tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2760353953251845523.post6803569316338633081..comments2024-02-10T02:14:39.898-05:00Comments on Buckeye Surgeon: ACS statement on ParklandJeffrey Parks MD FACShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15650563299849196122noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2760353953251845523.post-11483652723465888612018-03-03T21:07:20.999-05:002018-03-03T21:07:20.999-05:00Dr. Parks:
I found your blog through the link you ...Dr. Parks:<br />I found your blog through the link you posted on the ACS forums. As you yourself do read there you will know that while there is broad support for "reasonable restrictions" there is no broad consensus on what constitutes a reasonable restriction. I agree with you strongly that in the absence of an evidence supported and specific recommendation for policy the ACS should stick with advocating for research and quality trauma care. Regarding the stop the bleed campaign as a response, how many of those killed in school shootings die from exsanguinating injuries outside "the box"? Most if not all of those victims can be saved with Stop the Bleed training. Your remark about Fallujah is particularly interesting, are you unaware of the origins of the Stop The Bleed campaign?<br /><br />Now to expand your understanding of perspectives on the second amendment to the United States constitution:<br />1. I am tired of hearing well regulated in the 20th century sense applied to an 18th century document. A clock that keeps time is well regulated. A militia composed of men familiar and skilled with military weapons is well regulated. A society with a large number of regulations would be described as having "swarms of officers".<br />2. With regard to Red Dawn fantasies, I agree these are improbable events, but before dismissing those who prepare for them consider that an armed population can be obliterated but not subjugated. This has been the experience of our own military in the middle east. <br />3. Your Red Dawn fan acquaintances ascribe a far too narrow purpose to the second amendment. It was worded carefully. The amendment considers two goals, security and a free state. Security implies protection from foreign invasion and domestic criminal misdeeds. With regard to foreign invasion, the goal was to make a standing army (already identified as a hazard to the maintenance of a free state) unnecessary by maintaining a large population of private citizens proficient with infantry weapons. With regard to domestic criminals, an armed populace can secure itself from criminal violence without a vast and pervasive police force. The private resolution of criminal violence also makes expanding the powers of the state a hard sell. <br /> <br /><br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08634540216321237887noreply@blogger.com