The Liberal Gun Club Forum

A niece recently became a new doctor. At this year's Thanksgiving gathering, I asked her to educate me on why she's so strongly against guns, and to relate (if she wanted to) her experiences working shifts in the ER in Boston. The good news is that this won't need a TL;DR.

Many of the gunshot victims she worked on were involved in gang violence. She strongly favors seeing stabbing victims because knife wounds have a well defined damage area that are relatively easy to fix. The gunshot wounds she routinely saw required large amounts of digging to find damage, and that usually included shattered bones that created secondary frag damage.

What struck me, especially in light of the current 'Doctors Vs. NRA' (anti)social media battle, is that the doctor's viewpoint is rational and heart-felt. For them, I suspect the 2A or self defense or gun rights aren't even in their minds. They are looking at damage and would be against anything that makes it harder for them to repair the person rolled into their ER.

I suspected this might be the focus before I asked the question. I've communicated that in this forum, especially with regards to the who 'AR-15 isn't a weapon of war' thing. From their perspective, there's no difference between an M16 or M4 and an AR-15, because they're treating holes and leaks and shattered bones.

For me as a concealed carrier, the doctor's 'bug' is my 'feature' - I want the damage because I want to stop an attack. I'm guessing this won't be an easy group to educate on the benefit of the 2A, unless they can be presented with all of the folks that didn't show up in their ER because their gun stopped or minimized the effects of an attack. I'm not sure that's going to be a Thanksgiving presentation, though.

edit...not Englishing or proof-reading very well today, apparently.

Yup. Doctors are generally against things that make holes in people, especially holes inflicted by deliberate or criminally negligent action. I kind of like that about them!

Be nice to know how many docs actually agree with the AMA about this.

Just a thought but doctors should know better than many that banning things doesn't usually have the desired result (abortion, illegal drugs). Preventative care and treatment works much better. I don't see guns being different. Banning then won't stop criminals from using them, just like abortion bans and illicit drug bans didn't stop them, just drove them underground and made them more dangerous.

Well, it's another good example of how we see things differently from different points of view. I wonder if I'd have a change of heart about firearms and target practice as a hobby if my job was as a trauma doc at the ER responsible for keeping people alive. But then again, I'd probably say the same frustrations about traffic accidents and certainly of motorcyclists. Or if not, at least wonder why.

Interesting thread. Some occupations give people tunnel vision, they can't see issues from a macro perspective. I was listening to Fresh Air when I was out yesterday, Terry Gross was interviewing a trauma surgeon who was himself shot through his treachea when he was 17 years old. One reason he wanted to specialize in trauma surgery. He got into a Twitter battle with the NRA over "stay in your own lane".
https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/

As far as I'm concerned, my guns are for extreme situations. That is, they'll never leave my home, except to go to the range, or in response to some dire situation like civil war, invasion, or other serious civil unrest.

I don't believe there's a need to carry unless you're in law enforcement, and I'm always baffled by civilians, who are not armed criminals, who feel they need to. I always wonder where the hell these people in the U.S. live that there's a daily public threat that they need to be armed for.

This is from a guy who grew up in the inner-city, and has frequented infamous places like Cabrini Green, and the West Side of Chicago, and Manhattan in the 80s. Note: I'm a Caucasian

As for the whole "Stay in your lane" bullshit. Really? Fuck that. Then maybe those male anti-abortion NRA members should stay in their lane as well.

doggo wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:28 pm I don't believe there's a need to carry unless you're in law enforcement, and I'm always baffled by civilians, who are not armed criminals, who feel they need to. I always wonder where the hell these people in the U.S. live that there's a daily public threat that they need to be armed for.

I carry. Where is the US is there a daily public threat that I need to be armed for? Well how about the entirety of the US. I'm lesbian, and I'm trans, and assaults and murders of LGBT people in general, and trans people in particular are currently skyrocketing. There is no place in the US where I would truly feel safe. This is why I started carrying a couple of years ago.

doggo wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:28 pm As far as I'm concerned, my guns are for extreme situations. That is, they'll never leave my home, except to go to the range, or in response to some dire situation like civil war, invasion, or other serious civil unrest.

Does that mean that for you, the only situations that would be defined as 'extreme' are the above civil war, invasion, or other 'serious' civil unrest? How do you define 'serious' civil unrest? How do you (or do you) train so that in the even of such an event you'll be ready to act and not be a danger to yourself or those around you?

doggo wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:28 pm I don't believe there's a need to carry unless you're in law enforcement,

It's a beautiful thing that you are free to exercise your beliefs!

doggo wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:28 pm and I'm always baffled by civilians, who are not armed criminals, who feel they need to.

I'm somewhat baffled that you seem surprised when others exercise their beliefs.

doggo wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:28 pm I always wonder where the hell these people in the U.S. live that there's a daily public threat that they need to be armed for.

