Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Typo meant aren't.
And i get your point about them being entitled to the same right as victims of non terrorist attacks. Still, that wasn't the question i asked. So i was just pointing that out.
Why I'm leaving ACEP
Started by Malignant Fibromyalgia
And i get your point about them being entitled to the same right as victims of non terrorist attacks. Still, that wasn't the question i asked. So i was just pointing that out.
.
Last edited:
The solutions are different though. Politically motivated terror attacks, mass shootings without political motivations, and regular homicides (intentionally killing a particular person or persons) all have different solutions. In particular laws limiting access to guns seems to have little effect on politically motivated terror attacks, but does seem to deter non political mass shooters.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Political discussions in forums where you are not regular are not allowed. People that frequent a forum get slight leeway, but only a little. What puts you over is your reference to "take you guys seriously". But, I'm not a mod. You do you. However, and this is a strong caveat, when the mod says to stop, that's where it ends. If you (or anyone else) keeps going, the thread will just be locked.
For your concern, the Sociopolitical forum is primed for such a discussion.
It started out as a good discussion on ACEP, then somehow went off the rails. Let's take if back full circle to ACEP and what they do right, or not. One thing I'd like to see them improve on is standing up against maintenance of certification overreach on behalf of docs. I wrote them an email on this once, and the response was (paraphrasing), "Sorry, but we have nothing to do with this. Complain to ABEM or someone who cares." The reality is, they likely could have been a strong voice of pushback, if they wanted to. But instead they went along with the heard. That's when I stopped giving any money to ACEP.
If I'm paying dues to an organization, I want them to stand up and fight for what I care about.
Last edited:
...That being said, I've never talked to the people in leadership positions at ACEP. Maybe they know something I don't. Maybe they'll give a different story and explain how they really are fighting for the pit doc, based on information you and I don't have. I don't know.
I'm agreeing with you. If we arm everyone, then this will increase safety. The more guns, the better.
Guns are legally purchased and then resold/find themselves in the black market.
By restricting the sale of guns, you are turning off the tap. Sure, there will still be some leakage, but at least it won't be pouring guns.
These are not mutually exclusive options. One can advocate for gun control, even while one purchases a gun for home defense. (Of course, most studies I've seen show that buying a gun for the house actually increases your risk of death.)
At least you, unlike others, are being honest and have a sound argument, which is: yes, people are gonna die by the dozens, but FREEDOM, 'Murica!
lol @ nuclear bomb. Good one.
Huh? The gun freedom in America is not working, unlike in European countries where there are heavy restrictions...
Please see above point: the huge supply of guns exists because guns are purchased legally and then find their way into the black market.
What is your source for this chart? You can't just post a chart and then not cite the source. I'm betting your source sucks, which is why you hid it.
In fact, if you look at a real source, then you see that they compared gun deaths per 1 million people ,and America is way off the charts (25.2 times higher).
Yeah, you posted a chart without giving a source. Scholarly job!
lol @ the bolded part. Do you really see what you are saying here???
Apollyon, are you a mod? Even if you are, then please don't invoke rules inconsistently. Very sad if you are doing that. Basically, if he had come here and was a gun nut, then you would have been totally OK. Since he is countering everyone's points like a champ, you are inconsistently applying a "rule" and threatening to ban him.
I was starting to like you a lot, but then you posted this gem. Please don't sully your excellent, logical points by resorting to bigotry, and imagining that Europeans are somehow "less prone to violence" than Americans (or "Lybian [sic] and Syria [sic] expatriate [sic]"). When you resort to talking about how certain nationalities or races are "prone to violence," then you've gone off the deep end. It has nothing to do with Americans being prone to violence... It has to do with the gun laws (or the lack of them) in America.
Last edited:
I agree couldnt find a better way to word it.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Dude, if you read my post, you'll see where I said - specifically - that I wasn't a mod. You are overreaching, because I pointed out that it applied to everyone. Whenever @Dr.McNinja shows up, he's going to make that specific statement - "stop arguing, or the thread will be closed". I'm not "inconsistently invoking rules". I've just been around here enough to know how things roll. But, thanks for the character assessment!
