The NRA Versus Public Health

[SecularMotion]

Vivek Murthy is a well-regarded physician and instructor at Harvard Medical School. Like the president he hopes to serve as surgeon general, he supports greater regulation of firearms. That said, the surgeon general has no role in regulating guns, a task that falls to the perennially underfunded and legislatively hobbled Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

So why are the National Rifle Association and its allies in the extreme gun-rights movement so panicked about Murthy? "The surgeon general has the important tasks of providing the American public with information to better inform decisions related to their health and directing much of the federal government's public health efforts," said the NRA's lobbying arm on its website.

The crucial words are "information" and "public health." The extreme gun-rights movement makes expansive claims about the benefits of gun ownership. Few of those claims pass even the crudest standards of scholarship. Indeed, many such claims are already bending under the weight of public health research indicating, for example, that gun ownership may be more likely to lead to instances of suicide or homicide than self-defense

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-17/the-nra-versus-public-health

[gejohnston]

1. I would oppose him if he were hunting buddies with Ted Nugent

simply because he isn't qualified for the job. This is a guy that finished his residency for internal medicine less than eight years ago, and has no background or education in public health and no management experience. If he were to get that experience and come back in 25 or 30 years, I might support him. It is like taking a rookie patrolman and making them FBI director. As surgeon general, you are given rank of rear admiral and are in charge of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

this is the guy he would replacing, he has been worked in public health and management about as long as Murthy has been alive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Lushniak

This is the nominee's,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivek_Murthy

That said, the surgeon general has no role in regulating guns, a task that falls to the perennially underfunded and legislatively hobbled Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Actually it is up to congress, the ATF simply enforces the laws. All law enforcement agencies are legislatively hobbled, as they should be. The ATF is not only underfunded, they are also incompetent, corrupt, and has an institutional culture of sexism and racism that developed when it was still the IRS's dumping ground for undesirables. Instead of removing the ATF from Treasury, they should have abolished it splitting the irresponsibility between the IRS and FBI. Oh, they should have left Secret Service in Treasury too.

Police officials opposed the right against warrant-less searches being put in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Eleanors38]

2. Wasn't this duped in Guns Discussion (GD) recently?

[gejohnston]

3. Yes it was

and I copied and pasted part of my rant.

[HALO141]

4. Mussent let a little thing like duplication

get in the way of a google dump.

[sarisataka]

6. 2 out of 3

Gun related groups have regular posts and sometimes discussions break out

[Token Republican]

5. He's 36 and has less than 8 years experience in being a doctor

Vivek Murthy is 36 years old. According to Wikipedia, he completed his residency in Internal Medicine in 2006 from Brigham and Women's Hospital.

That means he's been a doctor for a little less than eight years. He was a strong supporter of the ACA.

His seven years of practicing medicine did help him form the following medical opinion. In a letter to American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Dr. Murthy advocated for:

Limiting purchases of ammunition

Regulating private sales and transfers of guns

Reinstating federal funding for research on preventing firearms injury and death

Prohibiting laws that forbid physicians from discussing gun safety with patients

Removing the ACA provision that prohibits physicians from documenting that a patient owns a gun


http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/821816


MSNBC claims Dr. Murthy's credentials are sterling, and claims that gun violence is related to public health. Presumably enough to warrant such an experienced doctor, sterling credentials aside.

Huffington Post also reports that Dr. Murthy's position on reinstating the Assault Weapon Ban is a health issue is tanking his nomination.

It is unclear why Dr. Murthy thinks that being shot with guns that don't have pistol grips is more acceptable than being shot with guns that do.

[gejohnston]

7. What say you?

This is what the job entails It is a lot more than just being a bully pulpit.
Here are bios of past SGs
Here is Murthy's cv
Here is the acting SG's cv

Here is an op ed that has nothing to do with guns

In this case, for the Senate to be squabbling over guns is pointless. It shouldn't matter if he has a picture of Bloomberg over his bed or is Ted Nugent's hunting buddy. I frankly don't care either way. Regardless of his view on guns, it should be 100-0 vote against. His only qualification is that he did a lot for the campaign. This isn't the ambassadorship to Palu, where appointing a campaign contributor who can't find the place on a map won't create problems. The job requires the most qualified person available, and should never be a patronage job.

one more thing

The extreme gun-rights movement makes expansive claims about the benefits of gun ownership. Few of those claims pass even the crudest standards of scholarship. Indeed, many such claims are already bending under the weight of public health research indicating, for example, that gun ownership may be more likely to lead to instances of suicide or homicide than self-defense

This is in fact false. The research that it defines and "benifits" have come from respected and award winning criminologists funded by DoJ and universities. They release the data to any scholor that asks for it, and are published in peer reviewed criminology journals. The "public health" research isn't bending anything. In fact, it often isn't even peer reviewed and does might appear in a medical journal, where the editors don't have the slightest idea about socilogy or criminology. Most of the time, the "research" is published in inhouse organs by departments that are funded by either Bloomberg or Joyce Foundation.

[pablo_marmol]

8. "Public Health" gun restriction advocates vs. integrity NT