The AMA opposes any law that bars doctors from having conversations about gun safety, do you agree?

[CreekDog]

"The American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a resolution in 2011 officially opposing any law that bars doctors from having open conversations about gun safety and the risks of having firearms in a household with their patients."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/surgeon-general-nominee-vivek-murthy-vs-the-nra-2014-3#ixzz2wtU5dvZd

13 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I oppose passage of any law that bars doctors from having open conversations about gun safety and the risks of having firearms in a household with their patients.
	10 (77%)
	I support passage of some laws that bars doctors from having open conversations about gun safety and the risks of having firearms in a household with their patients.
	0 (0%)
	I support passage any law that bars doctors from having open conversations about gun safety and the risks of having firearms in a household with their patients.
	3 (23%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[lostincalifornia]

1. I think doctors should not have any bans on any conversations with their patients.

[orpupilofnature57]

101. +1000 !!!!

[Mojorabbit]

130. +100 nt

[rrneck]

2. I support a law that bars doctors

from refusing care to people because of lifestyle choices.

[CreekDog]

4. what are examples of lifestyle choices?

[rrneck]

6. Weeeellllll,

since this the gungeon, owning a gun would be a lifestyle choice.

[CreekDog]

7. that's the only lifestyle choice you can think of?

[rrneck]

10. No

but it's the only one that is germane here. Others might be eating the right or wrong food, living in a gated community or on a boat in the middle of the pacific ocean, having unprotected sex, reading romance novels, smoking or not smoking, getting proper exercise or over training yourself to death, jumping motorcycles over cars, founding fight clubs, praying for peace...

or even posting bullshit anonymous push polls in an intellectual ghetto in a vain attempt to determing who should and should not belong in what amounts to a train station with revolving doors.

You know, stuff like that.

[CreekDog]

11. how many doctors do you know that would refuse to provide care to gun owners?

[MicaelS]

12. None, right now. But...

I'm sure that someone on DU will chime in at some point and state that it is a good idea.

What all this bullshit is really about is an effort by the AMA, and AAP to classify guns as a "Public Health Threat" and thus let the government regulate guns in whatever fashion advocates of Public Health desire. Since they can't achieve the desired affect of Gun Control / Prohibition by the normal Legislative means, they resort to whatever underhanded tactics they can.

[CreekDog]

14. "None" --thank you for playing

[MicaelS]

17. Humans killed each other for thousands of years..

Before guns were invented.

Those who believe guns are the sole problem in the world, that guns are an evil corrupting force in the world, that if all the guns in the world were destroyed, we would suddenly have World Peace™ and we could all hold hands and sit in the shade and sing Kumbaya, then they are exceedingly naive, and that is being polite.

They ignore thousands of years of human history where people slaughtered each other with rocks, sticks, bone tools, then eventually progressed to edged metal weapons, then to gunpowder and firearms. Because ignoring all that would mean the real problem isn't weapons, it is that humans like to kill one another and will find any means to do so. And it hard, near impossible, for some to blame human beings. It is a lot easier to blame an inanimate object.

[CreekDog]

18. you're changing the subject

you said you know of no doctors that would refuse treatment to gun owners.

thank you for playing.

[Straw Man]

23. Refusing treatment.

you said you know of no doctors that would refuse treatment to gun owners.

It was a question Amber Ullman least expected Wednesday from her children's pediatrician.

Do you keep a gun in the house?

When the 26-year-old Summerfield woman refused the answer, the Ocala doctor finished her child's examination and told her she had 30 days to find a new pediatrician and that she wasn't welcome at Children's Health of Ocala anymore.

--http://www.ocala.com/article/20100723/news/100729867

Thank you for playing.

[AtheistCrusader]

100. Yeah, but click on page 2.

"He said he asks such questions of all his patients because if there are guns in a home with children, he advises that parents lock them away so children don't hurt themselves.

“The purpose is to give advice… I don't tell them to get rid of the guns,” he said. “The purpose is to give advice.”

He said that more than half the families he treats have guns."


He refused HER business because she wouldn't answer the question. Not because she had a gun. He doesn't refuse treatment to half his customers.

So, this single, four year old example, fails spectacularly.

[Straw Man]

103. Do you think that doctors are a special class?

He refused HER business because she wouldn't answer the question.

Doctors get to ask intrusive and irrelevant questions and then withhold their services from those who won't kowtow to them? He could have simply provided the information and then carried on with treatment. If he weren't a pompous and entitled ass, that is.

[AtheistCrusader]

115. If she won't give him answers, he can't do his job.

Firearms are a safety issue for children. I am not offended that our pediatrician asked us about them. I informed her they were locked up, and that was that. No muss no fuss.

It is neither intrusive, nor irrelevant.

[Straw Man]

132. Not true at all.

If she won't give him answers, he can't do his job.

In this case, his job is to give information. He can do that regardless of her answer or lack of same. Nothing, repeat, NOTHING is preventing him from giving her the information or continuing to treat her family: nothing except an exaggerated sense of his own power and entitlement, that is.

[AtheistCrusader]

133. You see offense where there is none.

Improper access to firearms by a child is still a health/safety issue in this country, even though the fatality rate from same is massively improved over the 1950's.

If I was a doctor, and asked my client if they had any 'attractive nuisances' like a hot tub or pool that the child might have access to, and they refused to answer, I'd tell them to get the fuck out too.

As a client, if you can't handle a question like that under the patient/doctor confidentiality umbrella, you're probably not going to answer any other important questions about any medical issues either.

[Straw Man]

135. Refusal to treat is not offense?

These are intrusive and irrelevant questions. The effort to make firearms a public health issue is inextricably linked to public policies that promote gun control. It is a politically charged issue, plain and simple. People are understandably suspicious of any information on firearms ownership becoming a matter of record. And again, there is absolutely no reason that a doctor cannot provide the necessary information without entering firearms ownership into the patient's record. Doctor-patient confidentiality is a very leaky tub, and I would not entrust the medical profession with any information that is not directly related to my treatment.

If I was a doctor, and asked my client if they had any 'attractive nuisances' like a hot tub or pool that the child might have access to, and they refused to answer, I'd tell them to get the fuck out too.

Then I'm very glad you're not a doctor. There is no excuse for that kind of arrogance. None.

[AtheistCrusader]

136. It's not arrogance.

There needs to be a level of trust between the individual, and the doctor. If the individual doesn't extend that trust, then there's little point to the whole endeavor.

I disagree that this has ANYTHING to do with gun control. Nor have you shown that there is a record made of an affirmative answer to that question.


What you call 'intrusive and irrelevant', I call 'routine and relevant'.

so...

[Straw Man]

137. Call it what you want.

I disagree that this has ANYTHING to do with gun control.

It may or may not, but that doesn't matter. The patient may have the perception that it does and would be within his/her rights to refuse to answer, especially since it is not directly related to treatment. Providing safety information is easy and non-controversial. Unless, of course, the doctor is an arrogant ass.

