Quick Hit:

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has declared gun violence a public health crisis and suggested a range of gun control measures, drawing criticism for what is seen as a partisan approach under the guise of public health.

Key Details:

• Dr. Vivek Murthy's 32-page advisory calls for increased funding for firearm violence prevention research and several gun control measures.
• Recommendations include safe storage laws, universal background checks, red flag laws, and an assault weapons ban.
• Critics argue that Murthy's approach is inherently political and bypasses the democratic process.

Diving Deeper:

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has declared gun violence in America a public health crisis, recommending a series of preventive measures that he likens to past campaigns against smoking and traffic safety. However, this declaration has sparked controversy, with critics arguing that it represents a covert push for left-wing gun control policies.

Murthy's announcement calls for increased funding for firearm violence prevention research and several gun control measures, including safe storage laws, universal background checks, red flag laws, and an assault weapons ban. According to Murthy, these steps are necessary to address what he sees as a major public health issue that has been overly politicized.

“I’ve long believed this is a public health issue,” Murthy said in an interview. “This issue has been politicized, has been polarized over time. But I think when we understand that this is a public health issue, we have the opportunity to take it out of the realm of politics and put it into the realm of public health.”

Critics, however, see this approach as inherently political. The notion of "taking it out of the realm of politics" and "putting it into the realm of public health" is seen as an attempt to circumvent the democratic process. In America, such measures are defined as policies, which are political by nature and must go through legislative scrutiny.

Dr. Murthy’s recommendations, while presented as public health advisories, are essentially a set of gun control laws. These laws would be enforceable by criminal penalties, requiring legislative approval and alignment with constitutional protections, notably the Second Amendment.

The advisory's critics argue that by framing gun control as a public health issue, Murthy is seeking to bypass the political process and impose regulations without the necessary democratic debate. This approach, they contend, undermines the very foundation of American democracy where such significant policy changes must be subjected to thorough political discourse and legislative action.

In the United States, political proposals must navigate through the established political system, involving Congress and state legislatures. Any attempt to reframe these proposals as purely public health measures not only misrepresents their nature but also threatens to bypass the constitutional checks and balances that safeguard American freedoms.

Murthy’s advisory reflects a broader trend within the progressive movement to label politically contentious issues as public health crises, thereby seeking to advance an agenda without engaging in the rigorous political process. This strategy, critics argue, is not only deceptive but also dangerous, as it could set a precedent for bypassing democratic norms.