Fox News Psycho (Analyst) On The Health Benefits Of Gun Ownership

The Fox News Medical “A” Team’s Keith Ablow is notorious for his unethical practices and opinions. He has made public diagnoses of people he has never examined (or even met), including President Obama. He has praised marital infidelity as evidence of strong moral character that would enhance America’s leadership. And now he he has published an editorial for Fox News that extols the “benefits” of gun ownership.

Keith Ablow

Ablow begins his rambling departure from reality by building a foundation for his argument that guns are not a problem in American society at all, despite the statistics. He cites examples of mass killings in which guns played no part, like the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building in 2001, and the Tylenol poisoning scare in 1985. However, his suggestion that gun safety advocates are off-base because determined madmen “could have chosen other lethal means to cause just as many deaths,” ignores the glaring fact that in all of his examples measures were taken to control the means by which they were carried out and, consequently, it has been decades since there have been any similar bombings or product tampering. That’s actually an argument in favor of limiting access to certain firearms.

Then Ablow swings for an even more rationally distant fence by asserting that there is “potential widespread psychological harm that disarming Americans could cause.” That statement is absurd on its face as it implies that all Americans who do not own guns are already psychologically impaired. In addition, Ablow is deceitfully implying that there is an effort afoot to “disarm” all Americans. He elaborates on that fabrication by shockingly asserting that this imaginary disarmament would result in “a population that has completely ceded the power to defend its homes against local, state or federal authorities.” Apparently Ablow is one of those lunatics who believes that the right to bear arms is intended as a means to equip treasonous citizens with weapons they can use against fellow Americans.

Ablow continues on this theme of a disarmed nation by seemingly advocating for a police state, saying that “The same people who passively pay taxes that put tanks on the streets and fighter jets in the skies over our enemies’ nations can cringe at the idea of owning guns themselves.” Is he really suggesting that deploying soldiers in war zones is analogous to stockpiling arms on Elm Street?

Next Ablow joins the Hitler-thumping crowd by conjuring up a debunked rendition of history in which gun control was a factor in the rise of Nazis in Germany, but the opposite is the truth. Alex Seitz-Wald of Salon provided the facts about this commonly repeated falsehood. The truth is that Hitler signed into law a bill that “completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition.” So if anyone, it’s conservative gun worshipers who are seeking to emulate Hitler.

Ablow closes by regurgitating the position of the NRA that more, not fewer, guns is the panacea to our national crisis of violence. He argues that it would “immunize the population from feeling like potential victims,” and he reiterates the nonsense that it would protect an otherwise docile citizenry from their government. To the extent that any threat exists from the federal government, there are no currently available weapons that could match the firepower of the American military. It would be suicide for a citizen armed even with an AR-15 to challenge troops with tanks, grenades, missiles, gases, and impeccable training.

If Americans ever actually have to face the fictional scenario of a tyrannical regime in Washington, they will have a lot more to worry about than what type of rifle they carry. But since the prospects of such a catastrophe live only in the diseased minds of right-wing paranoids and Fox News “doctors,” the whole discussion is merely the neurotic nightmare of an Alex Jones inspired schizoid. So good night, children, and sleep tight.

Advertisement:

13 thoughts on “Fox News Psycho (Analyst) On The Health Benefits Of Gun Ownership

  1. “a population that has completely ceded the power to defend its homes against local, state or federal authorities.” Apparently Ablow is one of those lunatics who believes that the right to bear arms is intended as a means to equip treasonous citizens with weapons they can use against fellow Americans.

    Now instead of accusing you of something you think is totally false and ignorant, can you explain what you believe the 2nd amendment is about and what it’s purpose is? That explanation is exactly the purpose of the amendment – not to attack innocent fellow Americans but to defend against tyrannical elements that may develop in society and that includes the police and government.

    • At the time when that amendment was written, America still feared that the British would return to wrest back their hard won independence.

      Quite possibly that was the intention behind the second amendment, so that the citizens would be able to repulse any such attempt to do so through the formation of militias….

  2. The gun lobby in this country are showing themselves to be the unhinged, reactionary, lunatics they are. They don’t even want to have a meaningful conversation about how we can prevent future mass shootings. How fucked up is that? Why do we as a society have to put up with this shit? No one wants to take away your fucking guns. All they are asking for is a conversation on how we can keep these deadly weapons out of the hands of dangerous people. Why is that so hard to understand? If someone really wants one if these weapons to twiddle their dicks with then let them have it but only under the strictest of guidelines. I mean thorough background checks including psychological testing, how you will keep your weapon(s) safe and proof of liability insurance to cover any damages should one of your weapons get out of your control and wreak havoc on the rest of us.

    • That sort of common sense is way beyond the ability of most gun nuts to comprehend. ;-)

    • The issue is trust – there is none. Just as you don’t trust conservatives, conservatives don’t trust progressives. Progressives have faith and trust in the government – conservatives don’t. Call it paranoia or whatever you want, but it is what it is. If there is truly a desire to compromise, then compromise, but that list you noted isn’t remotely reasonable for anyone who cares even a little about freedom. Only someone who wants to make it so difficult to own a gun that most won’t bother, thinks that is common sense, the classic progressive approach. This is compromise – ban magazines over 10 capacity, but grandfather all existing ones owned by the law abiding citizen – there are enough in existence to achieve the goals of the 2nd amendment as we see it while reducing future availability. Update the background check system so it can preserve the rights of us law abiding individuals to purchase whatever guns we want and the criminals can be kept from getting guns to achieve the supposed goals of the left. Try giving a crap about the citizens of this country for once.

