Tag: Gun Control

Take My Gun, I Mean, Phone, Please

Aug 14, 2024

By KIM BELLARD

I understand that states are “racing” to pass laws designed to help protect school-aged kids against something that has been a danger to their mental and physical health for a generation now, as well as adversely impacting their education. Certainly I’m talking about reasonable gun control laws, right?

Just kidding. This is America. We don’t do gun control laws, no matter how many innocent school children, or other bystanders, are massacred. No, what states are taking action on are cellphones in schools.

Florida seems to have kicked it off, with a new last year banning cell phones and other wireless devices “during instructional times.” It also prohibits using TikTok on school grounds. Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, and South Carolina followed suit this year, although the new laws vary in specifics. Connecticut, Kansas, Oklahoma, Washington, and Vermont have introduced their own versions. Delaware and Pennsylvania are giving money to schools to try lockable phone pouches.

It’s worth pointing out that school districts were not waiting around for states to act. According to a Pew Research survey earlier this year, 82% of teachers reported their district had policies regarding cellphones in classrooms. Those policies might not have been bans, but at least the districts were making efforts to control the use.

Surprisingly, high school teachers – whose students were most likely to have cellphones — were least likely to report such policies, but, not surprisingly, the most likely to report that such policies were difficult to enforce. Also not surprising, 72% of high school teachers say students being distracted by cellphones in the classroom is a major problem.

Russell Shaw, the head of school at Georgetown Day School in Washington, D.C., writes in The Atlantic that his parents were given free sample packs of cigarettes in school, and warns:

I believe that future generations will look back with the same incredulity at our acceptance of phones in schools. The research is clear: The dramatic rise in adolescent anxiety, depression, and suicide correlates closely with the widespread adoption of smartphones over the past 15 years. Although causation is debated, as a school head for 14 years, I know what I have seen: Unfettered phone usage at school hurts our kids.

Similarly, last year Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at NYU, urged emphatically: Get Phones Out of School Now. At the least, he writes, they’re a distraction, harming their learning and their ability to focus; at worst, they weaken social connections, are used for bullying, and can lead to mental health issues. “All children deserve schools that will help them learn, cultivate deep friendships, and develop into mentally healthy young adults,” Professor Haidt believes. “All children deserve phone-free schools.”

Mr. Shaw agrees. “For too long, children all over the world have been guinea pigs in a dangerous experiment. The results are in. We need to take phones out of schools.”

Believe it or not, not everyone agrees. Some argue that, like it or not, our world is filled with cellphones, and to try to pretend that is not true will just make it harder for kids once they become adults. Along those lines, skeptics note that classrooms are filled with other devices; if kids aren’t distracted by their cellphones, there’s usually a tablet, laptop, or other device handy. And the kids can argue, hey, the adults – the teachers, the administrators, the volunteers – all have cellphones; why shouldn’t we?

Some parents are opposed to the bans. They want to know where their kids are at all times, and to be able to track them in case of an emergency. Even more chilling, some parents argue that if there is a school shooting, they want their kids to be able to call for help, and to let them know their status. None of us can forget the heartbreaking calls that some of the Uvalde children made.

Of course, even if cellphones are banned during class time or even on school grounds entirely, those phones are going to be there once they leave the school grounds, so their potential for adverse mental impacts will still be there. If distraction is the problem – and I can see where it would be – isn’t it a similar problem for adults? How many meetings, conferences, or social situations have you been in where many of the adults are paying more attention to their phone than to whatever is being discussed?

I wonder if the Supreme Court has a policy about cellphones during its deliberations.

All this brings me back to guns. According to the K-12 Shooting Database, there have already been 193 school shooting incidents already this year, with 152 victims (fatal and wounded). That compares to 349 and 249 respectively in 2023, and 308/273 in 2022. I needn’t point out – but I will – that no other nation has numbers anywhere close to those.

I recently read John Woodrow Cox’s searing Children Under Fire. He points out that, even beyond the fatalities, wounded kids need not just medical care but ongoing mental health treatment. Their families usually need it too. The trauma goes well beyond the direct victims. The victim’s classmates and families often need it as well, as do schoolchildren in other districts, even in other states. Even practicing lockdowns have an impact on mental health.

He estimates that there are millions, perhaps tens of millions, of impacted schoolchildren and their families. Yet states aren’t racing to ensure support for all those victims.

Mr. Cox suggests that the least we could do, the very least, are to ensure more background checks, to hold adults more responsible for the guns in their homes, and to conduct more research on gun violence. Instead, states are rushing to “harden” schools and to get more people with guns guarding (and teaching in) those schools.

