#49

Dear Gun Owners,                                             3-27-88

    Your doctor may be using his or her "professional clout" to take
your guns away.  You need to know who is doing this, how, and why.

    First, some perspective on issues of "control" within the medical
profession; only in light of this does the true hypocrisy of anti-gun
physicians become manifest.  Physicians bemoan the fact that DRG's,
HMO's, and all manner of other medical "controls", have tended to be
ill-conceived, unfair, and usually backfire, resulting in inferior
health care.  We are frustrated that the public doesn't see through
the many false claims and promises made by those who want to enact
sweeping changes they misrepresent as only "reasonable compromises".
We wish the average citizen knew enough to really make the informed
decisions asked of them regarding controls on health care.  We wish
the media would help inform the public, instead of just trying to
shock and infuriate them.  Finally, we tire of the public stereotype
of the "AMA" which presumes all physicians to be in on some plot to
perpetuate disease so we can all get rich.

    I do not intend to bring the debate over health care into the
pages of Gun Week, but please note that if you change a few of the
words, the issue is much like that faced by gun owners.  We, too, see
a gullible public embrace ill-conceived, unethical, and ineffective
policies as "reasonable compromises".  Combine powerful lobbies with
ill-informed, but well-intended people, and the results are always
disastrous.  Though I am sure many strong opinions are held by gun
owners concerning health care, we are honest enough to admit that our
gun journals are not an appropriate forum for "solving" those issues.
Neither gun owners in general, nor the editors of our publications,
would consider themselves well enough versed to discuss issues such as
"advisability of Swan-Ganz usage during post-infarction thrombolysis",
or "the long-term impact of newer capitated reimbursement systems as a
contributor to crisis-oriented care".

    Are physicians as honest as gun owners in this regard?  I just
returned from a meeting of a medical honor society, with an address by
the Indiana State Health Commissioner, which you should know about.
He urged this group of intellectually elite physicians to work towards
"tougher handgun control" as a top priority.  As I listened to the
discussion following this edict, it was obvious that these physicians
could not even vaguely describe what current handgun laws are, in this
state, or in any other state.  Certainly none seemed to understand
even the general content of proposed federal legislation; their grasp
of the necessary vocabulary is so grossly inadequate that to risk
discussion of the issues is to risk making fools of themselves through
blatantly nonsensical statements.  Yet virtually every one voiced
strong agreement that "something must be done".  Most openly, if not
proudly, acknowledged their ignorance of guns and gun laws, but summed
it all up with comments like, "I don't see why anyone should be
allowed to have any kind of gun, particularly a handgun; they're only
good for killing people!"  These hypocrites argue medical issues in
terms of "principle", but are willing to discard all your rights with
the most casual errant assumption.

    How do they justify this unprincipled attack on the rights of
others?  Four central themes echo when physicians speak of guns:

  1) They don't need a gun, so neither do you.  Physicians who drive
    home in a comfortable Cadillac, to a nice patrolled subdivision,
    and have a burglar alarm with a "panic button" do not feel they
    "need" guns, so of course nobody else does.  These "compassionate
    healers" do not give a damn about the woman who has to ride the
    bus home late at night, or the family unable to afford "security".

  2) They are doctors, so they know more about everything than you do.
    They are so smart, that they do not have to bother reading any of
    the criminologic literature in order to know how to solve crime.
    One physician told me it "just made sense" that thousands of
    people get gunned down by civilian-purchased machine guns every
    year, whether or not the actual number is zero per fifty-four
    years.  Her flippant conclusion was, "besides, I think they are
    ugly looking".  In other words, she feels quite comfortable
    dictating how you should behave; because she is so important and
    wise, her aesthetic concerns and gut feelings are more important
    than your freedom, or your life.