    • It took me a bit, but you betrayed your goals in your specific proposals. The goals of any legislation should be to maintain the freedoms protected by our bill of rights and at the same time protect the public as best we can from becoming victims of random gun violence – while your proposal specifically tries to make this legislation so burdensome that it would effectively make owning a gun near impossible and/or so expensive it would achieve the goal of eliminating guns from the hands of the law abiding. So your claim that “No one wants to take away your fucking guns” is effectively a lie – no surprise. And Mark, being the disingenuous hypocrite I’ve called him in the past proves my point in his response about how reasonable that type of compromise is – and he’ll claim I’m a paranoid idiot or just plain stupid for even suggesting what that your attempt at compromise is somethings less than honest in its goals. We comprehend just fine Mark – and you wonder why there is so much distrust of the progressive approach to problem solving.

      • I need to apologize to Mark for something I said in that post – I called you, again, a disingenuous hypocrite – and it just doesn’t register with me that you do believe that what Randy wrote was actually common sense in your view – so sorry for accusing you of that, I’m clearly wrong and I believe you do stand behind that type of solution and you do believe anyone who can’t see YOUR solutions as good and common sense type solutions is somehow too stupid.

      • Actually, what they are proposing does not sound that much more burdensome than owning a car.

        I would add that I think what Randy is saying would be the start of a conversation. I don’t think he’s saying that he thinks you *must* do what he wants. But we can’t have a conversation if one side says “hey, here are some ideas for regulating guns…” and the other says “you can’t take my gun away!”

        I could imagine that there would be different regulations for different guns. As an example, hand guns and weapons intended for hunting or ones that are really only intended for target practice might have very light regulation (like background checks for gun purchase, nothing for target practice). High capacity stuff – semi-automatics – would require other stuff. I could also see requiring some kind of gun training or safety course.

        Again, we are talking the start of a conversation. And when you talk about mistrusting the government, you are actually talking about not trusting other people in society.

        • If you equate society to government, then you analysis could be correct. But I don’t see them the same, which may be why we see thing so differently. Society can be affected by government and vice versa but in my book they are very different ideas.
          Yes, the discussion may need to start somewhere, but there are 10 amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights – why do we need to negotiate on this one so frequently but no other.
          I refrained from saying other things that could be considered insulting to anyone who subscribes to progressivism as a belief system in government, but I would appreciate some response as to why all our rights are not treated with the same respect – they are all equal in my eyes and negotiating restrictions to ANY of them suggests that freedom is negotiable.
          In my view, since September 11, 2001, our freedoms have been reduced in the name of security too much, this is just another example. That doesn’t even take into account 2 wars and too many lives lost based on government claims that turn out to be lies – so if I’m a bit touchy about these things, sorry – no, I’m not blaming Barak Obama for all that, but he could take the side of individual freedom for once – he did take an oath to uphold the constitution after all.

          • First, I have to say that I see lots of discussion in various arenas for the other rights in the bill of rights. None of our rights is boundless. Where we start to impede on other rights is where we locate an end to those right. We cannot cry fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, as an example.

            Second, I will agree with you that there have been laws enacted that invade our privacy and take away our rights. The fact that Obama has extended the patriot act is something that caused disappointment on the left. We can agree that the wars were unjustified. I could go on and on, but why bore everyone here.

            I just want to clarify that my position as a leftist or liberal or progressive is not a “belief in government”. I do believe government has a role to play in our lives, but I don’t believe in unlimited government or some Soviet-style regime. I also think that we need a vibrant private sector, non-profit charities, individual citizens doing their part. I see it more as a balancing of powers. Too much corporate power is not a good thing; too much government is not a good thing; sometimes individuals can cause great damage.

            Actually, the balancing of powers is one of the strengths that our founders envisioned: the three branches of government ideally providing checks and balances. Probably, though, as humans, we will disagree on what is a good balance; issues and policies affect individuals differently.

            But, finally, back to the issue of gun control, the history of the limits on this is enlightening. It is only recently that people thought that the amendment meant to allow for some endless, boundless right to possess any and all weapons.

            • Thank you for the response – most think I’m always just being provacative and an ass, but mostly, I”m curious as to understand why progressives believe what they believe and why.
              I agree that the boundless freedom of guns may be unrealistic, but it’s always trust that gets in the way – I do believe that government can’t be trusted in so many things and regulating our rights is one of them. If our elected officials actually respresented us anymore, maybe we wouldn’t be so far apart on issues such as this – but they don’t and their honesty in legislating is questionable.
              I do actually believe that we, specifically law abiding, mentally stable people should have access to any weapon currently available to the military or police (maybe not a nuclear weapon, but conventional weapons certainly) as it’s my contention that the citizens of this country should always be able to fight back against a tyrannical government when necessary- which I hope never becomes the case. I always believe the government, including military and any other creations of the state, must be subordinate to the people at all times – ie they work for us.
              To your last paragraph – that development may be a reaction to the ever growing state and the inability or lack of desire of the governing parties to actually control its growth, but very capable ability to find new ways to regulate our lives and freedoms. An extreme response eventually comes as it has in recent years due to a completely messed up republican party that no longer represents the positions it states it represents or did when many of us supported it – hence the rise of Ron Paul with the voters, but not the establishment.

            • Thanks for your response. I am happy to be able to see your point of view as well, and it is nice to have a reasoned discussion.

              I do understand your mistrust of government, but I guess I’m still an idealist and hope we can fix the problems, lol.

              I would like to see the Republicans come back to some more reasonable position, and I think a lot of good right-wingers have been sucked to the fringe. I think we need at least two parties. Like I said in my post, checks and balances. When we start to become one party, that’s when I worry, that to me is the road to fascism or Nazism.

              But, thanks for the rational discussion.

            • Sadly, the Republican party is soooo corrupt these days, there will be no balance or choices between parties that are worth anything. That also could be the reason for the rise of extremism on issues such as these.

Comments are closed.