I think you're naive in assuming this has nothing to do with gun control. This is from the American Academy of Pediatrics:

Advice to parents

The best way to keep your children safe from injury or death from guns is to NEVER have a gun in the home.

* Do not purchase a gun, especially a handgun.
* Remove all guns present in the home.
* Remember that young children simply do not understand how dangerous guns can be, despite parents' warnings .
* Find out if there are guns in the homes where your children play. If so, talk to the adults in the house about the dangers of guns to their families.

Source TIPP—The Injury Prevention Program (Copyright © 1994 American Academy of Pediatrics Revised 5/2009)

-- http://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/all-around/pages/Gun-Safety-Keeping-Children-Safe.aspx

The agenda is unmistakable.

Nor have you shown that there is a record made of an affirmative answer to that question.

I think it's safe to assume that any and all information provided to a medical professional becomes a matter of record.

[AtheistCrusader]

138. I think the AAP's position on that amounts to the same position that the far right

has about abstinence only as a form of sex ed for teens.

Ineffective. Deplorable.

Not an example of Gun Control though.

[Straw Man]

140. Semantics, perhaps.

I agree that the AAP's approach is ineffective and deplorable. Is it gun control? It is certainly gun control advocacy, whether or not it explicitly promotes specific legislation.

[AtheistCrusader]

142. Safe storage is hardly 'gun control', when you suggest the individual do it.

Requiring it, offsite, by law would be an example of gun control. If this doctor engaged in that, there's no indication of it here.

[Straw Man]

144. Perhaps you forgot ...

... this sage advice:

* Do not purchase a gun, especially a handgun.
* Remove all guns present in the home.

I hardly call that "safe storage." I call that an anti-firearms agenda. I also find it condescending and patronizing.

[AtheistCrusader]

145. All alternatives under the heading of 'keep guns away from kids'.

Papa's WWII pistol in a shoebox in a closet somewhere can still punch holes in humans.

These sorts of questions get people thinking about stuff like that.

[Straw Man]

148. Questions?

Papa's WWII pistol in a shoebox in a closet somewhere can still punch holes in humans.

These sorts of questions get people thinking about stuff like that.

These are not questions:

* Do not purchase a gun, especially a handgun.
* Remove all guns present in the home.

I'm standing pat on "condescending and patronizing." The whole drive is part and parcel of an anti-firearms agenda, and it's transparent as hell. Simple informational pamphlets would do much more without needlessly antagonizing and -- here's that word again -- patronizing people.

[AtheistCrusader]

149. We are using these words differently.

I don't think this thread fork is productive at this point.

Normally we are on pretty much the same page, but there is some fundamental disagreement here.

[Straw Man]

150. I guess so.

This time we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. Someone on DU might

But no actual doctor worthy of holding a license would ever support the idea that they should refuse to treat based upon 'gun ownership'. One of the basic tenets of medical ethics, is that you treat everyone who needs treatment, and you give your best care no matter what. If you aren't willing to give your best care to your worst enemy, you shouldn't be in the medical field.

You treat idiots who do stupid things and hurt themselves, you treat murderers and rapists, you treat war criminals the same as you would your own family.

Medical care is for all, not for those you 'approve of'.

[MicaelS]

34. That ethos no longer applies.

Case in point. Doctors are refusing to see children who parents refuse vaccinations.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/30/the-real-reason-pediatricians-want-you-to-vaccinate-your-kids.html

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/features/insuring-your-health/michelle-andrews-on-kids-vaccines-and-refusal.aspx

http://www.parents.com/blogs/parents-news-now/2012/02/16/must-read/more-doctors-firing-patients-who-say-no-to-vaccines/

Thread here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024520257

My comment (which I stand by)

How much time is the clinician supposed to allocate to these people?

10 minutes, 30 minutes, and hour? For each and every parent that is anti-vaccination? That is valuable time he could actually be using treating truly sick children.

As to arrogance, you bet your ass it's arrogant, and that is what some people need. They need to be told flat out their ideas are wrong and against all current scientific knowledge. Just like Secretary Kerry is doing.

Or should we give the same consideration to Climate Change Deniers?

[SQUEE]

39. again.. dehumanization from us the supposed progressives

Opposing view points are now being equated with disease and mental infirmity...
Shall we begin reeducating these poor sick and crazy souls, or are the just so much vermin to be disposed of...
The fact so many can utter such ideas, and truly look at your fellow man with such disgust and loathing are one of the reason my family has insisted in not being disarmed.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

58. I think that's a sad commentary on pediatrics.

It's certainly not what's drilled into nurses. We even spent time discussing techniques to analyze our own feelings and place them to the side while seeing patients for whom we might otherwise hold ill-will, and to de-stress after shift.

I would have thought that if you were truly worried about contact between other patients and those who weren't vaccinated for communicable diseases, you could simply set aside specific blocks of time, such that such kids were the last seen on any given day, and you could simply do extra decontam on the office afterwards. But really, most vaccines don't make it impossible for you to contract a given disease, they just let your immune system 'know what it looks like' and train it on making antibodies. So even vaccinated kids can catch whatever it is, especially if they've concurrently got some other condition that's got their immune system on the ropes.

How much time is he to allot for them? As much as any other kid with an appointment. If all doctors simply decided that people had to suffer for what they consider stupid behaviour, we wouldn't treat cirrhosis, obesity, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and a host of other very common ailments that are often brought on by poor lifestyle.

[meanit]

52. I bet if a guy

blew a few of his toes off with a gun accidentally, a doctor may see fit to mention being safer with his gun.

Thinking the AMA is out to get your guns is just paranoid.

[rrneck]

21. None.

But I heard about one.

http://www.ocala.com/article/20100724/ARTICLES/7241001/-1/news?Title=Family-and-pediatrician-tangle-over-gun-question

It's one thing to offer safety advice and another to invade people's privacy. There is a big difference between simply telling people "if you own a gun/swimming pool/cleaning supplies/power tools here is important advice regarding owning these things" and demanding to know whether or not they actually own them. That's the difference between offering helpful advice and passing judgement. If reports are true the doctor in question behaved like a judgmental asshole instead of actually helping people.

Of course, when it comes to guns partisans on both sides of the issue get hold of it and turn it into a shitstorm which is a waste of the public's time and money. So on the pro gun side conservative politicians try to micromanage the doctor patient relationship and on the anti gun side liberals try to treat a chunk of metal and plastic like a dangerous pathogen. Both positions are bullshit not because of the danger of guns to the public but because conservatives will jump at any chance to piss and moan about the "nanny state" and shoot ACA in the foot and liberals have a bug up our ass about the conservative gun totem.

