Over the years, in both commentaries and letters to the editor in my local newspaper, I have noted the naïve expression of many letter writers and liberal pundits, who glossing over the Constitutional protections guaranteed by the 4th and 5th Amendments, opine, “If you don’t have anything to hide, then you don’t have anything to fear!” When the Soviet KGB needed culprits, their motto was “Show me the man and I will show you his crime.” In other words, charges can be brought against anyone, once the State has decided to trample on the rights of any targeted citizen.
A week or so ago we discussed Obama's Mid-term Report Card on foreign policy. It was the opinion of most readers of GOPUSA that the sitting President received a solid "F, " failing grade.
In his reply to my article, Dr. Miguel Faria, a very fine neurosurgeon and writer, states that it is unethical for physicians “to intrusively ask patients about the presence of guns in the home” and that by so doing, physicians become “snitches” against their own patients.
I agree that if the purpose of asking about guns is solely to report the possession of guns, and that if the physician asks “intrusively” and reports without the patient’s permission and in the absence of an imminent threat, it would be wrong.
January 18, 2013
Research Europe Reporter: Hi Dr. Faria, I am a reporter for Research Europe, and I cover US research and science policy news. I am hoping to speak with you today because I am writing an article about the fact that President Obama has issued a memorandum directing the CDC and other scientific agencies to research the causes and prevention of gun violence, loosening the current restrictions on federal funding in that field.
Surgical Neurology International publishes a two-part series entitled "America, Guns, and Freedom: A Recapitulation of Liberty" and "Shooting Rampages, Mental Health, and the Sensationalization of Violence."
Open-access journal weighs in on the gun control debate from a neurological perspective
David Oedel is incorrect in his assertion (“A right to armed revolt?”, 1/27) that Justice Scalia’s opinion in D.C. vs. Heller limits the right to keep and bear arms to weapons “in common use at the time” the Second Amendment was ratified. In fact, in his decision Justice Scalia characterizes such arguments as “bordering on the frivolous.”
Pediatrician asks 13-year-old girl whether her parents smoke or own a gun, how much alcohol they drink, whether they use drugs, and how her parents “get along.” Neither parent was present during the questioning, as would be required if the girl were accused of a crime.
− News Item
Abstract — Gun violence and, most recently, senseless shooting rampages continue to be sensitive and emotional points of debate in the American media and the political establishment. The United Nations is already set to commence discussing and approving its Small Arms Treaty in March 2013. And following the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy in the United States this past December, American legislators are working frantically to pass more stringent gun control laws in the U.S. Congress.
In the commentary "Guns, violence, and mental health," psychiatrist Dr. Richard Elliot agrees with President Obama that it is OK for physicians to intrusively ask patients about guns in the home, which, as a medical ethicist, he should know constitutes an unethical boundary violation,(1) not to mention makes physicians potentially effective snitches for the State against their own patients who have not necessarily expressed a threat to anyone.(2)
In Part I of this three-part series I laid out the background and general intentions of public health gun control activists in the early years of their campaign. In this part we relate the events that led to exposure of the Centers for Disease Control in its crucial roles.
That [public health researchers] prefer the term “gun violence” is revealing
of their mind set in approaching the problem, because it puts the emphasis
on guns and not on the humans who misuse them.
Dr. Timothy Wheeler, Director,
Doctors for Responsibie Gun Ownership (DRGO)
AJC Reporter (Questions): Hello — This is Craig Schneider with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution [AJC]. I am writing a story on the controversy surrounding gun-related research, and I would greatly appreciate if you would give me a call.
Dr. Miguel Faria (Answers): Hi Craig, I received your questions and have arranged them in a question and answer format for convenience.
The role of gun violence and street crime in the United States and the world is currently a subject of great debate among national and international organizations, including the United Nations. Because the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the individual right of American citizens to own private firearms, availability of firearms is greater in the U.S. than the rest of the world, except perhaps in Israel and Switzerland.
Charles Richardson's informative column on Macon and Bibb County crime statistics points out that while aggravated assaults have declined in the city and county, residential burglaries are up 6% over last year. These burglaries are associated with drugs and violence. The reality is that police cannot be everywhere all the time to protect our homes. Roadblocks and visible police presence may deter crime briefly, but unless we turn society into a police state even those measures will not suffice. Citizens must take some responsibility for their own safety.
I was appalled at the naïveté and ignorance expressed by several commentators on the topic of firearms and the Second Amendment in the October 1996 AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) News.
