State needs sensible gun laws to deal with violence

[SecularMotion]

I was talking to a doctor the other day. Somehow we got onto the intake forms you fill out when you have an appointment. It includes questions about your health history, smoking and drinking -- but also whether or not there are guns in your house. Why does the doctor care about guns and whether I own a gun? As it turns out, gun ownership can be a health hazard.

The American Academy of Pediatrics encourages physicians to inquire about firearms. These doctors support the storage of unloaded firearms with trigger locks and in locked cabinets. Why? Because a gun at home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member or friend than a criminal. With more than 20,000 child deaths attributed to firearms since 2000, it's easy to understand why physicians have begun to ask this question.

But intake forms asking about the presence of guns in a household should take a backseat to bigger concerns about access to firearms -- particularly given the recent rash of gun violence in the Puget Sound. The guns used to murder five people in Seattle at the end of May were legally purchased guns. The gun a 9-year old boy brought to his school in Bremerton that went off and critically injured a little girl -- the owner of that gun claimed he didn't know the gun was missing, and therefore he wasn't responsible. The Bushmaster rifle that the DC sniper used to kill 10 people was purchased in Tacoma at the Bull's Eye gun shop.

So what happens when one right -- the right to keep and bear arms -- violates another right, namely the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? You can't pursue happiness if you are dead or injured. Just as there are sensible limits on the First Amendment free speech -- you can't shout "bomb" on an airplane -- there need to be sensible limits on the Second Amendment that protect citizens' right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120620/OPINION04/706209959

[Clames]

1. So what happens when...

...that right is used to protect an individuals right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

So what happens when one right -- the right to keep and bear arms -- violates another right, namely the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Author of that article violates common sense.

[Hells Liberal]

11. The author of that article making a false choice

There is no conflict at all between the right to keep and bear arms and the right to free speech.

All the 2nd Amendment does is guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. It does not prohibit laws that restrict the irresponsible or criminal usage of a firearm. People who are reckless with their weapons or who use them in the commission of a crime should be arrested and prosecuted aggressively.

But those who practice their 2nd Amendment rights without harming another person do not deserve to be harassed.

[orpupilofnature57]

52. I don't own a gun ,but I'd fight to the death

to make sure criminals and the police & military Weren't the only ones with guns.

[Remmah2]

2. We need sensible doctor control.

Maybe we should be asking doctors about their shady pasts and what thoughts go through their minds.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/07/berkeley_doctor_molest_suicide.php

https://www.google.com/#q=doctor+molest+patients&hl=en&sa=X&prmd=imvnsu&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&ei=NiH3T-q0MOK56wGn9aiBBw&ved=0CBEQqAI&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e37acff1fcf8db70&biw=1085&bih=759

[CreekDog]

3. many members of this forum want it to be against the law for a doctor to mention guns to you

by the way.

[permatex]

7. Not true

most of us have said that its a 1A issue and the dr. should be able to ask as it is a 1A issue for us to say none of their business.

[CreekDog]

8. not true, i had a thread on this not so long ago and most members supported the gag rule

against doctors regarding guns.

you are in the minority in the gun group.

[permatex]

9. Kindly provide a link to the thread and if I'm wrong then I will apologize.

but a recent thread here in the last few days shows that the majority thought that the FL. law was wrong and we applauded the U.S. District Courts permanent injunction against it.

[littlewolf]

63. wife went to the dr's last week ....

they asked her ... she told em none of your business ...
the girl behind the counter just looked at her like
"your suppose to answer the questions!" lol

[permatex]

64. Good for her.

I have no problem with a dr. asking me about firearms in the home, just like the dr. should have no problem with me telling h/she that it's none of their business.

[spin]

14. I have absolutely no problem with a doctor asking me if I own firearms ...

as I realize that firearms are dangerous items and have to be stored and used responsibly.

I often discuss firearms with my doctors as many also own firearms or are interested in joining the shooting sports.

