Pediatrician group slams Senate for gun vote; Infers background checks would have prevented Newtown, other tragic shootings

The American Academy of Pediatrics believes that gun control is a public health issue — no wonder it can’t figure out that mandatory background checks would not have stopped the Newtown tragedy.

Read the AAP statement.

10 thoughts on “Pediatrician group slams Senate for gun vote; Infers background checks would have prevented Newtown, other tragic shootings”

  1. Since every incident of school shooting that we have been able to get information on shows the shooter on a psycoactive drug (ridalin, adderol, etc.) or just coming off of said drug, I would say that these doctors are the problem, not the guns they want to control.

    On top of that, if we are using statistics, your child has a 10 times greater chance of being raped by a teacher while at school than being shot by another student.

  2. The AAP and, it seems like, the AMA have become decidedly anti-gun.
    Most of the times when pre-teen and younger children are injured or killed in firearms incidents, it’s an accident involving the family’s guns that were not handled properly. These are tragic but very few. Responsible families minimize this risk; it probably can’t be taken to zero. Lots more kids are injured or killed in car incidents. I’d hazard a guess that more kids are killed by their own parents in drunk-driving accidents than in firearms accidents.
    Most deaths and injuries of “children” with firearms are teens attacking each other, usually in gangs and usually teen boys/men we would call black. These teens can’t legally buy or possess guns in the first place.
    Most of the school shooter episodes have involved students who can’t legally purchase or carry guns under current law. Generally they’ve stolen the guns from home, as Lanza did (I know he wasn’t a student). THe Columbine killers used a straw man.
    Anecdotally, these incidents are terrible. Statistically, they are less likely than being killed in an accident while riding in the school bus.
    The legislation in question is only somewhat burdensome, but rights are not supposed to be burdened without great cause. It would not have prevented any of the major shootings in recent years because none of the major shooters would have failed an existing background check — except Lanza, who was underage. And if 40% of guns are already being sold without a check, but only a tiny percentage of guns are used in crimes, then the 40% is not our problem.
    The truth is, guns aren’t the problem to begin with. Failed families and lost values of kindness and respect are the problems.

  3. scarlet, the criminals already “use the easiest way to obtain firearms”: they buy them on the street or steal them outright.

    Most guns used in crimes are stolen. The guns from Sandy Hook were stolen (from his own mother).

  4. “40% of gun purchases without background checks” is based early ’90’s surmises and a survey of 251 people in 1997. This often quoted statistic has about zero factual basis. The infamous gun show loophole is part of this mythology. Just from shear numbers of licensed gun dealers and firearms, most of the sales at gun shows are through licensed dealers with background checks. Less than 5%, probably closer to 1%, of sales are private party sales. You want to assume all those sales are to criminals? Most internet sales result in the firearms going to an FFL for background checks before you can possess the firearm (e. g., I buy a gun from a dealer in Kentucky via internet, the gun goes to a dealer in Richmond who does the check before I can posses the gun.) Where to criminals get guns? Illegal sales that would not be affected by this law. This law, like all gun control laws, would have restricted the activities of non-criminals. It would have made it more difficult for me to transfer my father’s service revolver to my son and to transport target guns through some states. It was a feel-good law that restricts the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding citizens.

  5. This doctor is exactly the reason why medical providers should have nothing to do with gun control. An anti-gun doctor could disarm any number of people with any number of “rational” excuses.

    Can you imagine telling this pediatrician that there are guns in your home? Child & Family Welfare would be breaking down your door shortly afterward.

  6. I know you don’t want to hear this but I am in agreement with the expanded background checks. With 40% of gun purchases not done through dealers, those with criminal or abnormal psychological behaviors will use the easiest way to obtain firearms. While universal background checks will not stop Sandy Hook, the checks will make it harder for deviants to arm themselves. The senate today only preserved the rights of criminals and crazies to get guns. Frankly, if this wild west mentality on guns continues, its time to think that the second amendment has outlived its usefulness and should be repealed.

  7. The doctor makes no logical case for the bills. He only spills some
    statistical soup that is not verifiable, nor relatable to the issue at hand.

    It’s as if he is making an appeal to authority, when he is in fact a pediatrician, having no knowledge of what he is talking about legislatively. Simple advocacy from someone in a position who should know better. I wonder if his constituents approve of this action.

  8. So many people obviously never studied the Constitution when they were in school or else they were indoctrinated against the meaning of that fine document. We have an uphill battle if we are going to save the Constitution so grandly crafted by our forefathers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.