The NRA was rightfully lambasted after telling trauma doctors to 'stay in their lane.'

The NRA apparently thinks doctors who treat gunshot wounds shouldn't have opinions about guns.

Looking at the NRA's Twitter feed after a mass shooting is a fascinating exercise. One might at least expect some "thoughts and prayers" after a gunman walks into a bar and kills 12 people with a gun, but there's no mention of the Thousand Oaks shooting incident at all. Nada. Zilch.

There is, however, a mind-blowing bungle of a tweet from the day before the shooting addressing doctors who advocate for gun control legislation.


"Someone should tell self-important anti-gun doctors to stay in their lane," the tweet reads. "Half of the articles in Annals of Internal Medicine are pushing for gun control. Most upsetting, however, the medical community seems to have consulted NO ONE but themselves."  

Trauma doctors who treat gunshot victims were not having it.

When your job is saving lives, and you see the carnage a bullet can do to a body on a regular basis, you may have some thoughts on guns. And when your job is to research how to save lives, and that research shows that gun regulations lead to fewer gun deaths, you may have some opinions.

And not just any old opinions—highly informed, backed-up-by-facts opinions. And sorry, NRA, but those of us who still believe in science and common sense will take the opinion of experts in the risks of guns and the damage gunfire can do over the opinion of an organization whose sole purpose is to promote guns.

Just a sampling of the clap back from doctors the NRA received:

The Annals of Internal Medicine tweeted, "We wish we could," and then dropped load of research.

Just once I'd love to see a professional organization tell the NRA to shove it where the sun don't shine and leave it at that, but I know that would backfire.

The AIM, however, did respond in a calm and reasonable manner, with a link to pages and pages of research on how guns relate to health—in other words, "their lane."

And if you're wondering what got the NRA's panties in such a twist to begin with, this thread summarizes the lead up to it:

And here's some more research, just for the fun of it:

The NRA is out of its lane—and way out of its league.

Telling the people whose sole job is to figure out how to save lives that working to prevent the 33,000 deaths by firearm in America every year—not to mention the tens of thousands more who are wounded by gun violence—is not "their lane" is one of the more asinine things the NRA has tried to do. If they wanted to make themselves look even more foolish than they already do to a significant portion of the U.S., they've succeeded.

If you come for the doctors—the ones who study public health and who see first hand the devastating effects of gun violence—expect to get taken down in the most epic fashion.

That burn's gotta hurt, NRA. Sending our thought and prayers.

More

The 2013 documentary "Blackfish" shined a light on the cruelty that orcas face in captivity has created a sea change in the public's perception of SeaWorld and other marine life parks.

This "Blackfish" backlash nearly deep-sixed SeaWorld and led Canada to pass a law that bans oceanariums from breeding whales and dolphins or holding them in captivity. Animals currently being held in Canada's marine parks are allowed to remain as well as those taken in for rehabilitation.

Podcaster and MMA announcer Joe Rogan saluted Canada's decision on a recent episode.

"First of all, what assholes are we that we have those goddman things in captivity? A big fucking shout out to Canada because [they] mostly through the noise that my friend Phil Demers has created in trying to get MarineLand shut down," Rogan told his guest, economist and mathematician Eric Weinstein.

Keep Reading Show less
Planet
Youtube

Should a man lose his home because the grass in his yard grew higher than 10 inches? The city of Dunedin, Florida seems to think so.

According to the Institute of Justice, which is representing Jim Ficken, he had a very good reason for not mowing his lawn – and tried to rectify the situation as best he could.

In 2014, Jim's mom became ill and he visited her often in South Carolina to help her out. When he was away, his grass grew too long and he was cited by a code office; he cut the grass and wasn't fined.

France has started forcing supermarkets to donate food instead of throwing it away.

But several years later, this one infraction would come back to haunt him after he left to take care of him's mom's affairs after she died. The arrangements he made to have his grass cut fell through (his friend who he asked to help him out passed away unexpectedly) and that set off a chain reaction that may result in him losing his home.

The 69-year-old retiree now faces a $29,833.50 fine plus interest. Watch the video to find out just what Jim is having to deal with.

Mow Your Lawn or Lose Your House! www.youtube.com

Cities

I'm staring at my screen watching the President of the United States speak before a stadium full of people in North Carolina. He launches into a lie-laced attack on Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, and the crowd boos. Soon they start chanting, "Send her back! Send her back! Send her back!"

The President does nothing. Says nothing. He just stands there and waits for the crowd to finish their outburst.

WATCH: Trump rally crowd chants 'send her back' after he criticizes Rep. Ilhan Omar www.youtube.com

My mind flashes to another President of the United States speaking to a stadium full of people in North Carolina in 2016. A heckler in the crowd—an old man in uniform holding up a TRUMP sign—starts shouting, disrupting the speech. The crowd boos. Soon they start chanting, "Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!"

Keep Reading Show less
Recommended
via EarthFix / Flickr

What will future generations never believe that we tolerated in 2019?

Dolphin and orca captivity, for sure. They'll probably shake their heads at how people died because they couldn't afford healthcare. And, they'll be completely mystified at the amount of food some people waste while others go starving.

According to Biological Diversity, "An estimated 40 percent of the food produced in the United States is wasted every year, costing households, businesses and farms about $218 billion annually."

There are so many things wrong with this.

First of all it's a waste of money for the households who throw out good food. Second, it's a waste of all of the resources that went into growing the food, including the animals who gave their lives for the meal. Third, there's something very wrong with throwing out food when one in eight Americans struggle with hunger.

Supermarkets are just as guilty of this unnecessary waste as consumers. About 10% of all food waste are supermarket products thrown out before they've reached their expiration date.

Three years ago, France took big steps to combat food waste by making a law that bans grocery stores from throwing away edible food.According to the new ordinance, stores can be fined for up to $4,500 for each infraction.

Previously, the French threw out 7.1 million tons of food. Sixty-seven percent of which was tossed by consumers, 15% by restaurants, and 11% by grocery stores.

This has created a network of over 5,000 charities that accept the food from supermarkets and donate them to charity. The law also struck down agreements between supermarkets and manufacturers that prohibited the stores from donating food to charities.

"There was one food manufacturer that was not authorized to donate the sandwiches it made for a particular supermarket brand. But now, we get 30,000 sandwiches a month from them — sandwiches that used to be thrown away," Jacques Bailet, head of the French network of food banks known as Banques Alimentaires, told NPR.

It's expected that similar laws may spread through Europe, but people are a lot less confident at it happening in the United States. The USDA believes that the biggest barrier to such a program would be cost to the charities and or supermarkets.

"The logistics of getting safe, wholesome, edible food from anywhere to people that can use it is really difficult," the organization said according to Gizmodo. "If you're having to set up a really expensive system to recover marginal amounts of food, that's not good for anybody."

Plus, the idea may seem a little too "socialist" for the average American's appetite.

"The French version is quite socialist, but I would say in a great way because you're providing a way where they [supermarkets] have to do the beneficial things not only for the environment, but from an ethical standpoint of getting healthy food to those who need it and minimizing some of the harmful greenhouse gas emissions that come when food ends up in a landfill," Jonathan Bloom, the author of American Wasteland, told NPR.

However, just because something may be socialist doesn't mean it's wrong. The greater wrong is the insane waste of money, damage to the environment, and devastation caused by hunger that can easily be avoided.

Planet