The Atlantic---The Dumb Continues

[DaleA]

I am monumentally tired of folks spouting off their ignorance and trying to use their position in one area to influence another area of which they know little or nothing.

The Atlantic had an article from Dr. Heather Sher, a radiologist who was shocked and appalled at the damage bullets from an AR-15 can cause on the human body. She has seen gunshot wounds from a 9mm handgun and the wounds from an AR-15 are nothing like a 9mm handgun wound.

Well, really?

I wonder if she knows how many different types of 9mm bullets there are out there let alone how many different types and calibers of bullets an AR-15 style rifle can fire? Also that other rifles, not AR-15 style rifles can fire the same bullets?

Here's her conclusion:

Dr. Heather Sher from the Atlantic "As a radiologist, I have now seen high velocity AR-15 gunshot wounds firsthand, an experience that most radiologists in our country will never have. I pray that these are the last such wounds I have to see, and that AR-15 style weapons and high capacity magazines are banned for use by civilians in the United States, once and for all."

I certainly could be wrong but I doubt she knows much about ammunition and bullets and guns in general but she does know she wants a particular 'style' of weapons banned.

The Atlantic story can be found here:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...n-guns/553937/

[Aguila Blanca]

Obviously the same bullets fired from a Ruger Mini-14 will be less devastating because of the lack of a pistol grip and the shoulder thing that goes up.

The problem is -- if we make that point, that won't cause the anti-gun side to back off from wanting to ban AR-15s, it'll just make them add all semi-automatic rifles to their list. IMHO we need to use arguments that attack people who perpetrate violence, not the instruments used in the violence.

[TXAZ]

It’s more likely a case of The Atlantic and their search for subtle ‘pre-meditated’ results.
A friend runs a small federal agency and was interviewed by the Atlantic about a year ago.

He indicated all the questions were highly biased, and several of the quotes were blatantly false.

Too bad reporters have zero liability.

[adamBomb]

I am monumentally tired of folks spouting off their ignorance and trying to use their position in one area to influence another area of which they know little or nothing.

Me too...but I would be starting with the president not a random doctor in the atlantic.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The point is well taken that trying to minimize the effectiveness of 223 ammo vs. anything else is useless.

You have 17 dead children - does type of ammo matter? Not in this debate.

As far as the mental capacity of the President, let's not go there. If one wants to discuss specific policies, that's different.

[lamarw]

The shooter in Broward County did not use high capacity magazines. He used 10 round magazines so they would fit in his backpack. We need to restrict backpack size to reduce high capacity magazines.

[zukiphile]

Dr. Heather Sher, a radiologist ...

How do you hide a $100 bill from a radiologist? Tape it to a patient.

[rickyrick]

The media isn’t interested in facts, they are interested in changing as many peoples world view in order to further an agenda.

[Carl the Floor Walker]

She needs to get a job on CNN. Maybe that is her goal. Able to put expert in front of your name, spew off a lot of lies and other crap and bingo you got a job.

By the way, It is called PROPAGANDA! Lol, the goal is not to be honest and truthful, it is meant to sway a massive group of stupid sheep.

The number one weapon on top of the list for Propaganda is "FEAR". It is theme for CNN and other Snowflake media to lead the clowns.

[Gary L. Griffiths]

.....shocked and appalled at the damage bullets from an AR-15 can cause on the human body. She has seen gunshot wounds from a 9mm handgun and the wounds from an AR-15 are nothing like a 9mm handgun wound.

Wow! So THAT'S the reason the military issues 5.56mm rifles instead of 9mm pistols!

Of course, the Virginia Tech shooter used a pair of 9mm pistols to kill many more than the Parkland shooter, but hey, she probably thinks that doesn't count because he left better looking corpses.

[doofus47]

<sarcasm>
Well, I hope this professional opinion finally shuts up those military vet naysayers who think that an M4 is a toy rifle firing an ineffective round.
<sarcasm/>
Carl the floor walker:

it is meant to sway a massive group of stupid sheep.

No, Carl, these aren't necessarily stupid people.
These are people who have:
1. been told their whole lives "Trust me, I"m an expert" and who have been benumbed by a lifetime of sentences that begin with "They say..."
2. Not often had to research an idea or issue in depth.
3. Probably never joined debate club to see how identical facts can be presented in completely different contexts to create completely different conclusions.
4. Have never cared one way or another about this issue.