I have discussed my ownership of such weapons with all my primary care physicians as I used to shoot on an indoor range and wished to have the level of lead in my blood tested on a yearly basis. Such a test for an adult often causes increased paperwork for the doctor as the state has concern about workplace environments that might lead to lead exposure.

My dentist was a hunter and we often discussed shooting while he was working on repairing my teeth. Admittedly the conversation was one sided as it is hard to talk when someone is drilling on one of your teeth.

I have abnormally large red blood cells and went through a lot of tests to determine why. Lead exposure and shooting could have been a contributing cause so it was discussed. My specialist told me the final results and said, "You have large red blood cells and we have no explanation for why you do." That was eight years ago and so far all is fine. I probably am just on the wrong side of the bell curve.

Firearms and shooting were the common topic with both my dermatologist when he searched my skin for precancerous lesions and my physical therapist who was helping me deal with my degenerative disc disease.

I have found that discussing firearms with my primary care physician is often an effective technique to avoid having him stick a finger up my ass to check my prostate gland. This technique doesn't always work and perhaps that's good. Fortunately I have no indications of cancer of the prostate.

Much of the aversion of gun owners for discussion gun ownership with their physician is a fear that this information might end up in the hands of their insurance company and caused increased insurance cost or might end up in the hands of the government. I feel that insurance companies aren't all that concerned about gun ownership and the government with all its data mining capacities can formulate of comprehensive list of gun owners anytime it chooses.

Discussing firearm ownership with a doctor is merely part of an ongoing method of firearm safety which is valuable for all gun owners. Sometimes experienced gun owners tend to ignore the basic safety rules and the results can be disastrous.

However I do not agree that a doctor should deny a patient treatment because he/she refuses to admit gun ownership as was the case in the "Ocala Incident" in Florida that provoked this debate. To me that is unethical and the pediatrician could have merely discussed the importance of gun safety with the mother or gave her some literature on the subject.

Judge blocks Florida law, allows doctors to ask about guns
The Associated Press
Published: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 4:23 p.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 at 4:23 p.m.


***snip***

The ‘Ocala incident'

The law arose out of the so-called "Ocala incident," in which a young mother in 2010 was dropped from a doctor's practice because she refused to answer questions about gun ownership. Her cause found its way to the Legislature, which came up with similar instances around the state that some lawmakers compared to interrogations.

The woman, Amber Ullman of Summerfield, told the Star-Banner in a July 2010 story, "Whether I have a gun has nothing to do with the health of my child."

Dr. Chris Okonkwo, a pediatrician at Children's Health of Ocala who was examining Ullman's baby, asked her about guns in the house in the course of an examination, and when Ullman refused to answer Okonkwo finished the examination and told Ullman she had 30 days to find a new pediatrician.

[HankyDub]

23. at the time of the incident I read several articles about this

"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.

Okonkwo said that during the summer, he also asks parents whether they have pools at their homes so he can advise them about water safety. And he asks young drivers whether they use their cell phones when they drive.

Okonkwo said the issue was not about whether the parents owned a gun.

He said the doctor and patient have to develop a relationship of trust and that if parents won't answer such basic safety questions, they cannot trust each other about more important health issues.

He said he respected a patient's right not to answer questions, but it was also his right to no longer treat them, and he isn't required by law to do so.

http://www.ocala.com/article/20100724/ARTICLES/7241001?p=1&tc=pg

If she refuses to cooperate with the doctor, then he certainly isn't required to serve her. I wonder if this was a story about a doctor who refused to serve a patient who refused to discuss whether she uses a cellphone while driving...would there have been a whole mess of ginned up outrage?

[spin]

33. Welcome to DU. I understand your point but ...

while it was indeed the pediatrician's right to deny treatment, I felt he mishandled the situation and consequently failed his primary patient who was the child.

He could have simply stated, "I respect your rights not to answer that question but in case you do indeed own such weapons, I would like the opportunity to explain just how important proper storage is when you have a young child in your home. It's a lot like owning a swimming pool which I also would like to discuss."

He then could have explained methods to safely store a firearm while allowing adults to have quick access to the weapon in case of an emergency. He also might have passed the mother some literature on the subject to read.

