Quote of the day—Mike Weisser

Physicians should continue to ask patients to immunize themselves against gun violence by getting rid of the guns.

Mike Weisser
Mike the Gun Guy
February 23, 2015
A Gun Violence Vaccine
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]


23 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Mike Weisser

  1. This would seem to imply the greatest danger from guns is from your own. Yes, suicide numbers are high, but gun violence includes armed robbery, assault, attempted murder, and murder, which are statistically MUCH more likely.
    Or, more succinctly, the dude’s either evil or an ignoramus.

    • “…the dude’s either evil or an ignoramus.”
      It’s both of course. They’re two sides of the same coin. This looks more and more like Old Testament stuff. Deuteronomy 32:28, 29;

      28 They are a nation without sense,
      there is no discernment in them.
      29 If only they were wise and would understand this
      and discern what their end will be!

      You can pack a person’s mind with facts, even, and still he can be without discernment. Likewise even the uneducated can see (discern) what’s going on right now.

  2. Let’s be honest, if it worked that way, it might not be a bad option. If you were “immune” to gun violence in all its forms and no matter who the attempted gun violence was coming from, why not? Give up your guns and you are “immune” to gun violence. Sounds great. Obviously that strategy didn’t work for the Jews in Germany. Even though they may not have all died from a bullet, they were all rounded up with the threat of gun violence and kept in check with the threat of gun violence. But how come they weren’t “immune,” as the quoted states would be the result? Couldn’t the Jews have just said no if they were “immune?” Further evidence of the anti-gun side’s dilusions.

  3. Anyone want to lay odds what Weisser in the past has complained that proposed “Phsyician may not ask about guns” laws are paranoid fantasies?

    Or that Weisser himself has said something to the effect of “nodoby wants to take your guns”?

    It seems that often the antis te more angry at us, not because we disagree with them, but because we refuse to play along with their doublespeak.

    • And call them out on it. I think THAT is the unforgivable sin, we see through their fantasies and “good intentions”. That is the reason for the reeducation camps

      • Right. The king will flog anyone that dares have the audacity to point out that there are no royal robed covering his nekkid arse (for to do so is to rise above your position, peasant!)

    • Oh, and Mr. Wilson taught me to try to avoid sucker bets (That’s not to say I haven’t received an earful of cider when a Jack of Spades jumped out of a deck of cards with an unbroken seal).

  4. This stuff comes all the way from the top: the CDC has for quite some time been pushing this “gun ownership is a dangerous epidemic” nonsense.
    It does serve a useful purpose: any “doctor” who pushes this sort of stuff stands revealed as a quack, and should be dumped in favor of a real doctor.

    • Oh yes, that guy. The one who pretends to be a gun guy while attacking everything any real gun guy stands for. The one who pretends he’s a gun shop owner, in some tiny village in MA. That’s probably a lie, given that no sane gun owner would do business with someone as dishonest as him.
      Lord Haw-Haw in a new incarnation, in other words.

  5. You would think that these people would get tired of lying to advance their agenda.

  6. Interesting reversal of medical practice. For most diseases that I’m aware of, you immunize the individual against the disease, instead of attempting to wipe out all extant specimens of the contagion. So, if you want to immunize against “gun violence” you should be issuing guns to every child at about age 8. Of course, as a parent, you would have the right to be exempt from the immunization.

    The only real mass-eradication of disease vectors I’m aware of is spraying for mosquitoes – which has harmful environmental effects of its own. Kind of like the effects that a society has when you remove all the guns.

    • The armed citizen is part of liberty’s immune system. Thus the second amendment is under attack.

    • Yup.
      For the problem of unwanted premarital pregnancy, the school propose sex ed.
      For the problem of HIV infection, they have a special curriculum.
      For the problem of drug abuse, they have drug education.
      For the problem of bad teenager driving, they have drivers ed.
      For the problem of misuse of guns, they *SHRIEK* GUNS! BAN THEM, REMOVE THEM, ZERO TOLERANCE EVEN FOR CHICKEN FINGER “GUNS”!!!!
      Uh, guys?….

      • Right. For every other problem the solution is analogous to immunization. For misuse of guns, the solution is complete quarantine, the boy in the plastic bubble.

  7. Anyway, yes; the Progressive authoritarians’ notion of guns as a “public health problem” is a very old one. It’s one facet of the whole push to seize control over the medical industries– Once the government is said to be in charge of your “health care” then it can insinuate its way into every aspect of your life. Everything you do and everything you think and say, can be said to relate to your “health” and therefore it is not only the government’s business, it is the government’s responsibility to get involved.

    Pretty sweet, huh? So it’s not a matter of a mere “one sixth of the economy” as we’ve heard for decades, it is everything. The whole ball of wax; what you do for a living, when you get up in the morning, what and how much you have for breakfast, how much you exercise and how, what you do on your time off, the things you read, the things you watch on TV, the people you associate with; everything.

    So now that we see the incentive, we can understand the motivations and predict the behavior. It’s really quite simple.

    • Good point. This quackery does go back a ways. There is, for example, the notorious scam pretending to show that a gun is more dangerous to the people in the house than to criminals. That piece of fakery was based on a “study” covering all of THREE counties — because the people who pretended to do that work happened to live there and that was convenient for their lazy approach to life. And the “analysis” compared the rate of attackers killed with that of others killed. As Gary Kleck points out, that should be called the “nonsense ratio” because it pretends that the goal of self defense is to kill the attacker.
      And yet, that piece of garbage, by some people who claim to be doctors, still is referred to today.

    • Dr.: “Have you immunized yourself and your family against gun violence by getting rid of guns?”
      Patient: “You mean a quarantine? The Boy in the Plastic Bubble? I have inoculated my family against violence from others by training them. They are now white blood cells ready for when a virus of violent evil comes into our lives.”
      Dr.: (…….)

      There a game in our neighborhood we used to call “playing the dozens.” It was a sort of cutting contest where two people would alternately brag and cut the other down. with creative and imaginative metaphors and language.
      One lost by losing his temper; one won by using the other person’s language and metaphor as a put-down.

      The idea that one is immunized if one is completely isolated from the risk source is so un medical as to be laughed out of every medical school and teaching hospital on the planet, but it passes for educated and advanced thought for avoiding violence perpetrated using firearms in those same medical schools and teaching hospitals.

  8. It seems to me that there are two fears here:

    * Some people are deathly afraid that, if they possess a gun, it will be used against them or against someone they love.

    * Other people are deathly afraid that they won’t have a gun when they need one, and because of that, they or someone they love will be hurt or killed.

    Tell me which of those two scares you more, and I’ll tell you where you stand on gun control.

    I also find it instructive to see how people deal with these fears. Gunnies deal with the second fear by arming themselves, and deal with the first via education. Anti-gunners deal with the first fear by NOT arming themselves, and deal with the second by buying alarm systems and insisting that it will never happen to them.

    • More precisely, anti-gunners deal with that first fear not just by remaining unarmed. If that’s what they did, we wouldn’t have an issue with them. Instead, they primarily deal with it by attempting to disarm ALL law abiding people.
      It’s a bit like dealing with fear of heights by attempting to outlaw air travel (or skydiving).

Comments are closed.