Doctors should be able to discuss matters of consequence with their patients and if the surgeon general thinks guns are a public health issue he needs to teach the cops to jump through a rip in the fabric of time so people don't feel like they need to own a way to defend themselves.

Does this mean that I don't support the president's choice for Surgeon General? No. If that's the guy the prez likes I'm behind him. Not because I think his attitude toward guns makes sense. From what I hear he's wrong. But I'm a loyal democrat that trusts his president to make the right call even when I don't think he's doing so and it's a waste of time and political capital to raise a stink about it. If the surgeon general wants to push the concept of guns as a dangerous pathogen he'll get his ass handed to him because, reality.

And that's the difference between understanding the realities of politics, human nature and physics in the real world and feeding on some fundamentalist understanding of partisan politics dug out from the bottom of a cereal box.

[ManiacJoe]

41. Are you lacking in current events?

> how many doctors do you know that would refuse to provide care to gun owners?

You do know that this is exactly what caused these laws to be passed, right?

[Tanuki]

19. Some pediatricians have told anti-vaxxer parents that they will have to find another provider

because their children pose an unacceptable risk to their other patients who might be exposed in the waiting room. Do you think that should be prohibited?

[rrneck]

20. No.

Those parents may be bringing an actual dangerous pathogen into the facility.

[Loudly]

28. Ha! Guns and ammunition are highly dangerous.

And worship of them is a societal pathogen.

[rrneck]

29. The greatest sociteal pathogen

is blind devotion to fundamentalist ideology. Yeah, I'm looking at you.

[Loudly]

32. An ideology which simply holds

that there can be no "right" of access to a convenient means of depriving others of their genuine rights.

And any claim of such "right" is just plain silly.

[rrneck]

35. That right has existed since the beginning of time.

It will continue exist as long as there is such as a thing as a disparity of force. Most blinkered authoritarian ideologues seem to think that homogenizing people will solve the world's problems. They only succeed in oppressing those they claim to care about. That's because they really only care about their crackpot fundamentalist faith.

[Loudly]

67. Here. This is for you.

A website which tracks homicides from all causes in D.C.

Shooting, shooting, shooting, shooting, stabbing.

Shooting, shooting, shooting, shooting, beating.

Shooting, shooting, shooting, shooting, strangling.

Guns in the hands of the public are obviously what is oppressing us.

http://homicidewatch.org

[rrneck]

70. Here, this is for you.

That's called reality. It's the same reality that has existed for all time. Human violence, like violence by any species, is a sad fact of life. When you wail and rend your clothing that the world is not perfect you set an impossible standard that can only be understood by people who have never troubled themselves to learn. It is a kind of arrogance that comes with devotion to a set of beliefs that cannot exist without dehumanizing others for an impossible ideal.

I just finished this. Rather than googling tidbits of confirmation bias, why don't you read something that will let you see beyond you blinkers.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Poisonwood-Bible-A-Novel/dp/0061577073
The Poisonwood Bible is a story told by the wife and four daughters of Nathan Price, a fierce, evangelical Baptist who takes his family and mission to the Belgian Congo in 1959. They carry with them everything they believe they will need from home, but soon find that all of it—from garden seeds to Scripture—is calamitously transformed on African soil. What follows is a suspenseful epic of one family's tragic undoing and remarkable reconstruction over the course of three decades in postcolonial Africa.

[Loudly]

73. A reality being imposed upon all of society to perpetuate the myth of a pretend "right."

Guns are popular because they are so lethal, so convenient to use, and so easy to escape the consequences of having been used.

The are mainly used for settling personal grievances and commencing the commission of crimes.

[rrneck]

82. Horseshit.

Every organism on this planet has the ability to defend itself. Humans are no exception.

[Loudly]

83. What do guns and ammunition have to do with nature?

Other than obliterating nature, of course.

I think you've reached the end of your intellectual rope.

[rrneck]

84. Because

human beings are tool using mammals with opposable thumbs. We make tools. Guns are tools. Sometimes they are used for good. Sometimes they are used for evil.

If you had something like an intellectual set of thumbs, you might find a rope to hold onto.

[uncommonlink]

87. I think you've reached the end of your intellectual rope.

Funniest thing you've said in this thread so far.

[beevul]

92. If you're going to spread untruths, and expect not to be called on it, do it somewhere else.

"The are mainly used for settling personal grievances and commencing the commission of crimes."

Since there are 300 million guns in the hands of roughly 100 million people, and there are over a billion rounds fired every year, yet the numbers don't begin to approach 1 percent misusing them, I'd say that's proof positive that you're wrong.

[beevul]

105. Never seen a better opportunity to put things into perspective.

Never seen a better opportunity to put things into perspective.

"A website which tracks homicides from all causes in D.C."

If you you're genuinely interested in fixing a problem, rather than characterizing the problem to fit a solution you already have in mind, you look at the big picture.

The big picture is, that there are roughly 100 million gun owners in America and in possession of roughly 300 million guns, which fire over a billion rounds annually. The things you link, sure they identify that theres a problem, but the big picture shows it isn't the guns. If it was, we'd have 1000 times the gun related homicide/accidents we have now, at a minimum.

To deny that, is to deny reality, much like the anti-alcohol folks blaming the alcohol for the gang violence back in the 30s rather than laying it at the feet of prohibition where it correctly belonged. Cozy company for the reality deniers, that.

[Loudly]

108. Translation: Guns are not responsible for gun deaths.

I guess I have a lot to learn about denying reality.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

109. Responsibility...

...is not an attribute of an inanimate object. Plain and simple.

[Loudly]

110. And the weather is not responsible for my frozen nuts.

It's my stubborn refusal to remain indoors.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

111. I would say...

...don't put all your nuts in one basket but.... :hmm:

[friendly_iconoclast]

113. It is if one believes in animism, as sharesunited/Loudly does...

[beevul]

128. They certainly don't pull the trigger by themselves.

The ONLY way you can dump it all on guns, is to ignore completely, the overwhelming 99.8 percent of gun owners - roughly 100 million people - that aren't shooting people or committing gun crimes.

Like I said, it isn't the guns. If it was, we'd have 1000 times the gun related homicide/accidents we have now, at a minimum.


But we don't.

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. Do you have functional hands? Then you have "convenient means of depriving others...

...of their genuine rights". You ARE aware that murder and assault existed long before
guns ever did, correct? And then there's this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/03/arts/did-knives-forks-cut-murders-counting-backward-historians-resurrect-crime.html

Did Knives and Forks Cut Murders?; Counting Backward, Historians Resurrect Crime Statistics And Find the Middle Ages More Violent Than Now

By ALEXANDER STILLE
Published: May 3, 2003


In 1939, at one of civilization's lowest points, a little-known Swiss sociologist, Norbert Elias, published a book called ''Über den Prozess der Zivilisation'' (''On the Civilizing Process'') with a strange and unlikely thesis: that the gradual introduction of courtly manners -- from eating with a knife and fork and using a handkerchief to not spitting or urinating in public -- had played a major part in transforming a violent medieval society into a more peaceful modern one.