His primary goal in this situation was to protect the child and refusing treatment might have resulted in the mother visiting another pediatrician who might not have brought the subject up.

Of course the mother might have still felt this doctor was too intrusive and decided to find another pediatrician. That was her choice.

A relatively minor disagreement caused a molehill to turn into a mountain because of the actions of the Florida legislature.

[NewMoonTherian]

50. None of those things are any doctor's business. None.

No knowledge of a patient's pool-ownership or driving habits is necessary for the treatment of any conditions. A doctor who insists on knowing these things as a condition of treatment is a bad doctor. It is certainly not illegal, and shouldn't be, but it makes him a bad doctor.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

4. You're right, "You can't pursue happiness if you are dead or injured." That justifies self-defense

and sensible preparation for self-defense.

If you are otherwise concerned about making efforts to restrict gun ownership and making such anti-gun-ownership views known, why are you going to a doctor who doesn't already know your views? Is this a person other than your regular family doctor?

[slackmaster]

5. Basic gun safety should be taught in public schools

Teaching every child how to safely handle and unload the most common types of firearms would go a long way toward reducing accidental shootings.

As for violent crime, how about keeping known violent offenders locked up?

[TreasonousBastard]

6. And yet some still yak on about self-defense...

Because a gun at home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member or friend than a criminal. With more than 20,000 child deaths attributed to firearms since 2000, it's easy to understand why physicians have begun to ask this question.

[ManiacJoe]

10. I am impressed that the Kellerman study was accurately quoted.

"a gun at home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member or friend than (to kill) a criminal"

The problem with the Kellerman study was that it was not all that useful once you realized what it concluded.

When you remove the successful suicides from the count, the number comes down to "a gun at home is six (6) times more likely to be used to kill a family member or friend than to kill a criminal".

What the Kellerman study did not cover were
- the cases where someone was shot but lived (a huge number)
- the cases where no shots were fired (a huge number)

[Hells Liberal]

12. Amen, Joe!

In his studies, FSU criminologist Gary Kleck expanded the use of a gun in self-defense to include those last two scenarios you describe. Taking those into account, he found that a person who draws a gun in self defense has a 73 percent chance of escaping injury.

[Clames]

13. There you go bringing facts into this discussion.

Don't you know the anti-gun religionists hate it when people do that?

[TreasonousBastard]

15. That's better?

[ManiacJoe]

16. Yes, if "better" is defined as "less useless".

Assuming you are referencing the 6x quote.

However, both numbers are still well inside the "useless" category.

[DanTex]

22. That was Kellermann's first gun study, from 1986.

Like all studies, it had limitations, many of which have been addressed by later studies. Here's a survey article from 2011 that summarizes the evidence regarding risks and benefits of a gun in the home.

There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have a gun in the home. For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns.

However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise. The evidence is overwhelming that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes, and it appears that a gun in the home may more likely be used to threaten intimates than to protect against intruders. On the potential benefit side, there is no good evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in.

That said, for the large majority of households, having a gun in the home will not provide either health benefits or costs this year. However, for those households where having a gun or not will matter this year, the evidence indicates that the costs will widely outweigh the benefits. The benefit–cost ratio is especially adverse for women and children in the household. Indeed, after weighing the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) decided that guns do not belong in households with children:

The AAP recommends that pediatricians incorporate questions about guns into their patient history taking and urge parents who possess guns to remove them, especially handguns, from the home.

http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20of%20a%20Gun%20in%20the%20Home%202011.pdf

[Clames]

30. IANSA? Really?

Are you a Rebecca Peters puppet now?


If you were trying to quote one of the more anti-gun biased sources you could find then you did well. Poorly constructed and supported studies they cite (but well funded by the Joyce Foundation) too. If you are looking for a "wrap up" study or report then avail yourself to the CDC's Task Force CPS study on firearms laws. It'll pretty much tell you what any intelligent, objective person who has studied this discussion will tell you.