This is from a guy who grew up in the inner-city, and has frequented infamous places like Cabrini Green, and the West Side of Chicago, and Manhattan in the 80s. Note: I'm a Caucasian

Privilege has it's privileges, I guess. If you really do wonder where 'these people' live, I'm guessing you don't watch the news. Maybe you don't have family and don't consider yourself or those around you to be worthy of protection. Or maybe you realize that you're not willing to injure or kill another to defend yourself or another. You're fee to act as you wish, no worries there.

doggo wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:28 pm As for the whole "Stay in your lane" bullshit. Really? Fuck that. Then maybe those male anti-abortion NRA members should stay in their lane as well.

Is there hypocrisy here? Are some more worthy of their opinions than others?

My past GP was a gun enthusiast, so no problem. My newer, much younger, GP has never broached the subject although he has seen my empty OWB holster when visiting him for inspections. I personally could understand Doctor reluctance to support guns considering what they (trauma Docs) see on a daily basis.

As for carrying - have for the past 7 years. Different strokes for different folks. I'm old with COPD, so no stamina, usually carry $300-$600 cash on me, and there are enough shootings in the city, including my area, that makes me want to have a chance for survival should the need arise. I NEVER leave home without my EDC and it may change from a small pistol to a large depending on area and destination on the day. Right wingers are more scary than jihadist and actually more prone to stupid shit. Rather be safe than sorry.

Ha!, I love it when AndyH turns his "third degree" eye on someone. It's amusing to observe in the way you watch someone skillfully argue any or both points of view in debate club. One might notice that more than a few of his questions are meant to be rhetorical, or best left as such.

But don't worry, Doggo. He's just helping to sharpen your intellectual integrity for ya. He has no real taste for blood. He drinks Tang with his son fer chirssakes! If you actually answer in defense of your position, you'd better have it planned a few moves ahead like chess because his questions appear to be laid like bear-traps.

HighDesert, I'm glad you posted that Fresh Air interview. I was thinking of exactly the same interview when i started reading this thread, couldn't find it easily in a google search to post the link. In listening to this interview, the ER doc was able to describe his love of firearms so well along with his struggle in the OR that I stepped into his shoes (and AndyH's niece apparently) to feel what it must be like to deal with gunshot victims. I feel that people who flippantly say that guns are no more dangerous than cars or chain-saws; that all are tools capable of giving life or harming it. While that may be true to some degree, to ignore what we humans ascribe to certain tools classified as weapons is dishonest even if the characteristics and attributes given the tool/object differ from person to person. I can also sense that this internal struggle the young doc was describing is far from complete. If he gives up guns because of it, so be it. I'd be more interested, however, to hear what his reasons are for keeping guns in his life if that is his decision. It makes for a more complex and interesting conversation I think, worthy of intelligent human beings.

Bisbee wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:24 pm Ha!, I love it when AndyH turns his "third degree" eye on someone. It's amusing to observe in the way you watch someone skillfully argue any or both points of view in debate club. One might notice that more than a few of his questions are meant to be rhetorical, or best left as such.

But don't worry, Doggo. He's just helping to sharpen your intellectual integrity for ya. He has no real taste for blood. He drinks Tang with his son fer chirssakes! If you actually answer in defense of your position, you'd better have it planned a few moves ahead like chess because his questions appear to be laid like bear-traps.

Some of you taught me a great deal during the years I developed my own reasons to carry (or not). I found the process to be very enlightening. That I appreciate Doggo's position doesn't mean I don't hope it evolves.

(Some think that the 'Tang with his son' thing should be considered child abuse, so there's that. And man, Bisbee, leaking that 'no real taste for blood' thing minimizes the eustress that Doggo could harness. A butterfly can't fly if we cut it out of the chrysalis. That's just cruel! )

Somewhat related to the 'carry or not' or 'training or not' is the way Rob Pincus looks at the recent RSO/selfie incident. He made some good points in the comments section as well.

AndyH wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:59 pm A niece recently became a new doctor. At this year's Thanksgiving gathering, I asked her to educate me on why she's so strongly against guns, and to relate (if she wanted to) her experiences working shifts in the ER in Boston. The good news is that this won't need a TL;DR.

Many of the gunshot victims she worked on were involved in gang violence. She strongly favors seeing stabbing victims because knife wounds have a well defined damage area that are relatively easy to fix. The gunshot wounds she routinely saw required large amounts of digging to find damage, and that usually included shattered bones that created secondary frag damage.

What struck me, especially in light of the current 'Doctors Vs. NRA' (anti)social media battle, is that the doctor's viewpoint is rational and heart-felt. For them, I suspect the 2A or self defense or gun rights aren't even in their minds. They are looking at damage and would be against anything that makes it harder for them to repair the person rolled into their ER.

I suspected this might be the focus before I asked the question. I've communicated that in this forum, especially with regards to the who 'AR-15 isn't a weapon of war' thing. From their perspective, there's no difference between an M16 or M4 and an AR-15, because they're treating holes and leaks and shattered bones.

For me as a concealed carrier, the doctor's 'bug' is my 'feature' - I want the damage because I want to stop an attack. I'm guessing this won't be an easy group to educate on the benefit of the 2A, unless they can be presented with all of the folks that didn't show up in their ER because their gun stopped or minimized the effects of an attack. I'm not sure that's going to be a Thanksgiving presentation, though.

edit...not Englishing or proof-reading very well today, apparently.

