Having read the letter by a surgeon from Whiteriver, I am reminded of Brandolini's Law: The amount of energy needed to refute bull (poop) is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it." It is impossible to refute that large volume of disinformation in a reasonable space.
I too, worked the emergency room. I have seen the results of human violence, first in training at Parkland Hospital Surgical Emergency in Dallas, certainly the equal of any New York hospital. I do not claim and do not possess the level of training of the surgeon writer, but thankfully, the pretension of medical authority regarding this subject is irrelevant and inappropriate. The ability to discern the problem is all we need to untangle the writer's claims. Authority in medicine or surgery does not imply authority in other subjects, and certainly not when the subject at hand is being misrepresented.
The writer's twisted terminology uses the terms "firearm violence," "gun violence epidemic," "violence inflicted by guns," and "health care epidemic of gun violence." This isn't the language of a scientific healthcare provider, but is the twisted language of the gun hater. Any normal person is able to discriminate between human action and an inanimate object. There is no such thing as "gun violence," "violence inflicted by guns," and other malarkey as stated. There is only people violence. Gun control laws punish only the innocent. If the logic of the gun haters were applied to drunk-driving laws, only non-drinkers would be barred from driving.
Our Whiteriver writer disagrees with a letter over claims of gun confiscation, followed by extermination. Our writer states: "It was the instillation (sic) of autocratic and authoritarian governments that lead (sic) to the deaths of millions of people in Turkey, Russia, Germany, China, Cambodia, Guatemala and Uganda, not the inability of the people in those countries to own guns." This begs the real question: Can repressive regimes commit exterminations in an armed society? The heavily armed Kurds have resisted extermination by Iraq and Turkey for decades. Let's look closer to home for firearms vs. violent tyrants.
In the history of the American Colonies, British troops occupied Boston (again) in 1774 and seized privately owned firearms. The Boston Gazette reported that what irritated people, next to seizing their arms and ammunition, was the arrest of patriotic leaders. General Gage seized arms into 1775. This disarming was stopped on April 19, when Massachusetts militias confronted the British at Lexington and Concord. The rest is the history of the triumph of citizens who overcame violent tyrannical oppression with their privately owned firearms.
Writer complains, "Having to tell yet another loved one that their family member has been killed by gun fire (sic) is difficult." Is it easier to tell folks that a drunk driver killed their child? That's part of the job. Trying to recruit others to your point of view by deliberately misdirecting emotion is "disingenuous." Can the writer not discern that the problem is not a lifeless tool? Does writer really believe that the gun owned by John Hinckley was trying to impress Jodie Foster? That's the story he's trying to sell — "violence inflicted by guns" — his own words, not mine.
Our writer states: "It’s not truly “gun control.” It’s the need for reform of the laws that allow citizens to legally purchase and own guns."
Just what needs to be reformed about the right of a law-abiding citizen to buy a gun? It's already illegal for criminals, (among others) to purchase firearms. What is writer's problem with law-abiding citizens?
Writer: "There is no threat to the second amendment in recent laws that have been introduced to limit access to guns." What part of "right" and "shall not be infringed" does writer fail to grasp?
Are there ways to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals? Probably. The problem is that persons like our writer want to be the ones to decide who and how, and a free and just People cannot afford that.
Ron Ramsey, P.A. (Ret.)