So I took the kid to see the pediatrician and after asking me all sorts of typical questions that doctors usually ask you when you take your kid to the doctor, the last question is "Do you have a firearm in the house?"

I ask why they are asking and they say its because they want to give me safety information if I have a gun. So I ask them, do you do that same thing with swimming pools? They say no.

WTF is that about? If pools are more dangerous to little kids than guns, why would they ask about guns? Does anyone who keep a gun in the house with a kid have ANY doubts about the bad shit that can happen? Do people who have pools have any idea about the bad shit that can happen?

And they wonder why they don't want doctors doing "impartial" research on guns.

They should give the gun and pool safety information to all regardless of whether or not it pertains to them at that particular time.

People buy guns and install pools - their status can change and logic would dictate that the information be given to all without question.

But they can't give out this information to everybody and still add the owner information into their database which is used for who knows what.

Who knows?

The question about owning a gun is normal because if it isn't properly locked up children can get a hold of them. This can be a danger if the child is young because they could accidently hurt someone or themselves with it. If the child is older(teen years) then it is a concern if they are having suicidal thoughts and because they are older they may know how to get to it whether or not you know if they do. You're peditrician just wants to make sure you're children are healthy and safe, which means they are doing their job. I've also had them ask me if my friends owned a gun(only air rifles that don't really do any dammage).

I got youngins at home. Doc has never asked if I got a biscuit. Never. None of his mind.

As a former inground pool owner that raised babies to teens with the pool in the backyard I can attest to the danger.

We had alarms and locks at the top of the doors facing the backyard.

During one 3/4 year old's birthday party I had to jump in and rescue a rather daring young neighborhood boy.

So the information about pool safety and gun safety should be freely given to all - without being questioned as to whether it pertains to that household at that point.

According to the World Health Organizations, road traffic crashes, drowning, burns, falls and poisoning are the leading causes of child death from injuries.

They should first ask about seat belts, pools/ponds, fireplaces/gas ranges, window heights/hiking/other high places, and household chemicals. For people who claim to be driven be science, their bias seems to be showing.

Kids, Guns, Water, Oh My!!
Attachments:

Doctors started asking this question within the last year or so.

My new doctor informed me that it is a question that she is "supposed" to ask but chooses not to because she understands that it is none of her business and not medically relevant.

In so many words, she told me that the question is related to a new information gathering tactic being used by the ATF (or BATF or BATFE or whatever they call themselves these days).

Big brother is watching you.

The simple response if you own a gun is to lie to the doctor. It's not really a health related question, and they have no business asking it. There's no legal obligation for you to answer this person. If a cop asks you if you have a gun in your car, then yeah, you need to answer truthfully. Not to the doc in this instance, though. If all the gun owners refuse to answer, or get upset with the doctors, then they've already garnered the database information they are looking for. So just lie.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2013 09:59PM by GettinOld.

So if you have to lie, what are you embarrased about?
Another loonie who makes all gun owners look bad.

Max V. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So if you have to lie, what are you embarrased
> about?
> Another loonie who makes all gun owners look bad.


Not a question of lying. It's a matter of a coordinated advocacy campaign on the part of anti-gun activists in an attempt to couch gun violence as a public health matter which then permits them more power to address it as such.


"According to a background briefer provided by the White House, President Barack Obama is asking doctors to help deal with guns. Here's the relevant passage:

PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS TO PROTECT THEIR PATIENTS AND COMMUNITIES FROM GUN VIOLENCE: We should never ask doctors and other health care providers to turn a blind eye to the risks posed by guns in the wrong hands.

...

Protect the rights of health care providers to talk to their patients about gun safety: Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home. Some have incorrectly claimed that language in the Affordable Care Act prohibits doctors from asking their patients about guns and gun safety. Medical groups also continue to fight against state laws attempting to ban doctors from asking these questions. The Administration will issue guidance clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit or otherwise regulate communication between doctors and patients, including about firearms."


"Rights of health care providers?" wtf? lol

But why would anyone answer anyway? I'd be tempted to answer by asking if they have a large black strap-on dildo in their house.

We have been asked this question at every well-child visit I've been to--and my oldest is 21. AND, they KNOW we have firearms in the house b/c my husband is a LEO. I think its a standard question in many clinics....

Which pediatrician asked? It is NOT a standard or relevant question. PERIOD!