Her perspective is valid and clearly grounded in her life experiences.

The perspective in IT is different. Users (or at the least the ones who cause us more grief than naturally comes with our jobs) are extremely good at breaking things even after we take away their admin rights, block access to data storage on USB devices and enforce corporate wide polices to keep them from breaking things (they always find something else to break). They still manage to make messes for us to clean up. The worst offenders are the ones who think they know better than we do how to do our jobs. Difficult users are viewed as unfixable problems. The best thing we can do is have the broadest tool set and skill set and hope for the best. If we get lucky the worst of the worst separate for whatever reason and we are grateful we no longer need to clean up after them. That's probably why many IT-types own firearms and enjoy shooting.

Eris wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:43 pm I carry. Where is the US is there a daily public threat that I need to be armed for? Well how about the entirety of the US. I'm lesbian, and I'm trans, and assaults and murders of LGBT people in general, and trans people in particular are currently skyrocketing. There is no place in the US where I would truly feel safe. This is why I started carrying a couple of years ago.

There I go, showing my straight white male privilege. I'm not being sarcastic. I hadn't thought of that. Hereby proving why a discussion forum can be a place where you learn something.

doggo wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:14 pm

Eris wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:43 pm I carry. Where is the US is there a daily public threat that I need to be armed for? Well how about the entirety of the US. I'm lesbian, and I'm trans, and assaults and murders of LGBT people in general, and trans people in particular are currently skyrocketing. There is no place in the US where I would truly feel safe. This is why I started carrying a couple of years ago.

There I go, showing my straight white male privilege. I'm not being sarcastic. I hadn't thought of that. Hereby proving why a discussion forum can be a place where you learn something.

I understand. Until a few years ago I didn't see any reason to carry, either.

doggo wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:14 pm

Eris wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:43 pm I carry. Where is the US is there a daily public threat that I need to be armed for? Well how about the entirety of the US. I'm lesbian, and I'm trans, and assaults and murders of LGBT people in general, and trans people in particular are currently skyrocketing. There is no place in the US where I would truly feel safe. This is why I started carrying a couple of years ago.

There I go, showing my straight white male privilege. I'm not being sarcastic. I hadn't thought of that. Hereby proving why a discussion forum can be a place where you learn something.

Well done.

And if this were Christian Gun Club, we would all be counseling Eris to consider shock therapy and beg God for forgiveness...

I’m really glad we are the LGC, and not the CGC.

In other words knife wounds are less work , only problem with knife wounds are nerv damage but er doc does not deal with it as that falls on specialists also knife wound victims present different set of issues as in most cases they wait for couple hours and try to stop bleeding at home and when they show up they are well on there way to go into a shock.
On the other note congratulations to you and your niece finishing med school and surviving hospitalists stage is no small feat

Doctors have their perspectives and their work tends to blind them as well.When one is taught and conditioned to save all lives it tends to narrow their focus. Take your niece to the range with a group of liberal gun owners. It certainly made mine hedge away from restrictions and bans.

sikacz wrote: Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:09 am Doctors have their perspectives and their work tends to blind them as well.When one is taught and conditioned to save all lives it tends to narrow their focus.

You've got that right! Ultimately, I think that's the primary impediment to 'bridge building' - especially when neither side can see the world from the other's perspective.

sikacz wrote: Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:09 am Take your niece to the range with a group of liberal gun owners. It certainly made mine hedge away from restrictions and bans.

Thanksgiving is the gathering, and years prior have included plenty of shooting. After about five years of gentle education and persuasion, the East coast liberal antis remain the same and are not open to expanding their worldview. In other words, there is unlikely to ever be a trip to the range that didn't involve rope and a straight jacket.

And that would kinda take the fun out of a range trip, wouldn’t it? All that whining and, “Let me go!” in the background while you’re trying to focus on “squeezing” not jerking the trigger and breath control...

You should have seen the look at faces (and sounds of gears turning) in heads when they learned that police aren't there to protect them from crime... We'll see how the conversation flows next year.

They aren’t?

Bisbee wrote: Sun Dec 02, 2018 10:44 pmThey aren’t?

Are you sarcastic or serious? If serious see the links here:

https://search.nation.com/serp?q=police ... 2c9bde3c1f

The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the police have no duty to protect any specific individual, only a generalized duty to protect the public. Even if you call them and tell them there's a home invader in your house raping your roommate, they have no duty come to your aid. (That was the circumstance of one of the specific court cases.)

Eris wrote: Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:01 pm

Bisbee wrote: Sun Dec 02, 2018 10:44 pmThey aren’t?

Are you sarcastic or serious? If serious see the links here:

https://search.nation.com/serp?q=police ... 2c9bde3c1f

The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the police have no duty to protect any specific individual, only a generalized duty to protect the public. Even if you call them and tell them there's a home invader in your house raping your roommate, they have no duty come to your aid. (That was the circumstance of one of the specific court cases.)

Yup. Most people are unaware. Add this to the average response time equation when you assess personal risk.