Hitler invaded Poland that year, and Elias's book was consigned to obscurity. It was not published in the United States until 1978 (with the title ''The History of Manners''). But since then his seemingly eccentric thesis has been revived, and Elias has posthumously become the theoretical guru of a field that did not exist in 1939: the history of crime. It was then that pioneering historians began to do what most historians had thought impossible: create crime statistics for eras that did not systematically keep crime data.

''The Elias theory got revived through the statistical approach to history,'' said Elizabeth Cohen, a historian at York University in Toronto who has written extensively on crime in Renaissance Italy.

Although there were no national statistics centuries ago, some historians discovered that the archives of some English counties were intact back to the 13th century. So in the 1970's they began diligently counting indictments and comparing them with estimated population levels to get a rough idea of medieval and early modern crime rates. Historians in Continental Europe followed suit and came up with findings that yielded the same surprising result: that murder was much more common in the Middle Ages than it is now and that it dropped precipitately in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Something very important changed in Western behavior and attitudes, and it stood much prevailing social theory on its head. ''It was very surprising because social theory told us that the opposite was supposed to happen: that crime was supposed to go up as family and community bonds in rural society broke up and industrialization and urbanization took hold,'' said Eric H. Monkkonen, a professor of history at the University of California at Los Angeles and the author of several works on the history of criminality. ''The notion that crime and cities go together made emotional sense, particularly in America, where at least recently crime is higher in cities.''

[rrneck]

63. Good book.

The Better Angels of our Nature

http://stevenpinker.com/publications/better-angels-our-nature

We’ve all had the experience of reading about a bloody war or shocking crime and asking, “What is the world coming to?” But we seldom ask, “How bad was the world in the past?” In this startling new book, the bestselling cognitive scientist Steven Pinker shows that the world of the past was much worse. With the help of more than a hundred graphs and maps, Pinker presents some astonishing numbers. Tribal warfare was nine times as deadly as war and genocide in the 20th century. The murder rate of Medieval Europe was more than thirty times what it is today. Slavery, sadistic punishments, and frivolous executions were unexceptionable features of life for millennia, then suddenly were targeted for abolition. Wars between developed countries have vanished, and even in the developing world, wars kill a fraction of the people they did a few decades ago. Rape, battering, hate crimes, deadly riots, child abuse, cruelty to animals—all substantially down.

How could this have happened, if human nature has not changed? What led people to stop sacrificing children, stabbing each other at the dinner table, or burning cats and disemboweling criminals as forms of popular entertainment? The key to explaining the decline of violence, Pinker argues, is to understand the inner demons that incline us toward violence (such as revenge, sadism, and tribalism) and the better angels that steer us away. Thanks to the spread of government, literacy, trade, and cosmopolitanism, we increasingly control our impulses, empathize with others, bargain rather than plunder, debunk toxic ideologies, and deploy our powers of reason to reduce the temptations of violence.

With the panache and intellectual zeal that have made his earlier books international bestsellers and literary classics, Pinker will force you to rethink your deepest beliefs about progress, modernity, and human nature. This gripping book is sure to be among the most debated of the century so far.

[Loudly]

66. Not without getting blood all over yourself.

No comparison to guns in terms of (1) convenience, (2) lethality, (3) multiple victims and (4) evading culpability / arrest / punishment.

[friendly_iconoclast]

112. Yet we have fewer murders today than back when it was "up close and personal"

[Loudly]

114. Hooray for survivability.

Here, this is for you.

http://www.kansas.com/2014/03/25/3366736/arrest-made-in-west-wichita-shooting.html

[friendly_iconoclast]

116. More like "Hooray for declining violent crime rates"

That inconvenient truth doesn't fit your worldview, does it?

In any event, I'm surprised you used that link-isn't the headline inaccurate?
Wasn't the gun arrested for taking over McMillan's mind and forcing him to shoot people?

McMillan has been arrested three times since January and charged with misdemeanor domestic violence in Wichita Municipal Court, Reynolds said. In one of those incidents, he fired a gun inside the house.

The Eagle seems to have left out the part where he claimed the gun made him do it.

Really, Shares- you need to work on getting better sources for your claims of spectral
motivation...

[Loudly]

117. His decision-making process was obviously affected by how handy the gun was.

Guns are for settling personal grievances and commencing crimes.

Oh, and generally lashing out as evidenced by dad's shooting the 5yo.

[friendly_iconoclast]

119. No doubt the situation would have been better if dad hadn't had a gun

Oh, wait...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nsa-member-charged-beating-adopted-3-year-old-son-death-article-1.1619223

I'm sure you'll sleep better knowing that young Madoc O'Callaghan wasn't shot to death,
as beating deaths are apparently less fatal than death via gunshot...

[Loudly]

121. Thank you for not muddying the waters with some claim

of a pretend Constitutional "right" in this sad case.

[friendly_iconoclast]

122. What 'pretend Constitutional "right"' might that be, Shares?

While you mull over that question, do remember: Repetition is not a marker for validity,
in law, logic, or rhetoric- if it was, Emanuel Bronner would be accounted a great philosopher
rather than an exceptionally verbose soapmaker...

[uncommonlink]

30. Highly dangerous if used irresponsibly

whereas a pathogen is highly contagious and can infect others in the area.

[SQUEE]

36. next we gun owners are to be labeled as untermenschen?

to label an opposing view point as a disease is the tool of bigots.

[gejohnston]

3. I oppose any ban on speech, but

unless the doctor is knowledgeable about firearms and how to handle them safely, they shouldn't for the same reason a firearms instructor should not give medical advice. If they talk about the risk, any reference to the discredited (43-2.7 times more likely) Kellerman "study" would be unethical.

BTW, did you know AMA also opposed Medicare?

[CreekDog]

5. but you talk about gun safety all the time and you don't have the medical background to talk

about the medical aspects of gun safety.

why are you talking then? why not stop.

[gejohnston]

8. there are no medical aspects of gun safety

and you have no idea what my background is or isn't.

[CreekDog]

9. there are no medical aspects when a person is shot?

well i don't know you're background, but you obviously don't have any certification in any medical field.

[gejohnston]

13. that's actually a different issue

The medical aspect is what the bullet does once it hits the body. Beyond the basic hemoraging and shock wave the bullet causes, which the patient already knows from grade school physics, what is there to explain? Accidental gun shots are very rare.
Most are suicides, which requires intervention before it happens. After that comes criminal acts and self defense.

[CreekDog]

15. so it's not a gun issue, it's a bullet issue?

i used to wonder why you so rarely posted outside the gungeon.

that is about the dumbest post i've read on here, ever.

[gejohnston]

16. no,

I'm saying the doc should stick to what he knows. People who talk about stuff they know nothing about to people who do lose credibility.
I take it you don't read your own posts?

