT a gag order. It only prohibits doctors from “unnecessary harassment” of patients regarding firearm ownership during examination. A fine line perhaps, but one which doesn’t close the door to a [real] gun safety discussion. Here’s how Weinstein would like that doctor -> gun owner convo to go . . .
A possible scenario might run like this:
Clinician: If we look at you and your family members’ life expectancy calculations on this scale, they come in a little lower than most because there’s a gun in the home. I wonder what you think of this?
Patient: Well, I’m sure there are a lot of careless people with guns out there bringing your statistics down, but that’s not us.
Clinician: It’s good to hear you take precautions. In what way?
Patient: I keep my weapons in a safe place away from prying eyes.
Clinician: I’m glad you’ve given this some thought. Our statistics show that you can never eliminate the danger from guns, but it’s mitigated by safe practices. What other precautions might be manageable for you right now?
See what he did there? It’s the same uninformed, condescending, misleading, context-less crap anti-gunners use to argue their case for civilian disarmament, generally. [More evidence of the antis’ inherent elitism: the photo above that accompanied the article.] Weinstein reckons doctors should sidestep Florida’s legal prohibition against “unnecessary harassment” of firearms owners in the exam room by changing their language.
Weinstein’s sly Socratic style of anti-gun indoctrination – not to mention the existence of The Trace itself – indicates that the gun control industrial complex is learning the value of stealth. Check this out:
[Marian “Emmy” Betz, an associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Colorado, and Garen J. Wintemute, a professor of emergency medicine at the University of California Davis] point to a key untapped source that can help less gun-savvy physicians raise the issue tactfully with patients.
Research shows that doctors who do own guns, while less likely to see firearms possession as a public health matter, are far more likely to counsel their patients on safe gun ownership and storage. “Physicians who own guns should be asked to provide leadership in developing cultural competence in firearm safety counseling, rather than being marginalized or silenced within the physician culture,” Betz and Wintemute write.
Such doctors could help fix “knowledge gaps or biases” among uninitiated colleagues. “This includes recognizing that there are actually multiple subpopulations of gun owners whose perspectives and preferences may vary based on their reasons for owning firearms.”
This is precisely how the American marketplace of ideas is supposed to work: The intersection of diverse views is where greater understanding occurs. Half-informed caricatures — redneck gun-nuts, clueless nanny-state doctors — give way to more nuanced views.
Weinstein’s lying. There is no nuance here. Only pretend nuance. Anti-gunners don’t want to create an “intersection of diverse views . . . where greater understanding occurs.” Wintemute constantly agitates against firearms ownership, cherry-picking stats to “prove” that guns in the home are more of a danger than a defense. His idea of “safety counseling” is to convince patients to disarm. The quote above reflects his desire to create a clever cadre of Docs Against GLOCKs.
Thankfully – at least for writers outing paid propagandists – Weinstein wearies of his faux firearms friendship request. In the final anti-firearms furlong Winstein drops the mask of reasonableness. Once again, the boy can’t help it. He ends his article with the usual anti-ballistic bile, which somehow survived the editors’ red pen:
But this is where we are, when the only culturally acceptable way to be pro-gun-ownership is to believe that the right is both unlimited and superior to every other right. “Your dead kids don’t trump my constitutional rights,” Joe the Plumber, the cartoonish mascot of modern American conservatism, told the parents of mass shooting victims last year. When that sort of rhetoric drives the conversation, it’s impossible to have an honest discussion about making firearms possession safer, or introducing health professionals to more gun owners. The gun owners’ self-appointed representatives would rather shoot first and ask questions never.
This is where we are, Adam: Americans have a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Respect that right, figure out what real gun safety is and get back to us. Or not.