You may recall that Surgeon General Vivek Murthy [not shown] famously declared “gun violence” is a “public health issue.” When the founder of Doctors for Obama opened that front in the war against gun rights, the civilian disarmament industrial complex rushed in. The pro-gun side continues to counter this “Doctor knows best, so get rid of your guns” strategy by pointing out that . . .
A) screw you, and B) the number of Americans killed by medical malpractice dwarfs the number of firearms-related deaths. usnews.com reports that Dr. Murthy is channeling his inner Edith Piaf, publicly recognizing the fact that the Docs Against GLOCKs routine isn’t moving the needle on gun control. “He also credited his fiancee Alice Chen for helping him cope.” Bless his heart. Anyway . . .
The antis – including our good friend Mike “The Gun Guy” Weisser” – haven’t dropped the “guns as a public health crisis” strategy. Why would they? They need something to feed the mainstream media whenever someone shoots someone, or, even better, a lot of someones.
Normally, the media tries to appear objective when they play the “guns as a public health crisis” strategy by, you know, offering an alternative view. Not so Yahoo Health in their post, Texas Murders Expose Fatal Link Between Gun Sales Loopholes and Domestic Violence. The piece could have been written by anti-ballistic billionaire bully boy Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety. It more-or-less was.
No surprise there. Yahoo Health contributing writer Jennifer Gerson Uffalussy’s Twitter bio reveals “I write about reproductive + women’s health/policy for @YahooHealth; women’s issues for @ThisIsFusion; feminism + pop culture for @guardianUS.” Lacking any insight into gun rights or (apparently) access to Google, Ms. Uffalussy turns into a Bloombergian parrot. Like this:
Leaving, unfortunately, still wasn’t enough to save Valerie Jackson and her family, largely because of the current loopholes that exist around online gun sales and background checks. According to Everytown for Gun Safety, one in thirty people who are able to buy guns online should be prohibited from owning guns due to their criminal records.
“Anybody can go online and arrange to purchase a gun from an unlicensed seller,” Soto Lamb explains, “Criminals and other people know that they can do this and skip the background check requirement that they would have to go through in a store,” Erika Soto Lamb, Communications Director for Everytown for Gun Safety, tells Yahoo Health.
Jackson’s death was the ninth in Texas since 2009 involving domestic violence. The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the likelihood that the women will be killed by 500 percent; in states that require background checks on all handgun sales, 46 percent fewer women are killed, according to Soto Lamb.
If that’s not the laziest example of mainstream media anti-gun agitprop then Barbara Palvin is about to make me French toast. Five links to Everytown in four paragraphs? That’s gotta be a new record, albeit a broken one. Uffalussy’s article is based entirely around Lamb’s spoon-fed misdirection, mischaracterization and outright lies on the subject of “gun violence.” And so Uffalussy gives Lamb the last word, including a final shot of linky love for Everytown.
Which is exactly why Soto Lamb and her colleagues are working to ensure that convicted criminals and those with a history of domestic violence can no longer purchase a gun online without a background check — something federal law currently does not prevent.
“Are some people going to find a way around it?” asks Soto Lamb, “Yes. But we are a nation of laws and when it comes to guns, we don’t have the stoplight in place to save lives from gun violence. We need to put pressure on Washington to close the background check loophole with online gun sales and private dealers.”
Remind me again how ANY of this is a health care-related issue. And while you’re at it, will someone remind Yahoo that shilling for an organization dedicated to degrading and destroying Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms will not endear them to the majority of their readers? Thanks!