[justhanginon]

22. Perhaps the doctors could

talk about and explain the damage a bullet entering the human body body causes and let the person he is talking to infer where the bullet might have emanated from and thus take steps to prevent that for, happening.

[gejohnston]

24. which means?

how about providing the same advice he or she would for swimming pools, since more people die of accidental drowning than accidental/negligent gunshot wounds? I'm sure many casual gun owners are not aware of gun safes on the market that can secure a loaded pistol, but still allow ready access in the event of home invasion. If I were a doc, I would hand out information on them without even asking if they own a gun or not, along with swimming pool safety, keeping small kids from cleaning chemicals, the poison hotline, etc.
Beyond that, 2/3 are suicides. I can see suicide prevention measures if needed. Next is criminal activity, usually by people who don't have them legally to begin with. Next are justifiable homicides. While one can take steps to not being in the wrong place at the wrong time (like not going to ATMs and gas stations in the middle of the night), and making your house a harder target, prevention isn't always possible.

[CreekDog]

26. are you saying the patient should infer where the bullet has come from?

the patient has no expertise in inferring where the bullet has come from.

the only people who should talk about guns, bullets, where bullets go and go to are people with the proper number of certifications from the NRA.

and those with stupid medical degrees and knowledge of physics should just shut the heck up.

[Straw Man]

25. Gun safety is about not getting shot.

so it's not a gun issue, it's a bullet issue?

i used to wonder why you so rarely posted outside the gungeon.

that is about the dumbest post i've read on here, ever.

Safety issues are not medical issues. Can you see the difference?

Do doctors ask people whether they wear seatbelts in the car? Do they discuss the importance of wearing flotation vests while boating? Do they ask whether people have a swimming pool and what kind of fencing it has?

No. Because that would be ... dumb.

[CreekDog]

45. so you're saying if someone gets shot by a gun, they shouldn't go to the hospital

because it's a safety issue not a medical issue.

wow, good choice of screen name, you really live up to it!

[blueridge3210]

57. Reading comprehension fail

Clearly nothing was said about not seeking medical treatment if shot, as gun safety has clearly failed. Power tool safety is about not being injured by said tools; if injured one would seek medical treatment at that time. Thus, safety is not a medical issue as such.

[Straw Man]

59. Don't be ridiculous. And pay close attention to the word order.

Last edited Mon Mar 24, 2014, 09:13 PM - Edit history (2)

Gun safety is about not getting shot.

Safety issues are not medical issues. Can you see the difference?

so you're saying if someone gets shot by a gun, they shouldn't go to the hospital

because it's a safety issue not a medical issue.

I guess you can't see it. Let's try this again.

I'm saying that if you want to learn how to store and handle guns safely, you don't ask a doctor. Similarly, if you have a gunshot wound, you don't call an NRA instructor. You call 911.

Is that simple enough for you?

[Lizzie Poppet]

71. No, it's that once someone is shot, the gun safety aspects become irrelevant.

Gun safety is an educational issue. Gunshot wounds are a medical issue. There is no reason to suppose a person qualified to deal with the latter has any expertise whatsoever with the former.

[CreekDog]

72. speaking of your background, I'd like to ask whether you're a liberal or conservative

because your last 250 posts, 248 of them were in this gungeon, posting to the right of Obama's position on guns.

perhaps you are liberal but just no issue is important enough to post about except to oppose the president's gun policies from the right.

[gejohnston]

74. in a nutshell

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=140211
I edited to bold the important part.
Yes I am a liberal. Diane Fienstien is a progressive, but she isn't a liberal.
I don't view it as either "right" or "left". Former Australia prime minister John Howard opposes any private gun ownership. I guess you would assume that is to the left of Obama, but he is a neo-con and very right of center. Nixon would be to the to the left of Obama using your logic. Rupert Murdoch and Bill Kristol have the same view on guns as Obama. If I use your logic, am I free to ask or assume that you are a neo-con?

I take each issue on its own merits. I have yet to see a gun control advocate make a logical rational argument. A lot of appeal to emotion and bigotry, that's it.
It isn't a matter of importance, it is a matter of having something to say that adds to the conversation.
Since the ToS says Democrats that are center to left, I could be on the center.

[CreekDog]

76. you said you take each issue on its merits, but you don't actually post on other issues

you really, really care about liberal issues, you just only post on conservative ones, and from the right side, politically.

and i'm not saying that's wrong.

you can be conservative, that isn't the issue.

i'm just asking because i don't want to invest/waste my time arguing with someone so far from me politically that it's pointless to try to get to some agreement here with them.

[gejohnston]

79. you obviously didn't read the link

Had you taken the time, you would find the answer in the first paragraph:

Also, if I don't have anything of value to add in GD or any of my subscriptions I read, I don't say it. If I do, I do. I'm not a one liner kind of guy. If a post in GD mentions something about something stupid Bachman said, I don't type "what an idiot" although I would be thinking it simply because I don't think it would add anything to the conversation.

That is your answer. I read through them while drinking morning coffee. If I have something to add, I do. If I don't, I don't. For example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024721955
Since everyone there agrees that whoever came up with that rule has their head up their ass, I don't feel compelled to say the same thing in my own words.

There are a lot of liberals who are not for gun control, and there are a lot of right wingers, like Howard and Kristol, who are.

you can be conservative, that isn't the issue.

Actually, that is

i'm just asking because i don't want to invest/waste my time arguing with someone so far from me politically that it's pointless to try to get to some agreement here with them.

I doubt we disagree on much other than guns.

[CreekDog]

85. you just never have anything to add on any issue but guns

and it's not that you just post when you disagree on a gun issue, you post all kinds of responses.

it's not that we post on everything under the sun at DU.

but to post only on one narrow topic here, while spending so much time here. it just gives the impression that's the only reason you're here and it's to disagree from the right.

it's just not credible to say, "oh yeah, i'm liberal on almost any issue, but i only post about guns and i happen to be conservative on those..."

[gejohnston]

86. actually I do,

and have. Just not recently. Besides, what business is it of yours?
on edit: is it liberal to make, often false, generalizations on about someone posts on a board? That's like assuming ones politics based on a cherry picked selection of books read on Facebook.

[CreekDog]

89. I'm just trying to understand you, you're saying that you're liberal and you post liberal things

not just gun posts which are conservative, but liberal things on other topics.

just not lately, like in the past 1000 posts or so.

just, nothing liberal has come up worth commenting on.

it's not like you've been busy, you've been here constantly, and it's not like there's nothing liberal to comment on...

it's just that those issues don't motivate you to post, only issues relating to guns and posting to the right of the president on those issues.

but you're a liberal, really, truly. even though your posts are different, your true politics are actually the opposite of what you post.

hey, i can believe that. well, i can try...