Oh, and to ban cellphones. We must have priorities, after all.

Look, if I was a teacher, I’d hate seeing kids on their phones during class. If I was administrator, I’d be worried about kids hanging out on their phones instead of talking with each other. If I was a parent I’d be nagging my kids to study or read a book instead of being on a screen. I get all that; I understand the drive to better manage cellphone use.

But if people think cell phones are more of a danger to their kids than gun violence, I’m going to have to disagree.

Kim is a former emarketing exec at a major Blues plan, editor of the late & lamented Tincture.io, and now regular THCB contributor

Matthew’s health care tidbits: Hospital shooting reveals so much

Jun 13, 2022

Each week I’ve been adding a brief tidbits section to the THCB Reader, our weekly newsletter that summarizes the best of THCB that week (Sign up here!). Then I had the brainwave to add them to the blog. They’re short and usually not too sweet! –Matthew Holt

In this edition’s tidbits, the nation is once again dealing with an epidemic of shootings. Now a hospital joins schools, grocery stores and places of worship on the the recent list. I was struck by how much of the health care story was wrapped up in the tragic shooting where a patient took the life of Dr. Preston Phillips, Dr. Stephanie Husen, receptionist Amanda Glenn, 40; and patient William Love at Saint Francis Health System in Tulsa.

First and most obvious, gun control. The shooter bought an AR-15 less than 3 hours before he committed the murders then killed himself. Like the two teens in Buffalo and Uvalde, if there was a delay or real background checks, then these shootings would likely have not happened.

But there’s more. Hospital safety has not improved in a decade or so. Michael Millenson, THCB Gang regular, has made that plain. And that includes harm from surgery. We know that back surgery often doesn’t work and we know that Dr Phillips operated on the shooter just three weeks before and had seen him for a follow up the day before. Yes, there is safety from physical harm and intruders–even though the police got there within 5 minutes of shots being heard, they were too late. But there is also the issue of harm caused by medical interventions. Since “To Err is Human” the issue has faded from public view.

Then there is pain management. Since the opiate crisis, it’s become harder for patients to get access to pain meds. Was the shooter seeking opiates? Was he denied them? We will never know the details of the shooter’s case, but we know that we have a nationwide problem in excessive back surgery, and that is matched by an ongoing problem in untreated pain.

And then there are the two dead doctors. Dr. Husen, was a sports and internal medicine specialist. Obviously there are more female physicians than there used to be even if sexism is still rampant in medicine. But Dr. Phillips was an outlier. He was black and a Harvard grad. Stat reported last year that fewer than 2% of orthopedists are Black, just 2.2% are Hispanic, and 0.4% are Native American. The field remains 85% white and overwhelmingly male. So the chances of the patient & shooter, who was black and may have sought out a doctor who looked like him, having a black surgeon were very low in the first place. Now for other patients they are even lower.

The shooting thus brings up so many issues. Gun control; workplace safety; unnecessary surgery; pain management; mental health; and race in medicine. We have so much to work on, and this one tragedy reveals all those issues and more.

Physicians Should Play a New Role in Reducing Gun Violence

Aug 29, 2019• 3

By MATTHEW S. ELLMAN, MD and JULIE R. ROSENBAUM, MD

What if firearm deaths could be reduced by visits to the doctor? More than 35,000 Americans are killed annually by gunfire, about 60% of which are from suicide. The remaining deaths are mostly from accidental injury or homicide. Mass shootings represent only a tiny fraction of that number.

There’s a lot physicians can do to reduce these numbers. Typically, medical organizations such as the AMA recommend counseling patients on firearm safety. But there is another way to use medical expertise to help reduce harm from firearms: physicians should evaluate patients interested in purchasing firearms. The idea would be to reduce the number of guns that get into the hands of people who might be a danger to themselves or others due to medical or psychiatric conditions. This proposal has precedents: physicians currently perform comparable standardized evaluations for licensing when personal or public safety may be at risk, for example, for commercial truck drivers, airplane pilots, and adults planning to adopt a child. Similar to these models, a subset of physicians would be certified to conduct standardized evaluations as a prerequisite for gun ownership.

As a primary care physicians with decades of practice experience, we have seen the ravages of gun violence in our patients too many times. A 50-year-old man shot in the spinal cord 30 years ago who is paraplegic and wheelchair-dependent. A 42-year-old woman who sends her teenage son to school every day by Uber because another son was shot to death walking in their neighborhood. A teacher from Sandy Hook who struggles to cope with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Physicians can contribute their expertise toward determining objective medical impairments impacting safe gun ownership. These include undiagnosed or unstable psychiatric conditions such as suicidal or homicidal states, memory or cognitive impairments, or problems such as very poor vision, all of which may render an individual incapable of safely storing and firing a gun. In this model, the clinical role would be limited in scope. The physician would complete a standardized evaluation and offer recommendations to an appropriate regulatory body; the physician would not be the final decisionmaker regarding licensing. An appeal process would be assured for those individuals who disagree with the assessment.