[DanTex]

42. Actually, that was a peer reviewed study.

I've posted it a few times, and so far there's always been some idiot around who doesn't know what "peer review" means, and somehow thinks that IANSA published it because the pdf file it's hosted on their website. Thanks for keeping my streak alive!

[Clames]

59. Your losing streak?

Thst will continue as long as you post your nonsense here. Sorry but "peer reviewed" doesn't men what you wish it would mean in this case. You shouldn't have slept through your science classes I guess..


Edit: and David Hemenway is as full of shit as any other extremist on the issue of guns. Not surprised you would channel someone like that at all.

[Euromutt]

48. In addition to which...

...in the case of assaultive shootings, Kellermann did not bother to determine whether the shooting was committed with a firearm kept in the household in question, or one brought in from outside.

[GreenStormCloud]

17. Violent crime has been dropping for years in WA.

And it is still dropping. So it appears that the laws are working. Let the current laws continue to work.

[sarisataka]

18. Ignorance again

One way to stop criminals from purchasing guns is to hold the vendors at gun shows liable for the criminal use of such firearms. That would put a dent in gun shows and move gun sales to gun shops where purchasers are required to undergo a background check. In 2010, a couple of state representatives introduced this legislation to do just that. What happened? Nothing. No hearings, no committee actions, no vote. The Legislature was too scared to act.

There was no point to acting. If a dealer at a show has an FFL, they have to do a NCIS check. If they are not a FFL they do not have the ability to do an NCIS check.

So once again, there is no gun show loophole

[DanTex]

19. Of course there is a gun show loophole.

Anyone who wants (from in-state) can go to a gun show and buy as many guns as they want without passing a background check. That is a huge loophole. There is no other way to describe it. The fact that people who are not FFLs can't access NCIS is completely irrelevant.

[sarisataka]

20. It applies to gun shows, houses or trunks of cars

Non-FFLs cannot do checks. The difference of a gun show is if an non-FFL sells a large quantity of guns his chance of being caught for dealing without a license increases exponentially.

A thoroughly non-peer reviewed experiment by a local left-leaning independent newspaper:
http://www.citypages.com/2010-06-03/news/testing-minnesota-s-gun-show-loophole/

[DanTex]

21. True, it's not just gun shows. But it's still a loophole. A wider loophole than just gun shows.

I still don't see what the relevance is of the fact that non-FFLs can't access NCIS.

[slackmaster]

24. If non-FFLs were given access to NCIS and held accountable for sales to prohibited parties, the...

..."loophole" of unchecked private-party sales of used firearms would become a non-issue.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. Couple that with a "safe harbor" provision for sellers that use it, and I'm all for it.

This leads me to wonder why those that go on the most about "the gun show loophole" are rather conspicuous in their silence regarding this idea...

[NewMoonTherian]

51. True. But how can we know what private seller sold the criminal the gun...

in order to hold them accountable?

[slackmaster]

57. Every gun sold in the USA since 1968 can be traced to its original buyer from its serial number

If the original buyer is not the person who sold the gun to the criminal, he or she may be able to tell investigators who the gun was sold to, and so on. Some shoe leather may have to be ablated in the process.

In some cases it won't be possible to complete the trace. Some information has been lost because private-party transfers haven't been tracked for all these decades. It's water under the bridge. At least the criminal who misused the gun has been caught, and that's the most important thing. The person who provided the gun to the criminal may or may not have been aware of the buyer's intent. Let it go.

[NewMoonTherian]

60. I agree. My main concern...

was that, after opening NICS to private sellers, there would then be a push to require that the sale be permanently recorded, or that guns be registered to their owners. As long as that isn't the case, I'd be very happy with NICS for private sellers.

[HankyDub]

25. that's why it's more properly called the "private seller" loophole

If a person wants to describe themselves as a "private seller" they can avoid all kinds of reasonable restrictions (that even the NRA supposedly support) and still do a very profitable business. Then there's the "whoops I lost 10 guns" loophole.

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. Then help open up the instant background check system to non-FFLs. You want it used, do you not?