[gejohnston]

90. actually, I am busy

I multi task a lot. If you didn't grasp what I said about "adding to the conversation beyond 'me too'" I can't help you. Also, understanding only comes after accepting something on its own terms. Once you do that, you will understand it without my help. Since I don't buy into the right/left paradigm, saying that my opinion on something is to the right or left of anyone is meaningless.

[gejohnston]

80. post script

Bill O'Reilly being himself. Heavy weapons are crew serviced weapons like heavy machine guns, artillary, mortars, etc. The ATF does have to be informed, and their permission asked. That is also true if it is a real AK.

[SQUEE]

75. Aaaand there it is.

Who are you to be checking peoples bona fides?

CreekDog, you're funnier than Hoyt.

[friendly_iconoclast]

118. They're merely the latest self-appointed zampolit/witchfinder/inquisitor...

...to wander into the Gungeon to chastise us heretics.

Like their predecessors, they're not actually part of the management
here at DU and have a rather elevated opinion of their own eloquence...

[HockeyMom]

31. Give out gun safety info to every parent

Don't even have to ask whether they own a gun personally. How to safely store meds, cleaning solutions, outlet covers, and guns. Print all this info out to every parent. Don't personally own a gun? Then they can just ignore the gun info and not even read it.

Don't need a conversation at all, about anything.

[Straw Man]

40. I agree with you 100%.

Providing info gets the job done without intruding on anyone's privacy.

[SQUEE]

33. Ya'll are so cute when you think you have a plan.

No really, it's quite obvious.

And I oppose laws that would bar doctors from discussing my fishing trip last week, and what my tire set up is on my Audi, and a proper Ph for my fishtanks. So it stands to reason I would oppose a bar on conversation about gun safety.

[CreekDog]

43. who is "you all"?

[SQUEE]

48. Dunno, maybe we can have a push poll..

Work it out together....

[CreekDog]

56. I realize that you're deeply offended when you're asked on DU what your political position is

...on this or that subject.

i realize you joined DU to be free of having to post about politics or political issues, especially not having to reveal your ideology.

my heavens.

[SQUEE]

69. Not offended, not even a little.

Amused by amateurs and bigots, allowed to spew hate and lies? yes very much.

I answered your question, i always answer the questions put to me, you and the majority of the banners? It has always struck me how much bigots are also hypocrites.
But go ahead and tell me again how much you care for the bloody victims you wave about to support your hatred...

[beevul]

37. "Are you, or have you ever been, a communist". N/T

[CreekDog]

38. is a lame attempt to compare asking your opinion with McCarthyism

[beevul]

62. Yeah right.

Last edited Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:24 AM - Edit history (1)

Yeah right.

You asked because you genuinely care about this group and its members.

Like I said, why bother being cute? Everyone knows what you're up to. You aren't getting any deniability here, let alone the plausible kind.

You're not fooling anyone.


I'll just bet you has a sad, that you don't have host control of this group, or a buddy with a finger on the block button like in bansalot.

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. Remember, they *have* to post here- the other group gets far less traffic

That's actually a good thing, imo- they get to not be surrounded by yes-men, and we get
to tear their flimsy arguments into shreds.

It's both amusing and sad, sorta like the Jets practice squad taking on the Seahawks while believing
they won the AFC...

[beevul]

65. Meh...that group is nothing more than...

Meh...that group is nothing more than a crudely fashioned pointy stick intended to poke pro-gun people in the eye.

I read over there fairly regularly, and the amount of untruth, false narrative, false aspersions cast, nasty innuendo, and just plain hate, exceeds that of any forum I have ever seen.

Its definitely both amusing and sad, but I'd say the scale tips well to the side of sad. Not a single one of the so called gun control supporters speaks up when theres a lie told, or an undue aspersion cast...they just pat each other on the back and yuk it up. It speaks to the decency of the people in the pro-more-control camp, IMO.

But then, that just galvanizes me more, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

Every time I see that crap over there, I start writing letters in multiples of two - one for me, and one for the other half. She detests gun grabbers even more than I do.

[SQUEE]

91. Odd you should bring up McCarthy,

As someone going for the coveted tail gunner Joe badge here in this very thread....

I continue to find your hypocrisy humorous.

[CreekDog]

96. and like McCarthy, I have ruined lives how?

[beevul]

97. Now you're only arguing about the degree...

Now you're only arguing about the degree to which your behavior resembles McCarthyism, via the harm done.

I'd score that as an admission that you know what you're doing.

[friendly_iconoclast]

120. I'll gladly stipulate that Creek Dog is no Joe McCarthy,...

...since McCarthy, for all his vileness, actually knew how to motivate people.

[gejohnston]

129. And I can't picture Creek Dog being a

"drunken womanizer", which is how Sen Lester Hunt (D-WY) described McCarthy. Then again, Hunt and McCarthy were personal enemies.

[CreekDog]

42. it's interesting that of all the votes to support gag laws

those 3 votes represent a total of 35 DU posts.

well, to be fair, two of the voters have zero posts and one has 35 posts.

which is not to criticize, but to WELCOME TO DU!!!

[Lizzie Poppet]

44. I hope I don't sound like some Libertarian Party moonbat, but...

I hope I don't sound like some Libertarian Party moonbat, but I don't think this is a matter that falls under government purview. It's a matter between doctor and patient.

[SkatmanRoth]

46. What I oppose is a Government mandate that Doctors report the content of those conversations

The discussions between patient and doctor are privileged information, and the Government has no business knowing the content of a doctor-patient relationship.

If a doctor is required to ask me questions about my lifestyle, the answer is going to be a simple "NO" without qualifiers or explanation.

[CreekDog]

47. .

[SQUEE]

49. As I expected,

and many others as well... You can't hide it, just bubbles out.
Yup

[JoePhilly]

53. Lying to your doctor is always a great plan.

Doctors should be able to combine your answers to these questions (even if you lie) with answers from others from his practice, so long as that info remains anonymous.

This is done for statistical analysis and trends. Doctors benefit from such analytic info, and you should want your doctor to have access to the latest data on trends in such data.

[uncommonlink]

50. I don't think there should be any law barring doctors from asking about lifestyle,

and I don't mind doctors asking patients if they own guns as long as they don't mind if a patient tells them it's none of their business.

[meanit]

54. All this bullshit is about Obama's nominee for Surgeon General

right?

[Eleanors38]

55. Just an obsession with RKBA -- OP's favorite group.

[Duckhunter935]

60. yes it is

and the creek is always schooled and comes back for more

[CreekDog]

78. i got "schooled" in what?

are you confused?

[CreekDog]

124. looks like you got "schooled" in the thread below but you ran off

lacking the courage to admit your mistake.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4398709

[clffrdjk]

160. That sounds familiar.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172140458

[3catwoman3]

61. I'm a pediatric nurse practitioner...

...and have been since 1976.