Advice to Vivek Murthy: Be Nonpartisan, Use Common Sense and Move Americans

Dec 18, 2014• 28

By SAURABH JHA, MD

In defiance of dire predictions, children haven’t been sent to workhouses and women haven’t been chained to utensils after the GOP gained strength in the House and the Senate. And Vivek Murthy, the unabashed Obamaphile, was finally confirmed Surgeon General.

To be honest, I always thought the controversy surrounding Murthy’s nomination because of his stance on gun control was rather daft. Stopping doctors from pontificating over guns, such as the Docs versus Glocks legislation, is like banning me from trying to convert Pope Francis to Hinduism. The legislation is a parody not just for its own sake but because what it seeks to prevent is parody as well.

Murthy’s first challenge is to raise the position of the Surgeon General from that tokenism of a career UN bureaucrat to something vaguely useful. Which means Murthy must resist the call of banality, the banality of ideology and the ideology of making all of mankind’s imperfections public health problems.

What Is It With Gun Rights Proponents?

Sep 16, 2014• 170

ART CAPLAN, PhD

Why are they so afraid of public health types who want to do something about the carnage caused by guns in America?

Vik Khanna is the latest man with a gun to write squealing in terror before the kale crunching, fitbit wearing hordes of public health types who he is somehow sure are out to disarm him and, even more hilariously, have any chance of doing so.

Vik, buddy, no one and especially the roughly 28 folks in public health not completely distracted by their lack of funding and inability to secure tenure is capable of doing anything that will pry your gun from your warm-blooded grip. There is no political movement to take away anyone’s guns. The NRA is the mightiest lobbying outfit in these United States and the best Mike Bloomberg or Bill Gates are going to be able to do is to get the anti-gun lobby a few more op-eds and soundbites.

Vik stop being afraid of your critics. You hold all the bullets er … cards. Time to think harder. Do public health folks have anything to offer that might reduce the mayhem while letting you hunt deer or shoot partridge or blast targets or whatever it is you and your son like to do with your guns?

Well yes in fact there are some things from the minds of the unarmed weenies of public health worth your consideration and that of your open-carry pals.

Why Public Health Needs a New Gun Doctrine

Sep 11, 2014• 376

VIK KHANNA

I am a public health professional, educated at the vaunted Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Hygiene and Public Health. I like guns, and I believe the Second Amendment clearly secures the rights of individuals to own firearms.

You read that correctly. I am a public health professional.

And I like guns.

This make me a heretic in American public health, where embracing firearms and the rights of gun owners is a gross violation of orthodoxy.

As a society, our focus on guns and not gun users derives from the shock of mass killings, such as those in Newtown, CT, Aurora, CO, Virginia Tech, and Norway, which has some of the strictest gun control laws on the planet. Mass killings, however tragic, get distorted by saturation media hysterics and 24-hour political grandstanding. What gun opponents refuse to discuss is the precipitous fall in violent crime and deaths by firearms over the past 20 years, and how it coincides with an equally dramatic increase of guns in circulation in the US.

While that isn’t cause and effect, the association is certainly curious.

In 2013, the Institute of Medicine, at the behest of the Centers for Disease Control, produced a report on firearms violence that has been ignored by the mainstream media. The upshot: defensive use of firearms occurs much more frequently than is recognized, “can be an important crime deterrent,” and unauthorized possession (read: by someone other than the lawful owner) of a firearm is a crucial driver of firearms violence.

That report went away for political reasons. Translation. Nobody wanted to talk about it because it raised more questions than it answered.

Mixing Politics and Science Is Injurious to Public Health

Mar 18, 2014• 9

By Saurabh Jha, MD

If Obama’s nominee for the position of Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, is not endorsed by the Senate because Senate Democrats from conservative states are too scared to vote for him for fear of losing votes from a population, egged on by the National Rifle Association (NRA), that passionately supports firearms, the first words that come to mind are ‘unfortunate,’ ‘tragic’ and ‘daft,’ although not in that particular order.

Words that do not come to mind are ‘surprising’ or ‘unprecedented.’ This is the natural result of decades of actively encouraging science to mix with politics.

In an ideal world, or I should say reasonable world, noting that perfection is not a pre-requisite to being reasonable, it would scant matter what Murthy thought about firearms.