[HankyDub]

35. i've got a feeling

that there are problems with this proposal. Mind you I'm not against it in principle, sounds like a good idea.

But what about people using the system to look up information about criminal records or mental health records for persons who aren't even trying to purchase a gun? Seems like potential for abuse right there.

Then also you will face opposition from your own side, who will claim that it is unduly intrusive to force private sellers to access NICS if they don't want to. And if you don't force people to do it, then it won't get done much of the time.

[oneshooter]

37. There is a simple answer.

"But what about people using the system to look up information about criminal records or mental health records for persons who aren't even trying to purchase a gun? Seems like potential for abuse right there."

For a NCIS check a name is given, type of weapon, and then you are given a yes/no answer. That is all, yes/no.

No other information is given out so it can not be abused.
Really simple.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

In a few states there is no call needed if the purchaser has a CHL, Texas is one of these states.

[slackmaster]

58. There would have to be some safeguards to prevent the system from being misused

For example, a post card mailed to the person whose background was checked, providing the name and address of the person who requested the check. Use for any purpose other than a firearm transaction would be a criminal offense.

[Meiko]

61. I was an FFL for over 10 years

and there is no way to abuse the system.You have to register to use it. It is password protected and everything is recorded. It cannot be used to get information on anyone.The customer fills out a 4473 then you call NICS. You give them your FFL number and password. They ask how many transactions you have and then you proceed:

Name
Place of Birth
Height/Weight/Gender
Date of Birth
SSN (Optional)
UPIN (If they have one)
Race
State of Residence
Citizenship
Misc PRefix

The only info on the gun are 3 checkboxes, can choose 1, 2 or all three of them.
They are:

Purpose ID
Sale of Handgun
Sale of Longun
Sale of Other

The operator then gives you either a proceed or denied, no reason is given. You then request the unique transaction number from the operator and record it on the 4473. The operators name and ID number can also be requested and put on the 4473 if the FFL wants to do so. The big problem I see with non FFL's using NICS is the record keeping requirement. An FFL has to keep their 4473's and surrender them when they go out of business along with what is called a "bound book" which logs all firearms acquisitions and dispositions.

[sarisataka]

29. Then this applies

TWO SENTENCED FOR DEALING FIREARMS WITHOUT A LICENSE
http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2010/04/042610-la-two-sentenced-for-dealing-firearms.html

This one is good- gun shows, full auto, 'stolen' guns:
349 guns seized at home
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29441234.html
Follow up:
Wild Rose man indicted in federal weapons case
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/113405604.html

[HankyDub]

36. so you're proving

that in fact gun shows are a marketplace for unethical persons. One conviction and one indictment? Seems like the tip of the iceberg.

[sarisataka]

47. For brevity

I only posted two. A quick google will find you 50.

My point was if you sell 50 guns from your "personal collection" and have 20 more guns "stolen" the ATF will give you a long stay in a nice Federal prison.
In any field there will be people who try to get around laws. They are called criminals and once caught are punished.

I would favor making the NCIS mandatory on all sales and failure to do such a check receive a 10 year sentence for each sale made.

[sarisataka]

26. What slackmaster said

Gun show loophole is used like some mantra pointing to this wide *wink,wink* type conspiracy to 'get around' background checks. In actuality everyone is complying with the law as it stands.

This is another case that causes the pro-2A to knee jerk every time someone says 'we need reasonable gun laws' and rip arguments to shreds as to how the proposed change is not actually reasonable.

Someone correct me but I believe the NRA even supports expanding NCIS access to private sellers

[DanTex]

38. It's a loophole.

My definition of a loophole is a technicality in the law that allows people to comply with the letter of the law while subverting its intent. For example, there is the "hedge fund tax loophole" that allows hedge fund managers to pay a 15% tax rate on their income because they get it recognized as capital gains. These people are not actually breaking the law, they are "complying with the law as it stands", in your words. And yet, it's a pretty obvious loophole, because they end up paying (much) lower tax rates then other workers who earn (much) less than they do.