To be truthful, the onus of defense of 2nd A is on the 2nd A crowd and it will be an uphill slog from here on out. Calling people stupid is to minimize the scope of the threat. It's not simply an ignorance of facts that could be gained by picking up an encyclopedia (dating myself!!) or reading into the 3rd page of Google results. There's some cultural buildup here that needs to be recognized:

1. The 2nd A exists for a historically sound reason that seems out of pre-history: "British Empire? Haven't seen that in awhile!" "King George? He might have been mad, but if he were cute like this pair of princes... Yowza! I'd follow him on instagram!" The Founding Fathers? Those old dead white guys wearing wigs (snicker). Who wouldn't want a re-write of their ignorant racist, paranoid views? We're smarter than they were.

2. Guns are owned by country bumpkins who like to blow things up and who are so immature that they need to sleep with them at night like they would a safety blanket. No one owns a gun for any reasonable reason and anyone who owns a gun never practices and loves to walk around in Target with a gun on their back to make other people feel afraid.

3. Guns should be in the hands of police only. Just look at any episode of Hawaii 50 or CSI:X or NCIS:X or Law and Order: X: the police are a self-less dedicated group of trustable saints who always arrive just in time to save the (baby, kidnapping victim, loveable grandmom); they always find the truth 100% of the time and they use their guns to kill the bad guy with just 1 or 2 shots--that never misses and never goes through the bad guy to do any unexpected damage. Bad cops are always caught and the system never goes off the rails.

4. Politicians want me to be safe by controlling dangerous things. Gun people keep saying that the world is unsafe and they need guns to keep safe. Which of these do you think sells? Words have meaning, but they also have emotional tags.

5. Politicians and socially-aware youth who expect instant results, like Google gives want change NOW! They don't want to wait for the after-action reports and then dither away a chance to do any good by trying to find "what went wrong!" People are dead! This is wrong. Let's change something, NOW! This is the backside of
#2 above: not wanting to do (not having the ability to do) basic critical thinking. It is not surprising to me that students are the lead protesters who want "acts, not ideas!"

6. People in this society are 2 steps removed from much of the immediacy of life. This is why some people who might have used a rifle in military/LEO service or while hunting are absolutely floored by an article that declares "rifle cartridges produce shocking amounts of bodily trauma." "Well, of course," they say,"and we're glad they do." Most people literally can't imagine where a pork loin is grown before it arrives at a store in a plastic sock, so the idea of bodily harm is always bad. They literally cannot imagine these things, so the existence of such things is always "bad" "evil" and "unnecessary."

To say "stupid" is to alienate your prospective market (the non-involved middle of the bell curve) and to place yourself above the "market of ideas" where this argument will be waged. And it's trench warfare at the moment.

[jag2]

Aside from her political agenda what do you disagree with? Do you hunt deer or wild hogs with a 9mm? Do you not realize there is a difference between pistol rounds (usually round nose) and rifle bullets (usually long and pointy)? Then there is the fact that most rifle rounds travel 2 to 3 times faster than pistols. Now I do wonder how they can tell the difference between a 9mm and lets say a 38 special but maybe I've been watching too much TV. Maybe the bullet speed could make a noticeable difference in the exit wound. That said, unless you are a medical professional I wouldn't disagree with her medical findings.
Although I disagree with her politics I think anyone who does what she does and sees what she sees couldn't help but be affected and wish things could change.

[rickyrick]

She’s correct, .223 is way more devastating than 9mm.

There are so many related posts, I forget which one I’m replying to. What happened in this case is I forgot what the OP was as I read thru.

[DaleA]

Aside from her political agenda what do you disagree with?

That IS what I disagree with.

I think in the article she demonstrates a lack of knowledge about guns and ammunition and therefore I don't think her opinions on these issues should carry much weight.

Her article in the Atlantic was referenced by a member of the Minnesota Medical Association on the PBS television show "Almanac". The MMA is using her article to bolster their request for a new, stronger assault weapons ban and a ban on high capacity magazines.

[RC20]

I think what is missing is many gun owners have a generaly good handle on the basics, likely not all.

I keep hearing the nuance of a Full Auto Vs Semi Auto and that is different.

A non gun owner looks at all that and shrugs, its black, it shoot a lot of rounds quickly, has a large magazine, who cares if its not full auto?

People who do not work in the 4 or 5 tech area I work in don't know the difference between a Proportional an a PID statement either. Mostly those don't kill people so we don't talk about them.

Pretty hard to make a case that the 2nd Amendment is relevant when its not done anything other than maintain itself for all these years.