He would be judged on his (impeccable) credentials, (unmistakable) leadership, and (imaginative) entrepreneurship not to mention his gumption in standing up for what he believes.

It would, of course, be utterly naïve to believe that in the real world his politics do not matter.

I doubt Murthy would have advanced so precociously, let alone been nominated for the position of Surgeon General, if he were a second amendment absolutist, an implacable limited government advocate or had written extensively about the role of free market in healthcare, all things else being equal.

We applaud him for standing up for his convictions not just because of his standing up but for the nature of his convictions.

This is not to suggest that Murthy’s worldview is expedient. There’s no reason to doubt its sincerity. It’s to suggest that a certain weltanschauung is incompatible with progress in academia and beyond.

That’s because despite living in an age of unprecedented reason we have been unable to render unto science what is unto science and render unto politics what is unto politics, a distinction our species has made little progress in making in the last two thousand years.

What Does HIPAA Have to Do With Gun Control? Maybe More Than You Think.

Apr 25, 2013

By Adrianna McIntyre

There aren’t many who would quibble with an argument that those with severe mental illness—specifically, individuals “who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity. or otherwise have been [legally judged] to have a severe mental condition that results in the individuals presenting a danger to themselves or others“—should not be able to purchase firearms. Right? Right.

Making that law isn’t actually the trouble (expanding background checks is, of course, a different story). It’s already law, and has been on the books for awhile. The trouble is enforcing it.

The federal government maintains the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a database of people who are federally prohibited from purchasing guns, including felons, people convicted of domestic violence, and individuals who meet the extreme mental illness criteria above. Except:

Federal law does not require State agencies to report to the NICS the identities of individuals who are prohibited by Federal law from purchasing firearms, and not all states report complete information to the NICS.

To recap: We have federal criteria that prohibits certain individuals from buying firearms. The feds maintain a database of known individuals for background checks (which take 30 seconds, per the regulation). But states aren’t required to offer the names of “prohibitors” to the database.

A Well-Armed and Regulated Citizenry, Led by Heavily-Armed Teachers in Body Armor …

Dec 20, 2012• 31

By PETER UBEL, MD

Gun rights advocates are correct: a well armed principal might have reduced the death toll from the tragic elementary school shootings in Connecticut last week.

Gun carrying citizens might also have been able to take down the shooters in Aurora and Virginia Tech. To most people, after all, guns are about self-defense, not about committing crimes. As the old saying goes: “There has never been a mass shooting at a gun show.”

On the other hand, gun control advocates are correct to point out that mentally disturbed people like Adam Lanza would not be able to commit massacres if they were prevented from getting their hands on high-powered, semiautomatic weapons. They are also correct to point out that Americans have staggeringly easy access to weapons that far exceed what any sportsmanlike hunter would use during deer season.

In other words, figuring out what to do in the wake of the Connecticut massacre means recognizing the truth in both of these views. It means considering the possibility that the answer to reducing gun violence is a matter of both having more guns and less.

To understand what I mean by “both more and less,” I offer two analogies: a straightforward one about airport security, and a more unexpected one about breast cancer screening.

Now Is Not the Time to Talk About Gun Control

Dec 17, 2012• 66

By David Katz, MD

Yesterday was.

There are two reasons not to talk about gun control in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown atrocity, and opposition by the NRA and its adherents is neither of them.

The first is that addressing gun control right after innocents are shot might in some way seem exploitative. The second is that no imaginable degree of stringent gun control could fully exclude the possibility of an unhinged adult shooting a kindergartener.

But both of these objections are as porous as the sands of our shores battered by Hurricane Sandy. And a consideration of those shores readily reveals why.

With regard to exploitation, there was no thought of it as post-Sandy ruminations turned to how we might best prevent or at least mitigate the next such catastrophe. It was not exploitative to look around the world at strategies used to interrupt storm surges, divert floodwaters, or defend infrastructure. Those reflections continue.

Similarly, it’s not exploitative when my clinical colleagues and I speak to our patients in the aftermath of a heart attack or stroke about what it will take to prevent another one. In fact, these exchanges have a well-established designation in preventive medicine: the teachable moment.

It is opportunistic, but in a positive way: There is an opportunity to do what needs to be done. Admittedly, it’s better to talk about preventing heart disease, or the drowning of Staten Island, or of New Orleans, or the shooting of children, before ever these things happen. But the trouble tends to be: Nobody is listening then.

We are constitutionally better at crisis response than crisis prevention.

We’ll get back to the Constitution shortly.

assetto corsa mods