In our practice, we cover all kinds of safety concerns - general childproofing, car seats, sun screen, insect repellent, bike helmets, don't go swimming alone, how to tell the difference between gagging and choking, exotic travel, smoking, alcohol, sex, and yes, guns.

I ask families, very politely, near the end of the safety discussion, if there is any access to weapons in their home or anywhere else the child usually go - grandparents, aunts/uncles. My goal is to have parents think about it, and to make every effort to be sure there will be no sad stories in the paper about their children. I further suggest that it can be a good conversation to have with the parents of their kids' playmates. If the kids are old enough, I also tell them that if a friend ever offers to show them a gun, they should go home immediately.

Families have never seemed offended by my asking. No one has ever declined to answer. No one has told me to mind my own business. Many have thanked me for raising the question. Whether or not they are telling me the truth, who knows, but I think most of them are most of the time. I do not ask about what is owned or where it is kept. I am not collecting data to turn over to any government agency. I have never refused to care for the children of parents who do say they own guns, nor would I, nor would any of the 9 pediatricians with whom I work.

I have done this for years, and have no plans to stop.

IMO, the notion that heath care providers are engaged in some organized effort to take away people's rights to own guns is a bunch of paranoid hooey.

[Token Republican]

141. Its not paranoid if

they really are out to get you

Seriously though, what you say is reasonable in theory. The problem is it doesn't match the practice.

By and large, I bet that most practitioners approach the subject professionally, and only inquire about guns in the same way as they do about other safety concerns. There's nothing wrong with that. Nor do I think that anyone is accusing health care providers as individuals are part of some organized effort to ban guns.

But I've come to learn over the years that guns are different in politics, and those who are pressing for a ban will use any means necessary to achieve that. The latest trend is the push to classify the mere existence of guns as a health hazard. That's a fundamental different approach.

This means that anti gunners are attempting to use health care providers to push anti gun agendas.

There's at least one law on the books and a couple pending that violate HIPPA when it comes to gun ownership.

[Inkfreak]

68. Weird, I can't imagine my Dr. cares if I own one (nt)

[DustyJoe]

77. Just say No

Treat a question of this nature the same way you treat the question they always ask. Are you taking any illicit drugs ? Just say No.

[Jgarrick]

81. I can't imagine how the need to wear eye and ear protection when shooting would even come up

when visiting my doctor, but if he feels the need to point it out, more power to him!

[spin]

88. I often discuss firearms and target shooting with my doctors and dentists. ...

Several are hunters or target shooters.

I have used the discussion of firearms with a couple of doctors to successfully avoid their tendency to stick a finger up my ass to check my prostate gland.

I see no problem with a doctor discussing firearm safety with me or telling parents how important it is to secure firearms in their home so that young children can not find and play with them. However I do oppose recording the fact that I own firearms in my medical records. Eventually our medical system will move to electronic health records.

Electronic health record

An electronic health record (EHR) is a systematic collection of electronic health information about an individual patient or population.[1] It is a record in digital format that is theoretically capable of being shared across different health care settings. In some cases this sharing can occur by way of network-connected, enterprise-wide information systems and other information networks or exchanges. EHRs may include a range of data, including demographics, medical history, medication and allergies, immunization status, laboratory test results, radiology images, vital signs, personal statistics like age and weight, and billing information.

The system is designed to represent data that accurately captures the state of the patient at all times. It allows for an entire patient history to be viewed without the need to track down the patient’s previous medical record volume and assists in ensuring data is accurate, appropriate and legible. It reduces the chances of data replication as there is only one modifiable file, which means the file is constantly up to date when viewed at a later date and eliminates the issue of lost forms or paperwork. Due to all the information being in a single file, it makes it much more effective when extracting medical data for the examination of possible trends and long term changes in the patient.

Privacy concerns

***snip***

Privacy concerns in healthcare apply to both paper and electronic records. According to the Los Angeles Times, roughly 150 people (from doctors and nurses to technicians and billing clerks) have access to at least part of a patient's records during a hospitalization, and 600,000 payers, providers and other entities that handle providers' billing data have some access also.[56] Recent revelations of "secure" data breaches at centralized data repositories, in banking and other financial institutions, in the retail industry, and from government databases, have caused concern about storing electronic medical records in a central location.[57] Records that are exchanged over the Internet are subject to the same security concerns as any other type of data transaction over the Internet...emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_health_record

If the fact that I own firearms can be found in my medical records it might lead to an increase in the cost of my healthcare insurance and in some cases make obtaining such insurance more difficult. It might also be used as a de facto form of registration.

I also feel that a doctor should never be allowed to deny treatment to a patient based solely on the fact that he/she owns firearms. Nor should a pediatrician deny care to a child because the parent or parents are gun owners. Of course no good doctor would ever do so. However I see no problem if the doctor expresses his intense dislike of firearms to his patients. My doctors have never feared expressing their views that they find problems with my lifestyle that it would be wise for me to correct.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. If they can ban this subject, they can ban abortion discussion by the same mechanism.

Fuck the NRA on this one. It's a stupid and probably unconstitutional law anyway.

[Token Republican]

94. excellent point

I hadn't thought of that implication.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. It's one of my case examples of Republican hypocrisy.

Their eyes light up when I mention the idea of a ban on doctors discussing abortion with their patients. Then I point out this issue, and their shit collapses in on itself.

Sometimes I think I exist just to crush souls...

[Token Republican]

99. Soulcrushing AtheistCrusader

has a nice ring to it plus a touch of irony

A good way to test a proposed law or rule is apply it to an issue that you support, and see if it still seems like a good idea. Another approach is to see how comfortable someone is with a proposed law that would be enforced when the other party is in power.

[beevul]

98. No laws are required.

Doctors should be free to ask, and patients equally free to tell them its none of their business.

[Niceguy1]

102. if I want firearm

Safety advice I would to to a firearm safety instructor, if I want medical advice I would go to my doctor.

Doctors need to stick to medicine and leave the firearm advice to the experts.

[AtheistCrusader]

147. Firearm experts are of little use

once little Timmy has removed a chunk of his brain with someone's unsecured pistol.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

104. In the interest of the 1A, yes. There are numerous...

...court decisions concerning prior restraint.

What batch of nummies wants to makes laws concerning topics of conversation?

[CreekDog]

106. 4 people here

and Florida actually passed a law like this and the NRA supported it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

107. The Florida law...

...bars doctors from even asking parents whether they have a gun in the home, unless the doctor has a "good faith" belief that it is "relevant to the patient's medical care or safety." (according to HuffPo)

[CreekDog]

134. 4 people here

including 2 that have zero posts.

that was the post you were responding to.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

139. Your OP...

...linked to Business Insider which linked to MedPageToday which has the excerpt below. Numerous posters have responded regarding the Florida law and the doctor who started the controversy that you choose not to discuss.

