The Full Position Paper – English | Hebrew
An undeniable rift was forged on October 7 after Israel failed to protect its citizens from the Hamas-led attacks. The trust that was lost following those events has not yet been restored. Alarmingly, under the guise of rebuilding this trust, the Israeli government is manipulatively using the recent catastrophe to promote a false notion that private firearm ownership can offer safety.
In just under 60 days, 265,000 firearm license applications have been submitted following the amended regulations for civilian gun-carrying licenses, approved by the National Security Committee on October 15. This rate of civilian armament is unprecedented in Israel.
But what makes civilian armament a health concern? First, family care physicians must currently complete “health declarations” as a prerequisite for obtaining a firearms license. And second, the proliferation of guns, especially in a trauma-saturated society like ours, poses a severe public health threat. Yet, the government is conveniently obscuring these health-related dimensions from public discourse.
“The Medicalization of Armament: Gun Proliferation in the Public Sphere, Violence, and the Role of Medical Professionals” is a new position paper by PHRI’s Ethics Committee, drafted as part of a learning and dialogue process with the Gun Free Kitchen Tables project at the Isha L’Isha Feminist Center. It serves as the basis for entering into dialogue with policymakers and medical professionals in an effort to halt this reform and its disastrous consequences.
Decades of research in the US have shown that increased gun ownership leads to a surge in violence and deaths, including murders, suicide attempts, accidents, and gun injuries. Such findings have led American health organizations to categorize gun violence as a public health threat – one that is both contagious and that can devolve into an epidemic. Research has also indicated that gun violence deepens social friction and tensions, with fatal consequences for marginalized groups.
It is vital to emphasize that physicians cannot predict an individual’s potential for violence – not even mental health specialists. Therefore, forcing them to serve as gatekeepers means asking them to assume a role beyond their professional expertise and for which no standardized medical criteria exist. As in many other cases, the state is exploiting the credibility of medical professionals to create the false appearance of restraint and risk screening.
Moreover, maintaining the semblance of medical oversight allows policymakers and society to avoid addressing the concerns that are pushing people to seek gun licenses: Why does the public sphere feel unsafe? How did we lose our sense of security, and why do we not trust law enforcement to provide the protection we deserve?
Israeli society is facing a deep and dangerous new low – with long-term and partly irreversible consequences. Any debates regarding gun ownership must involve healthcare and welfare professionals. But until such discussions take place, the medical community must refuse the role of gatekeepers and refrain from participating in the approval process for firearms possession. Physicians cannot determine or predict an individual’s potential for danger, nor is it their role.