  3) Since bullet wounds are medical in nature, it follows that the
    physician should be the one to regulate bullets, and guns,
    regardless of whether more qualified professions exist.  If
    criminologists dare to disagree with physicians, they are
    obviously in cahoots with the NRA, or simply so stupid (since they
    lack the M.D. degree) that they don't know what is best.  What
    degree of input do I think the AMA should have in the gun issue?
    Precisely the same input the NRA has in establishing central line
    guidelines in the intensive care unit.

  4) "Studies" show that the risks of handguns outweigh the benefits,
    at least if you inflate the risks several-fold, and totally ignore
    the benefits.  (These "statistical" methods, while not acceptable
    in clinical drug trials, are overlooked by physicians who feel it
    is ok to distort and fabricate if it is for a "good cause".)  The
    medical journals are packed with "studies" every bit as contrived
    and distorted as anything the television networks have ever come
    up with.  If a medical journal says guns are bad, then your doctor
    probably thinks they are, regardless of any criminologic,
    epidemiologic, or legal analysis to the contrary.  Doctors take in
    this flimsy and one-sided evidence, then will unceasingly advise
    patients that guns are dangerous in the home, although they will
    in the same breath recommend bicycle riding, or assure you that
    your pills won't cause the side effects listed in the PDR.

    Who is "behind" this?  When a physician who admittedly dislikes
guns does an improperly-designed (or fabricated) "study", and an
otherwise credible medical journal discards their ordinarily tough
journalistic standards in order to give print to the results, who is
to blame?  What about the normally critical physician reader who
forgives the fatal flaws in the methodology merely because the study's
conclusions tend to fall in line with his own prejudicial attitudes?
All I can tell you is that the "in-thing" in medicine is Handguns and
Public Health, and the AMA is strongly lobbying congress to get rid of
handguns.  They speak of "only plastic ones", or "only cheap ones",
etc., but I know few physicians who would object to TOTAL BANNING of
ALL FIREARMS (handgun or otherwise) that you own.  They don't really
care how gun laws are implemented , because their understanding of the
options is so limited by their inability to even understand the "big
words" in the studies, let alone concepts relating to history or
political or social theory.  They see themselves as among the elite
who will maintain power and social status regardless of what social
conditions prevail.

    What can you do about this?

    Write the AMA yourself, (535 N. Dearborn St., Chicago, IL 60610),
and demand they send you the data which justifies their campaign to
eliminate handguns.  Better yet, go to your own physician, and demand
to know why he or she advocates taking your gun away.  Ask them why
they didn't critically read the "studies" (or even read them at all)
on which this decision was made.  Ask them why they haven't read the
studies and reviews by Benenson, Bruce-Briggs, Kates, Kleck, Kukla,
Tonso, or Wright. Ask them if they are using the same "gut level
analysis" to decide other vital issues concerning your health care,
rather than objectively and critically reviewing the literature, as
physicians are trained to do.  If your doctor cannot answer all these
questions, he or she evidently spends more time playing golf than
keeping current medically.  (After all, physicians do insist that gun
control is a medical issue!) If your physician insists that he or she
is not anti-gun, ask to see a copy of his letter to the AMA objecting
to their inappropriate and dangerous policymaking.  If no copy is
available, then you have to assume your physician would not lift a
finger to stop "other" physicians from taking your gun away.  Perhaps
he or she would not lift a finger to stop someone from unplugging your
respirator, either.  Voice these feelings to your physician in no
uncertain terms; he has no business misusing his professional stature
to interfere in an area he knows absolutely nothing about, especially
when it affects your life!
    If your physician is not strongly pro-gun, consider shopping
around for another; why should you pay hundreds of dollars to your
physician, if he or she is going to turn around and spend it lobbying
to take your freedom away?  While you are in the parking lot at work,
or home alone at night, and facing an armed criminal, your doctor is
probably using your last payment to buy his protection from a private
security agency.  Your life may be at stake, and your doctor couldn't
care less.

                                        Sincerely,


                                        ______________________
                                        Andrew Johnstone, M.D.
                                        Beech Grove, IN
....End of Document...


=============================================================================