A recent real-world defensive gun use, something Moms Demand Action insists “never happens,” has “legitimate news media/real reporters” scrambling to play it down. Psychiatrist “Lee Silverman defied company policy … walked right past ‘no guns’ signs,” and ended up using his gun to stop a crazed armed assailant.”
“Psychiatrists with Guns Likely More ‘Harmful Than Helpful’: Experts,” a Friday hit piece masked as an objective report by NBC “News” declared in response.
“I had a holy cow reaction — a psychiatrist with gun in his office!?” Dr. Stephen Marder offered. “The idea of a psychiatrist having a weapon in his desk is entirely new to me. I haven’t heard of anything like it before.”
So he has no experience? It’s entirely new to him? He’s never heard of anything like it before?
Then how is it he’s an “expert” qualified to comment on defensive gun uses, and influence a mass audience to boot with his opinions?
“My guess is that arming psychiatrists is more likely to be harmful than helpful,” DJ Jaffe, executive director of Mental Illness Policy Org, weighed in.
He guesses? More likely? Based on what data? Is this guy a scientist, or a Mark Dice interview subject?
“The APA has no official position on unusual incidents like this one and has no comment at this time,” American Psychological Association spokeswoman Eve Herold evaded, “misdirecting” in the bargain. Whether one consults the work of criminologist Gary Kleck, or accepts the more “conservative” results from the National Crime Victimization Survey, it’s indisputable that such incidents are not as rare as Ms. Herold would have us believe. This is a transparent attempt to direct attention away from the egg on the collective faces of the agenda-driven anti-gun APA that this incident highlights, and of course NBC “News” has no interest in admitting that.
One point of clarification: Ms. Herold’s LinkedIn profile lists her as “Director, Office of Communications and Public Affairs at American Psychiatric (not “Psychological’) Association.”
The use of “professional” opinions in this piece amounts to journalistic bait and switch when they are presented as subject matter experts on topics outside their accredited fields. They’ve never heard, they guess and, they have no opinion. Holy cow!
If there are actual informed, scientific method-derived conclusions here, NBC failed to produce even one. In this case, they may as well have asked Stephen Marder, DJ Jaffe and Eve Herold what hesitation on acceleration and a “check engine” light on the dashboard signified, and then asked them to fix the problem instead of consulting a qualified mechanic.
Just because they may be experts in one field hardly makes them authorities in all. And that goes double for doctors who presume to ask gun-related questions and prescribe preventive measures without first proving they actually know what they’re talking about, as opposed to just parroting political talking points couched as validated “gun safety” advice.
If you’re a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won’t find in the mainstream press, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (Dan) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.”
Sure we won Heller and McDonald, but what have the black robes done for us lately? My latest GUNS Magazine “Rights Watch” column is online, and you can read it well before the issue hits the stands. Click here to read “Full Court Press.”
What would the outcome have been had McMinn County GIs in 1946 had to contend with MRAPs and other “weapons of war”? “What Would Happen if ‘Battle of Athens’ Round Two Ever Becomes Necessary?” is my latest JPFO Alert.
Don’t like the latest Supreme Court ruling? My newest entry in The Shooter’s Log recommends “To Prevent Another ‘Abramski,’ Get in the Fight.”