Thursday, December 31, 2015

In A Perfect World

The New England Journal of Medicine (*NEJM: in an article titled "Rooting Out Gun Violence") * is once again lamenting the terrible lack of cooperation on the part of gun-owners with the Health Issue improvements they have suggested.

*(H/T:  Ammoland, and The Gun

In A Perfect World --

Old people, women, even children would be protected from by vicious men who want to hurt us.

In A Perfect World, when we are assaulted by people who want to hurt us for the sheer joy of the pain, or for gain, or for fury unabated ... we would be able to summon help by pushing a button and rescuers would magically appear and save us from our tormentors.

This is not a perfect world, and the police ("To Protect And To Save") have no obligation to protect or to save us.  Nor have they the resources to do so, however much they would like to.

So we carry guns, because "Sam Colt Made All Men Equal".  And also mothers and fathers.

Here's how it sounds from the side of the fence:
Here we are again. Less than a year ago, an editorial in the Journal by Kassirer reexamined the massive public health problem of gun violence in the United States,1 and a Perspective article by Sacks, born of a personal tragedy, lamented the defunding of research on firearm-injury prevention.2 Kassirer called for electing “lawmakers at all levels of government with the courage to defy gun lobbyists,” so that essential regulatory changes can finally be enacted — as physicians, public health experts, and others have been recommending for decades. But in early December, the day after a young couple turned up at a holiday party in San Bernardino, California, with semiautomatic weapons and went on a shooting rampage, killing 14 people and injuring 21.
NEJM Translation:  We keep telling you that guns are bad, but you won't listen to us and ... see?  THIS is what happens when you don't listen to us!

I hate it when grown men whine, but it seems endemic in the academic community.  They have chosen a side, and they don't recognize the other side; which is those who feel themselves most vulnerable.

Here, they have decided that all guns are bad, so nobody should own guns.  Period.

They studiously ignore the fact that the reason why Americans refuse to give up their guns is that the criminals won't give up THEIR guns!   

It's not that we're unaware of the abuses of firearms ownership.

It's just that we, the law-abiding community, understand that if we are unable to defend ourselves, then nobody else is there to step up for us.

Certainly, there are no members of the Academic Community who are willing to commit to our personal defense; nobody blames them for that, it's a tough job and they are not qualified even if they would accept the onerous duty.

The Academics have the courage to (defend) ... research on firearm-injury prevention
but they don't have the ability to provide "firearm-injury prevention".   That's The Way Of The Academic.

They may bemoan the real-world ethics;  they may rail against the thick-headedness of the hoi polloi who insist on the right to defend themselves.  But they are unable or unwilling to provide and alternate solution which will comfort the man whose family has been taken from him during a home-invasion.

It's not a Perfect World.


Anonymous said...

HAPPY NEW YEAR Maybe 2016 will be much better than 2015.

Anonymous said...

But is self defense at "right"? Not always. The "state" has assumed the right of retribution, following a personal crime against an individual, why not the right of self defense on behalf of the person being defended. Many will tell you that all power flows from the state and not the individual.

Mark said...

We hold these truths to be self-evident...and the pursuit of happiness. I consider self defense to be included in happiness, hence a right.

Anonymous said...

This is a mute point. The president's new 2016 gun control executive orders will no doubt make it more difficult to obtain or own a gun for self defense.