Editor's Note: Bearing Arms contributor Ryan Petty joined me for today's Bearing Arms' Cam & Co to discuss Surgeon General Vivek Murthy's declaration that "gun violence" is a public health crisis. You can find the video of our conversation at the end of this post. 

They finally did it. The Biden Administration has declared gun violence a public health crisis. The question many of us in the gun community are asking, why now, when the Biden administration has been touting (and taking credit for) the declining rates of violent crime across the country? 

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy labeled gun violence as a public health crisis and called it "the leading cause of death among children and teenagers". This declaration is a blatant overreach and a direct threat to the Second Amendment. As a staunch defender of the right to bear arms, this advisory is deeply troubling for several reasons.

The idea of declaring gun violence a public health crisis is not new and has been a topic of discussion and advocacy for many years. Here’s a look at some of the notable attempts and calls to frame gun violence in this way:

1. American Medical Association (AMA): One of the earliest and most significant calls came from the American Medical Association, which declared gun violence a public health crisis in 2016. The AMA highlighted the need for more comprehensive research on gun violence and advocated for lifting the federal ban on gun violence research funding. They emphasized that treating gun violence as a public health issue would allow for a data-driven approach to prevent injuries and deaths .
2. Public Health Experts and Researchers: Over the years, numerous public health experts and researchers have echoed the AMA’s sentiments. They argue that gun violence should be studied with the same rigor as diseases like cancer or heart disease. This perspective has been supported by organizations like the American Public Health Association (APHA), which has repeatedly called for treating gun violence as a public health issue to enable better prevention strategies through research and policy development.
3. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy’s Past Efforts: Even before his latest advisory, Dr. Vivek Murthy has been vocal about the need to address gun violence from a public health perspective. During his previous term as Surgeon General, he faced backlash for his stance on gun violence, which some perceived as a political statement. Despite this, he continued to advocate for recognizing the health impacts of gun violence and the importance of preventive measures .
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Historically, the CDC has been involved in gun violence research, but its efforts were significantly curtailed by the 1996 Dickey Amendment, which effectively prohibited the use of federal funds for gun violence research if it was seen as advocating for gun control. In recent years, there has been a push to lift these restrictions, with public health advocates arguing that robust research is essential for effective prevention strategies.
5. State and Local Initiatives: Various state and local governments have also taken steps to address gun violence as a public health issue. For example, California and New York have launched initiatives to fund research and implement community-based interventions aimed at reducing gun violence. These programs often include collaborations with hospitals, public health departments, and community organizations to provide a comprehensive approach to prevention and support for affected individuals.
6. National Advocacy Organizations: Groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Everytown for Gun Safety have long advocated for treating gun violence as a public health crisis. These organizations have repeatedly called for categorizing gun violence as a public health crisis, which, coincidentally enough, means adopting the same gun control laws they've been pushing in the name of public safety, not public health. 

First and foremost, the claim that gun violence is the leading cause of death among youth is misleading and politically charged. What the gun control activists fail to mention about this repeatedly debunked claim is that they include non-juveniles in their data (18 and 19-year-olds), in order to make the claim. This statistic fails to consider other significant causes of death, such as automobile accidents and drug overdoses, which also impact this demographic heavily. By singling out gun violence, the Surgeon General is pushing a narrow and biased agenda that ignores the broader context of risks for youth. It completely ignores the prevalence of gang violence for teens and young adults.  

The real issue here is not guns but the factors that lead to violence. Focusing on firearms as the cause of gun violence is a gross oversimplification that diverts attention from the underlying social, economic, and mental health issues that contribute to violence. Addressing these root causes would be far more effective than targeting the tools used in violence.

Furthermore, the political implications of the Surgeon General's advisory cannot be ignored. Gun violence is a deeply divisive issue in the United States, often split along partisan lines. The advisory's call for comprehensive research and policy interventions, including background checks, firearm removal policies, "safe storage" laws, and gun bans, is not only a refutation of Murthy's previous vow not to use his office to push for stricter gun control measures, but is also a thinly veiled attempt to impose stricter gun control measures. Such measures infringe upon the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and do nothing to address the real causes of violence in our nation, but would hardly have an impact on juveniles who aren't old enough to legally purchase or possess a firearm. It’s clear that this advisory is part of a broader strategy to erode Second Amendment rights under the guise of public health.

The analogy between gun violence and public health crises like smoking is fundamentally flawed. Unlike tobacco, which is inherently harmful, firearms are constitutionally protected tools that can be used responsibly for self-defense, hunting, and sport. Equating guns to cigarettes is a disingenuous tactic aimed at stigmatizing gun ownership and paving the way for restrictive legislation that infringes on personal freedoms. 

Furthermore, the Surgeon General’s report highlights disparities in gun violence among different demographics but fails to propose effective solutions. For example, it notes that Black individuals face the highest rates of firearm-related homicides, yet it does not adequately address the socio-economic conditions and community dynamics that contribute to this violence. Instead, it promotes blanket policies that would disproportionately impact law-abiding gun owners, particularly in vulnerable communities.

The advisory also skirts around the crucial issue of law enforcement. While it acknowledges the tragedies resulting from police-involved shootings, it does not propose any substantial reforms to address these incidents. Instead, it focuses on civilian gun ownership, further perpetuating the myth that disarming citizens will lead to greater safety. This approach not only undermines public trust in law enforcement but also ignores the right of individuals to defend themselves against crime and tyranny.

So why are gun control activists pushing so hard to treat gun violence as a public health crisis?  The Surgeon General’s declaration of gun violence as a public health crisis is nothing more than a politically motivated attack on the Second Amendment. It allows gun control activists to lay claim to a moral high ground in the debate over gun policy--a high ground they desperately desire because they know that the Second Amendment is a recognition of our right to bear arms for self-defense and to defend liberty.  It distracts from the real issues at hand, promotes ineffective and unconstitutional measures, and fails to respect the rights of American citizens. As defenders of the Second Amendment, we must remain vigilant and resist any efforts to undermine our constitutional freedoms under the pretext of public health.