I know exactly what I’m saying, homebird, which is why I said it. The majority of the rhetoric on both sides of this argument is pure BS. Comparing gun violence to abortion in order to make a point is effectively the same intellectually inadequate strategy as comparing the US to the UK or Canada or Australia or wherever else you choose.
The rhetoric is especially idiotic when accompanied by an ad hominem attack like “I THOUGHT YOU WERE A PHYSICIAN, I EXPECTED MORE FROM YOU.”
If you want to explain to me how wrong I am, believe me, I’m all ears. But you’re going to end up looking dumb AF and wishing you hadn’t started this.
Yeah. That was choice "C"
Yes, those studies are across entire populations and don't tell us anything about a specific individual's risk. That inevitably includes people that are violent natured, have poor impulse control, have psychosis, suicidal or homicidal ideations, alcoholism, incurable stupidity and carelessness, or don't lock up dangerous objects away from children. I'm pretty sure you don't fall into any of those categories. Neither do I. I think we probably both agree any such people have no business being around firearms. I also don't want such people around knives, behind the wheel, with access to prescriptions medications, alcohol or an internet connection that could allow them to access basic home bomb making techniques.
Oh damn, you're right. I was machine gunning responses, and didn't catch that.
I agree. Also alcohol and guns don't mix well. I know that if I had a gun in the house, I'd have a very low additional risk.
In my defense, I did not read the posts carefully, lol. (I understand that that's not a real defense.)
But yeah, even so, it seems like an inconsistent application of a "rule." And it's not meant as a character assessment. We all do that.
Last edited:
The thing with home invasion is that even if he was armed at the waist. It wouldn't have changed anything. Gun fights are quick. He heard the perpetrators but there were to many of them.
The key issue being that your $700-1000 in dues and donations doesn't do much to make a dent in their revenue to cause any appreciable effect. But, by staying in the organization and being a dissenting member, you allow your voice to be heard and can sway other members to hearing your perspective. If you can get that to snowball into something tangible, then you can do some real damage to the CMG influence on ACEP, rather than just packing up shop and leaving.
D
deleted109597
Negative. Political posts not pertaining to EM get moved to SPF. Generally this forum is pretty good about it, as opposed to many, many other (pre-allo comes to mind). Once it goes off track, it gets a warning post. Second time it gets moved. That's how it works.
Nobody is getting banned, and nobody has even brought that up.
Keep it professional, and keep it pertaining to EM. Talking about ACEP is fine. Devolving into gun control in general will get moved. This goes for everyone, I'm not singling anyone out.
Actually, I did. Going into another forum just to stir up trouble is a basis to be banned is the gist of what I wrote.
D
deleted109597
Oh. Well in that case, somebody brought it up. But it's not happening based on anything that happened so far.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I have long debated what to do with ACEP. I have no interest in continuing the gun debate but rather what to do with ACEP.
My first job (SDG) out of residency paid for us to be ACEP members. I left that job and then had control of my own money and recently decided to bail on ACEP.
I have gone back and forth on this issue myself. While the stay and fight thing sounds good reality is I dont have the time or resources to really fight. I have multiple non clinical roles as well as a side business and that doesn’t even include my #1 priority which is my family.
ACEP has done really good work on EP reimbursement and while I think and know thats fantastic what bothers me and it could be because of my disdain of CMGs is that this helps the CMGs more than the rank and file ED doc.
I think I will re up ACEP and perhaps join a committee. I plan on joining one thru AAEM as well. I think the rank and file need to organize and kick those guys out and force ACEP to take a stand on the proper business model in EM.
CMGs are the trash of our field.
The young bucks are so ******ed that they think it is ok to work for them and be an ignorant sheep. I am lucky that financially I only have a few years of forced work left. After that I will be FI and can retire if I want to but I do not plan on doing that until I am sick of EM which I am not yet.
My first job (SDG) out of residency paid for us to be ACEP members. I left that job and then had control of my own money and recently decided to bail on ACEP.
I have gone back and forth on this issue myself. While the stay and fight thing sounds good reality is I dont have the time or resources to really fight. I have multiple non clinical roles as well as a side business and that doesn’t even include my #1 priority which is my family.
ACEP has done really good work on EP reimbursement and while I think and know thats fantastic what bothers me and it could be because of my disdain of CMGs is that this helps the CMGs more than the rank and file ED doc.