Gun Safety

The AMA adopted a policy opposing restrictions on doctors being able to talk to patients about firearm safety, including how to safely store guns so kids won't find them.

In May, the Florida state legislature passed a bill that made it illegal for pediatricians and other physicians to ask patients or their parents whether they have guns in their home. Gun-rights advocates contended that such questions are an invasion of patients' privacy and an infringement of Second Amendment rights.

Pediatric groups have recommended that physicians ask parents whether they keep guns at home, and discuss gun safety with those that do in order to prevent shootings involving children. In 2009, according to the CDC, nearly 400 children younger than 15 were killed by firearms. Under the law, doctors would have faced a $500 fine for inquiring about gun ownership and recording it in a patient's medical record.

In September, a federal judge in Florida declared the law unconstitutional.

The AMA's new resolution, which also was introduced by the California delegation, officially opposes any laws placing restrictions on gun safety discussions from occurring between physicians, patients, and their families, and says that doctors should be free to have firearm safety conversations during office visits.

I have no problem with folks who "support passage any law" they happen to like. I include laws favoring gun-control in that category. Having free speech is a right. You OP implies that you have a problem with such thinking. People have problems with many aspects of proposed laws. Sam Adams called it an "animating contest of freedom". That's what it's all about; having a say and taking part.

I sincerely applaud anyone for taking their side of an issue to their friends, family, neighbors and, especially, to their elected officials. Without discussion and debate...

...where are we but uninformed sheep.

I one breath you abhor gagging doctors and in the next you criticize folks for voting honestly in your poll.

Here's my poll: Are you for or against the First Amendment? (This has about as much to do with this group's SoP as your OP.)

[CreekDog]

143. two of those answering that way have zero posts

if you'd like more posters like them and fewer like me, then suit yourself.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

151. Puzzling but...

"if you'd like more posters like them and fewer like me, then suit yourself"

I'd really prefer that everyone (and I do mean EVERYONE), liberals, conservatives, uptight doctors, union workers, single moms, LGBT folk, farmers, bakers and candlestick makers and especially you, here and now, be heard from. I'd like everyone to at least listen to what others have to say and respect the individual even if they can't go along with that person's ideology.

Have a nice night.

[CreekDog]

152. what you want is not in keeping with the rules

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

i don't know why you want me or the rest of us to have DU used to communicate conservative ideas.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

153. How about this

Let's stop needing to group all ideas into either liberal or conservative pigeon holes. Most folks are secure enough to let their daughters play baseball and play with trucks and to let their sons try knitting or crafts of various kinds.

Clearly many democrats own firearms and respect the RKBA.

Labeling me a wingnut, right-winger, teabagger... says more about you than it does about me.

FWIW, a few more replies from you may make my case.

[CreekDog]

155. no, how about you acknowledge the rules and stop trying to negotiate new ones?

it's one thing to be a maverick, you are that, no doubt, but you don't get to rewrite the rules.

[oneshooter]

157. Why don't you uphold the rules?

As Host.

Statement of Purpose for the General Discussion forum:

Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.


Status of "big news" exceptions:

There are currently no special exceptions.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

159. Maybe the gander...

...doesn't like the kettle.

[beevul]

161. Thats going to leave a mark. N/T

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

158. Have a nice night

Maybe tomorrow.

[aikoaiko]

123. The AMA should oppose doctors who deny services to patients who don't want to talk about guns

[CreekDog]

125. can you name one instance where that has happened?

i can name one instance where a law like this was passed and applied to thousands of doctors in a state.

can you even name one doctor who did what you described?

[aikoaiko]

126. Dr. Okonkwo in Ocala, FL

http://www.ocala.com/article/20100723/news/100729867?p=1&tc=pg

[friendly_iconoclast]

127. You've asked that twice before, and were answered both times

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172140608#post21

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172140608#post23


Might I suggest a refreshing cup of maté?

[AtheistCrusader]

146. Why?

[littlewolf]

131. wife went to the clinic and was asked this and told them

it was none of their business. they said they had to ask it,
wife replied "perhaps but I do not have to answer it."
and that was the last it was said. they treating the wife
and she has gone back several times, they have never asked again.

[3catwoman3]

154. So, whose job should it have been to talk to the parents of this dead 2 year old?

From Kentucky, just about a year ago -


2 year-old shot by brother, 5


New story: Police: 'Too early to know' about charges in death of 2-year-old shot by brother, 5

A 5-year-old boy who was playing with a .22-caliber rifle accidentally shot and killed his 2-year-old sister in Cumberland County on Tuesday afternoon, according to a news release from the state police.

The shooting happened just after 1 p.m. at a home on Lawson's Bottom Road.

The 2-year-old was taken to Cumberland County Hospital, where she was later pronounced dead. An autopsy has been scheduled for Wednesday.

Cumberland County Coroner Gary White identified the girl as Caroline Sparks.

He said the children's mother was at home when the shooting occurred, and the gun was a gift the boy received last year.

"It's a Crickett," he said. "It's a little rifle for a kid. ...The little boy's used to shooting the little gun."

White said the gun was kept in a corner, and the family did not realize a shell had been left in it.

He said the shooting will be ruled accidental.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/04/30/2621458/5-year-old-boy-accidentally-shoots.html#storylink=cpy

........................................................................................................................

The bolding above is mine. There are any number of other links to this story. In one of them, the above official said, "It's just one of those crazy accidents." Like hell it is. Those parents chose to give their 4 year old a rifle for his birthday, and a year later, his sister is dead because they "didn't realize it was loaded." They are the parents. It was their responsibility to know, and to keep the damn gun where the kids couldn't get at it.

Stories like this are why I ask parents about access to firearms at their kids health and wellness videos, and why I will continue to do so. I do not have to be a gun safety expert to address this situation.

[gejohnston]

156. I see what you are saying

I got my first rifle when I was eight. However, my mom and sister in law never allowed any of the guns to be loaded in the house (other than my brother's police revolver, even then he usually unloaded it after his shift.) Cool thing about small town Wyoming, we didn't need to lock our doors let alone keep guns loaded in the house.
They violated NRA rule number three and Canada's Firearms Centre's rule number four:

The NRA provides a similar set of rules:
ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
—The National Rifle Association, The fundamental NRA rules for safe gun handling[2]
The Canadian Firearms Program uses the concept of The Four Firearm ACTS:
Assume every firearm is loaded.
Control the muzzle direction at all times.
Trigger finger off trigger and out of trigger guard.
See that the firearm is unloaded. PROVE it safe.
—Canadian Firearms Centre, The Four ACTS of Firearm Safety

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_safety

If they are concerned about home invasions and shitty police response times, please let them know about safes like this:
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=biometric+fingerprint+safe&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=6221051847&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=7796732966101519710&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_2m2w4opgk3_b

This safety device was invented by a fellow DUer
http://www.thepistolpad.com/