Skip to main content
I have followed the gun control debate in the US for a couple of years and now the current physician-gun lobbyist confrontation here in Canada . All those who have been debating this issue are in agreement in their wish to prevent gunshot injuries. No one is pro-gunshot injuries.
Those trying to demonize those who disagree with them do the debate itself a great disservice. Except for some fanatics, everyone would agree that weaponizing the College of Physicians and Surgeons against Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns was innaproptiate wrong. BY the same token the inflammatory comment in this editorial that “the gun lobby has been good at hindering both production and discourse of evidence linking guns and health,” serves to lower the discourse of the gun control debate making logical discussion and ultimate agreement on some solutions less likely. I agree that “no one should be marginalized or silenced from engaging in reasonable debate about where the line should best be drawn between public health and safety and individual choices,” and that should also include those that disagree with Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns solutions.
Some physicians are experts on the EFFECTS OF GUNSHOTS on the human body and their treatment. There is nothing intrinsic in physician experience or training that makes physicians experts on GUN CONTROL POLICY. Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns may or may notl be absolutely correct in their goals and methodology but it makes sense to me that a big part of the solution would be enforcing the laws that are already in place.