I think I will re up ACEP and perhaps join a committee. I plan on joining one thru AAEM as well. I think the rank and file need to organize and kick those guys out and force ACEP to take a stand on the proper business model in EM.
CMGs are the trash of our field.
The young bucks are so ******ed that they think it is ok to work for them and be an ignorant sheep. I am lucky that financially I only have a few years of forced work left. After that I will be FI and can retire if I want to but I do not plan on doing that until I am sick of EM which I am not yet.
Yes, but the initial post is about ACEP's policy on gun control, and why ACEP sucks due to its position on gun control. It is pretty hard to discuss the post at all without talking about gun control. Feel me?
But, in any case, I agree with the sentiment that the real problem is the issue with CMG's... What are your guys's thoughts about ACEP vis-a-vis mid-levels? I think mid-levels are a horrible trend in medicine in general... But yeah, I think they should only be allowed to work in the fast track or fast track capacity...
D
deleted109597
You can talk about gun control as it pertains to ACEP's policy. You want to start talking about it in generalities? No. I realize it's a fine line, but there is a forum to talk about gun control, and this isn't it. This one is for emergency medicine.
Gotchya...
So basically, just append something about ACEP's policy to every statement on gun control...
Last edited:
ACEP is bought and paid for by the CMGs. They don't represent my interests, and have no interest in my opinions. Continuing to donate to an organization which promotes CMG goals is a waste of money in my view.
D
deleted480308
I think that’s a pretty broad statement unless you have a lot more information about his specific case than was in the few stories I read
That's an interesting point that I hadn't considered.
D
deleted109597
Not really. If you want to talk about specific things in the policy, sure. If you want to just make bizarre gun control statements that aren't based in the policy, then no.
Not sure if you're on the facebook group, but after the shooting about 6 whackados came out saying the new policy wasn't enough, and they were going to drop their membership unless ACEP full on called for repeal of the 2nd amendment. That kind of thing is a no go.
And this thread is basically one of those single issue voting things. I mean, of all the things to be annoyed with ACEP about, this?
Fanatic - can't change their mind, and won't change the subject.
As the OP, I stopped posting a while ago (as far as thread time goes.) I was looking for a sounding board for my cognitive dissonance about leaving ACEP. Yes, I have more problems with it, and yes this is just the final straw.
I guess I expected a more reasoned pro/con debate among peers. Instead I got ad hominem attacks by trolls. I am responsible for being baited into the discussion. That’s all fine—not even close to the contention experienced on a shift—just not helpful to my issue at hand. I am a sparse user of social media, and every time I do I remember why.
Signing off. Peace.
I guess I expected a more reasoned pro/con debate among peers. Instead I got ad hominem attacks by trolls. I am responsible for being baited into the discussion. That’s all fine—not even close to the contention experienced on a shift—just not helpful to my issue at hand. I am a sparse user of social media, and every time I do I remember why.
Signing off. Peace.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Lol. You sent off a super passive aggressive letter about gun control that talks about abortion and the dangers of fertilizer. Then you cited some super intillectually dishonest stats about gun violence in Europe. All while looking for “a more reasoned pro/con debate”. Stuff like this is why people think we’re all nutcases.
Last edited:
You are correct. I went about it in the completely wrong way. I was going for irony and satire, but I got the corresponding results.
Those stats are from crimeresearch.org. Feel free to pick apart.
Thank you for finally giving the source, and for allowing us to pick it apart. It took an entire 10 seconds to determine that it is a highly unreliable source:
The Crime Prevention Research Center is a nonprofit founded in 2013 by John Lott, author of the book “More Guns, Less Crime.” He is best known as an advocate in the gun rights debate, particularly his arguments against restrictions on owning and carrying guns. Lott’s work has been called “junk science” as he has been accused of accepting funding from the National Rifle Association. Lott denies this claim. Any claims made on this website need to be fact checked with credible sources.
This is especially so since Lott has provided false statistics in the past, been found guilty of manipulating statistics, etc.
You might as well have cited the NRA.
EDIT: Here is an article showing how Lott manipulates the data in his claim comparing more mass shootings in Europe and America. Of interest is that you (and he) have now even gone further than his initial claim that there was no difference, and now completely inverted reality on its head.