In the case of guns, the intent of the law is to prevent people with a criminal record or mental health problems to buy a gun. But such people can simply go to a gun show and buy guns from a non-FFL. To me, this is a very clear and obvious loophole. It's actually very perplexing to me that pro-gunners are so insistent that it is not actually a loophole. The fact that something is technically legal doesn't mean it's not a loophole.

[gejohnston]

40. I think you are missing the point.

In the case of guns, congress voting for the law as is fully knew what they are doing. That is why it is not a loophole. If it was a true loophole, a private person would be allowed to call the NICS center to do a check. The law specifically prohibits it. Those voting for the bill knew that or at least should have had a bright staffer to point it so it could be amended.
Why is a different matter. How to fix it in a workable manner that does not violate privacy laws or the commerce clause is the real issue.

[DanTex]

41. Umm... congress votes for all laws. Are you sure you are a teacher?

Congress also voted for the hedge fund tax loophole. In both cases, I imagine that the Democrats wanted to close the loophole, and the Republicans wanted to get rid of all taxes/gun laws, and they found a "compromise". in any case, the fact that congress voted for something doesn't mean it's not a loophole.

[gejohnston]

43. no shit, I am using the technical term loophole

you are using the political buzzword "loophole". It doesn't have anything to do with either party. You seem to see things pretty black and white with no room for nuance. There is a term for that. Are you sure you are a liberal or passed the ninth grade?

[sarisataka]

46. There is no technical about it

To me, a loophole would be 'all gun sales must have a background check except gun shows where it is optional'

The law specifically prohibits private sales from doing background checks. That is a poorly written law and why I only sell to FFL dealers or persons I know as well as my own family when I am selling off a gun. Almost every gun owner I know does the same but would welcome having access to NCIS so as to open their market.
Now if you want to change the law so private sales have access to NCIS and require it for all sales, I am 100% in favor of that.

[Clames]

31. Patently false.

I purchased a rifle from a recently held gun show and I had to do a NCIS background check. Every table that was selling a firearm had someone running the checks. Your ignorance is staggering on this subject.

[ManiacJoe]

34. There is no loophole.

A loophole is an unanticipated hole in the law based on poor writing of the law.

What you are referring to is the "private seller exception" of the NICS requirement. Private sellers are specifically and purposely excluded by the law from using the NICS background checks. This is very much NOT a loophole, for any standard definition of a loophole.

"The fact" is not irrelevant, it is exactly what you are erroneously arguing about.

[Marinedem]

32. Indeed.

Then everywhere can be just like Chicago!

No thanks.

[ileus]

39. The RKBA assures the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

44. "So what...

...happens when one right -- the right to keep and bear arms -- violates another right..."

Rights, which are abstract concepts, don't have volition and are incapable of action. This is just an author (and I use that term loosely) exercising his pen given right to anthropomorphism. Nice touch though.

[rl6214]

45. And another one of your wonderful posts...with not comment

Spam away.

ETA: I discuss guns with one of my Drs all the time, usually when we are out shooting together

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. If your interested...

...the group SOP starts with the word "Discuss". It seems like an alert-worthy target to me, but I'm not up for giving the host any additional work.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

53. technically, it could be argued that the OP did start the discussion by posting an article worthy of

conversation. Although, the OP has decided to NOT join in the debate, I think some salient points have been made. It has been an interesting thread and I advocate for a broad definition of the SoP.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

54. I mostly agree.

I generally don't care for the practice of spamming an article of news with no comment and I like even less those posters who do and then just abandon the thread. It just reminds me of those who walk their dogs without a bag.

But I don't like alerting for that behavior either.

The points made here are useful.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

55. I haven't made an alert since Early January. System seems absurdly pointless to me but,

I hang around out of habit. Still some good stuff, yanno.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. Yeah

[rl6214]

62. If your what is interested...

or do you mean you are interested which would be you're?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

65. Should be the...

..."you are" option, you're.

No one expects the Spanish Grammar Inquisition!

[rl6214]

66. I know...

just messin with ya

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

67. I know...

...it's a tough job but somebody has to do it.