I taught a lady to shoot a while back (yea, a flaming liberal). She elected not to continue with it, but she understands why I do it now.

She also saw examples of ND just waiting to happen.

Sorry mam, its the 2nd amendment, you don't have to have a teacher and you don't have to have a license. Anyone not a criminal can get one.

And that is pretty much the bottom line and what the average person who is not a gun owner and is 64% or so of the population sees.

She is just exercising her 1 st amendment rights. Most people do. They are called citizens.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by DaleA

That IS what I disagree with.

I think in the article she demonstrates a lack of knowledge about guns and ammunition and therefore I don't think her opinions on these issues should carry much weight.

I view the misuse of medical authority on this issue slightly differently.

Where the opinion rendered comes from a medical doctor, the implication is that she is describing a public health problem. Recall that we saw some of this with the “black talon” hollowpoint ammunition when emergency room physicians opined about its unique dangers. Here, the argument is that gunshot wounds are a public health crisis like fatty foods and carcinogens, so as a matter of good medical practice removing the pathogen makes sense. Here, the pathogen is possession of the vilified firearm du jour. It’s a simple gun ban argument with an M.D. behind its name.

Certainly, just as in the layman’s version of the argument, it fails to note the utility and social good that flows from individuals being armed. I don’t see the problem with her lack of familiarity with the appearance of different sort of gunshot wounds, but her misplaced confidence in her own insufficiently complex analysis.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by RC20

Pretty hard to make a case that the 2nd Amendment is relevant when its not done anything other than maintain itself for all these years.

I taught a lady to shoot a while back (yea, a flaming liberal). She elected not to continue with it, but she understands why I do it now.

She also saw examples of ND just waiting to happen.

Sorry mam, its the 2nd amendment, you don't have to have a teacher and you don't have to have a license. Anyone not a criminal can get one.

And that is pretty much the bottom line and what the average person who is not a gun owner and is 64% or so of the population sees.

She is just exercising her 1 st amendment rights. Most people do. They are called citizens.

How nice it would be if she tolerated the former as well as we tolerate the latter.

[mk70ss]

Just glad a .223 round from a bolt action rifle is so much less damaging than from an AR-15 style rifle.

[std7mag]

Me too!!

Could you imagine her comments if it was a 12 gage with 4, or 6 shot?

[UncleEd]

What the radiologist basically said is that in her
experience a rifle round is more devastating
than a pistol round.

And in her experience, that rifle round has come from basically
just one type of firearm, the AR-15 in numerous "mass" shootings.

(As an aside:
And that rifle round is the .223, which happened to be chosen by
our military in the 1960s because of its lethality and the ability
of soldiers to carry many more rounds than they used to. And
that rifle was the AR-15.)

Is she wrong?

[zukiphile]

Is she wrong?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Heather Sher

As a doctor, I feel I have a duty to inform the public of what I have learned as I have observed these wounds and cared for these patients. It’s clear to me that AR-15 and other high-velocity weapons, especially when outfitted with a high-capacity magazine, have no place in a civilian’s gun cabinet. I have friends who own AR-15 rifles; they enjoy shooting them at target practice for sport and fervently defend their right to own them. But I cannot accept that their right to enjoy their hobby supersedes my right to send my own children to school, a movie theater, or a concert and to know that they are safe. Can the answer really be to subject our school children to active-shooter drills—to learn to hide under desks, turn off the lights, lock the door, and be silent—instead of addressing the root cause of the problem and passing legislation to take AR-15-style weapons out of the hands of civilians?

[44 AMP]

I wonder how the good doctor would respond to the idea of taking medical practice away from "civilians"?? The figures are there, medical malpractice kills and injures more people every year than guns do.

Clearly the civilian doctors cannot be allowed to continue to wreak such carnage! Despite thorough medical school training and state licenses, the horror just goes on and on....
(yes, its sarcasm)

Since civilians clearly are so irresponsible, shouldn't all medical professionals be government employees? All uniformly trained, responsible, and paid at a standard rate scale?? And on the same scale as other govt employees, such as the military??

If civilians are too irresponsible to own an AR-15 (and the police and military are responsible enough) then we civilians are too irresponsible to practice medicine as well. Also puts one in mind that we are too irresponsible to elect our own leadership, as well.

Though, I am wondering about the last point, considering some of the people we have elected...

[rickyrick]

I guess the Dr needs new friends if their ARs are that much of a risk to her kids going to school.

Expect more of this until we can no longer own them.
It’s not going away.