To be clear, you can certainly cite a right-wing site to make arguments, but your actual data, upon which the argument is based, ought to be grounded in a neutral, reliable source.
Last edited:
Sorry that I'm joining this stinkfest late.
But I'm definitely curious on this point as well. I'm not sure exactly what ACEP has done to address this issue regarding mid-levels (yes, I still use that term despite how politically incorrect it is), if anyone knows I'd be curious. My impression is that they have done little to nothing.
To be fair, I can understand how moderation can be difficult... So, I didn't mean to be too snarky.
Have they gotten rid of the word "mid-level"? Now what are they called?
"APP" - Advanced Practice Provider.
There was a nurse practitioner I knew - he was technically very, very good; I would not challenge his care. However - HOWEVER - he really was into the propaganda. He would introduce himself as "Dr. Smith, the nurse practitioner", as he had a DNP early on. He bristled at the term "mid level", stating, "do I provide mid level care? Do I put in 4 sutures, when 8 are needed?"
"You have a midlevel education. You had 2 years when 8 are needed"
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
But speed limits have no negative impact on my safety. They will stop some from speeding and not cause me any additional harm.
Taking away my gun will decrease my ability to defend myself and my family. Some people will give up guns, and I'm sure it will improve suicides and negligent injuries, but some criminals will still have them while I have been disarmed.
If you care so much about saving lives, ban cars and swimming pools. Or is that too inconvenient and un- exciting? You must care more about those items than saving lives (and they are unable to help protect yours, unlike my gun).
A well regulated Mind, being necessary to the sanity of a free Thinking Doctor, the right of the users to stop reading dumb threads, shall not be infringed.
Cars and swimming pools are have not been implicated in school massacres as far as I know. Pretty sure swimming pools and cars were not implicated in the Vegas shootout either. No one is saying we should ban guns. You can protect yourself and your family with a handgun. An AR-15 is not needed nor will you be carrying it at all times at the ready to protect yourself.
I work with mid levels as well. They handle common illnesses very well but as soon as something challenging comes around they run to the attending. So, their knowledge is very limited and it shows. And most seem to lack confidence.
Last edited:
D
deleted859535
Whew. Thought my click was wasted for a second.
That, general surgery and family medicine e (because why not). But I am currently (1000 hours) scribing for EM physicians.
I have 0 interest in the gun debate in this forum but I will say I think ACEP needs to stick to issues that impact our job.
I probably would agree with them on many of those issues.
I would prefer they stick to prudent layperson, people trying to limit our practice (sedation), issues of reimbursement, CMGs, corporate practice of medicine, fee splitting, resident education, Ultrasound etc.
The honest real issue with guns is neither side has an interest in an honest discussion and both push BS numbers. I think as educated people we should be upset that they wont fund research. I also think all those gun violence numbers need to be more honest about how many are suicides etc.
After the shooting in florida the lay press pushed the "18 school shooting" narrative which is dishonest and meant to drum up clicks. This went unchecked by the liberal newspapers.
I simply mention these as proof of the lack of interest in an honest discord.
ACEP does a real crappy job on the issues that impact me on shift and in my career. They should get that right before pushing out some policy on guns.
I probably would agree with them on many of those issues.
I would prefer they stick to prudent layperson, people trying to limit our practice (sedation), issues of reimbursement, CMGs, corporate practice of medicine, fee splitting, resident education, Ultrasound etc.
The honest real issue with guns is neither side has an interest in an honest discussion and both push BS numbers. I think as educated people we should be upset that they wont fund research. I also think all those gun violence numbers need to be more honest about how many are suicides etc.
After the shooting in florida the lay press pushed the "18 school shooting" narrative which is dishonest and meant to drum up clicks. This went unchecked by the liberal newspapers.
I simply mention these as proof of the lack of interest in an honest discord.
ACEP does a real crappy job on the issues that impact me on shift and in my career. They should get that right before pushing out some policy on guns.
Associate Professor Philip Alpers from the University of Sydney said "the million guns destroyed after Port Arthur have been replaced with 1,026,000 new ones".
"By 2015 the arms trade had broken all previous records, and last financial year Australia ported 104,000 firearms".
"By 2015 the arms trade had broken all previous records, and last financial year Australia ported 104,000 firearms".
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