The 1991 American Medical Association (AMA) campaign against domestic violence (and towards gun control) launched for public relations and media consumption went hand in hand with a previously articulated (1979) U.S. Public Health Service objective of complete eradication of handguns in America, beginning with a 25% reduction in the national inventory by the year 2000!(1)
Et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium.
Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634)
The Legacy of Revolutions
March 2, 1999
Philip R. Fine, PhD, MSPH
Injury Control Research Center
University of Alabama at Birmingham
CH 19 403, UAB Station
Birmingham, AL 35294-2041
Dear Dr. Fine:
Thank you for your invitation to comment on the videotaped presentation given recently by Dr. David Reynolds. As a full-time practicing surgeon I have operated on my share of patients with gunshot injuries. I share Dr. Reynolds's desire to mitigate the violence done to people and to our society as a result of firearm misuse.
Imagine this scenario: you visit your doctor for back pain. Your doctor asks if you have firearms in your home. Then he announces that your family would be better off (especially your children) if you had no guns at all in your house. You leave the doctor's office feeling uneasy, wondering what guns have to do with your backache. Does your doctor care about your family's safety? Or instead, did he use your trust and his authority to advance a political agenda?
My father kept his in the bedroom closet. My grandfather said he didn't need one, but when I had to crack his safe because he forgot the combination, I found two old ones in there. My uncle kept his on top of the chest of drawers in the bedroom. As a child, all of my friends had essentially the same experiences.
In my 14th summer, Elvis made the charts with "Heartbreak Hotel." I had a little jingle in my pocket from my paper route, mowing grass and caddying for the rich folks down at the fancy golf course. Because, you see, I wanted one, too. So I worked and saved for it.
For years, organized medicine has been misusing its authority to turn the public against firearms owners. Prestigious medical journals have abandoned their usually strict peer review standards to publish junk science articles written by anti-gun activists with medical degrees. Their purpose? As one pediatrician put it, to convince Americans that 64 guns are a virus to be eradicated."
Many advocates of gun control point to Great Britain as an example of a gun free paradise where violence and crime are rare. Well, there may be trouble in paradise.
Our friends across the Atlantic did tighten their already strict gun laws with the Firearms Act of 1997, making self-defense with a firearm completely impossible for ordinary people. Obedient British subjects generally maintained a stiff upper lip as they surrendered their guns and their rights.
On the Frontiers of Science
"A few weeks ago, Governor George Bush delayed the execution of a Texas inmate so that DNA evidence could be reviewed. That review backfired, providing additional evidence that the inmate was, indeed, guilty. University of Utah Professor Paul G. Cassell had this observation about all the death-penalty yada-yada:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently published their annual death statistics. And, a funny thing happened on the way to the coroner's office: Gunshot business is down yet again.
"Overall, 30,708 people died of firearms in 1998, a 5 percent drop from 1997 and a 22 percent drop from the high of 39,595 in 1993. The age-adjusted death rate from firearms was 11.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 1998, a 7.4 percent drop from 12.2 in 1997 and down sharply from the high of 15.6 in 1993."
Suppose a Hollywood star or a political figure publicly announced that he or she favored making all women and families helpless and defenseless against vicious thugs. Would women cheer and vow their undying support for that person?
Dear Dr. Faria,
Let me take this opportunity to thank you for your courageous efforts to present "the other side" of the rather strained assertion which I will summarize as, "Bullets are a pathogen, and guns are thus a medical epidemic, which we are justified in treating with the same kind of public health measures we would direct toward the elimination of, say, an outbreak of Salmonella typhi."
Gun Violence and Street Crime
Just a note to say what a super job you've done on the latest [Spring 2001] Medical Sentinel. I am really glad I joined and am supporting this fine publication.
Keep up the great work!
Richard W. Stevens, Esq.
Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership
Correspondence originally published in the Medical Sentinel 2001;6(2);37-39. Copyright©2001 Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).
Dear Dr. Faria and all the doctors at AAPS,
There are those of us out here who are disgusted with the "pseudo-science" that is used in medical journals regarding the issue of handguns. The integrity of the medical profession is in jeopardy with our medical organizations taking politically correct positions that are unrelated to medicine. That is why I cannot join them.
In "Homicide and Suicide in America, 1900-1998," I pointed out that the low homicide rate in the early 1900s is thought by some to be an artifact due to incomplete data.(1) Reasons were listed to indicate that the homicide rate really was much lower 100 years ago. Another reason is as follows: In 1902 Americans spent $13 per capita (in 1999 dollars) for police protection, both public and private, while in 1996 we spent $207 per capita.(2) If violent crime really is no more frequent today, why are we spending 16 times more for protection against it?