I have been asked that question also. You should see the look on the doctors face when I rattle off the guns. The sub-machine gun and 12 gauge street sweeper fuck's with the doc's mind. They look at you a little different.
Then I inform the good doctor that I have a concealed carry Permit, and show her my 1911 colt.
It's a fucking riot.

down the line Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have been asked that question also. You should
> see the look on the doctors face when I rattle off
> the guns. The sub-machine gun and 12 gauge street
> sweeper fuck's with the doc's mind. They look at
> you a little different.
> Then I inform the good doctor that I have a
> concealed carry Permit, and show her my 1911
> colt.
> It's a fucking riot.


That's going in your "permanent record."

Max V. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So if you have to lie, what are you embarrased
> about?
> Another loonie who makes all gun owners look bad.


I don't have to lie, and I'm not embarrased by anything. You apparently have to troll for yor anti-gun cronies, or your lack of perspicacity is truly astounding.
Another believer in stripping people's rights.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2013 11:54PM by GettinOld.

How strange - finding boogie men where there are none.

We've been asked that question for at least a decade of taking our kid to pediatricians and have always answered it correctly and knowing why they asked it; kids get killed by guns they're not supposed to be accessing and THAT =is= relevant to a doctor responsible for kids.

Just answer the question and make sure the answer is either "No" or "Yes, they're all locked up and totally inaccessible even to an innovative teenybopper".

Sheesh.

ROFLMAO@the cowards to afraid to tell the truth about gun ownership

OHHHH!!! I'm sooo afraid:

1) doc is gonna wanna take my gun
2) gub-mint is gonna wanna take my gun
3) aliens gonna take my gun

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah aah
pic unrelated
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ROFLMAO@the cowards to afraid to tell the truth
> about gun ownership
>
> OHHHH!!! I'm sooo afraid:
>
> 1) doc is gonna wanna take my gun
> 2) gub-mint is gonna wanna take my gun
> 3) aliens gonna take my gun
>
> ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah aah
> pic unrelated

Fpr the love of God GB do you ever not have an opinion on something?

Not once have I ever been asked that question. Am I an exception? If so, why?

Pooldngr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As a former inground pool owner that raised babies
> to teens with the pool in the backyard I can
> attest to the danger.
>
> We had alarms and locks at the top of the doors
> facing the backyard.
>
> During one 3/4 year old's birthday party I had to
> jump in and rescue a rather daring young
> neighborhood boy.
>
> So the information about pool safety and gun
> safety should be freely given to all - without
> being questioned as to whether it pertains to that
> household at that point.

Another irresponsible Fairfax County parent. Why would you have a pool built before you had children. Status or stupidity?
When doctors have to make information available to parents then maybe some adults shouldn't be parents.
Pretty sad state of affairs.

Failure to answer the doctors question may result in having you and your family placed on the terrorist watch list. Dont plan on taking airline flights anytime soon.

tdts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not once have I ever been asked that question. Am
> I an exception? If so, why?


c'mon now - you REALLY think doc asked OP this question if kid or other fam member hadnt said something previous to make this doc ask that?

we arent getting FULL STORY here, people

the reason I said what I said earlier about just telling the truth: If someone like a doctor is all of a sudden asking you about a gun in the house........................and you want/wish/choose to hide that info?

YOU ARE SOUNDING LIKE COLORADO BATMAN, SANDYHOOK, WESTFIELD BOY, ETC.

Cause I know all those guys would MOST CERTAINLY have hidden gun ownership from any medical professional that would have asked the previous to their slaughters.

dunno why a medical professional would ask that question...............but I cant think of a logical reason to LIE to a medical professional............which makes me naturally question WHY someone would CHOOSE to lie to a medical professional in the first place.

My first thought would be to ask the doc WHY he/she asked the question to begin with. I notice that information was NOT asked. Big red flag to me in this thread. Who gives a fuck about swimming pools I'd rather know WTF you asked me about guns all of a sudden in a doctors office.

just sayin.................

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tdts Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Not once have I ever been asked that question.
> Am
> > I an exception? If so, why?
>
>
> c'mon now - you REALLY think doc asked OP this
> question if kid or other fam member hadnt said
> something previous to make this doc ask that?
>
> we arent getting FULL STORY here, people
>
> the reason I said what I said earlier about just
> telling the truth: If someone like a doctor is
> all of a sudden asking you about a gun in the
> house........................and you
> want/wish/choose to hide that info?
>
> YOU ARE SOUNDING LIKE COLORADO BATMAN, SANDYHOOK,
> WESTFIELD BOY, ETC.
>
> Cause I know all those guys would MOST CERTAINLY
> have hidden gun ownership from any medical
> professional that would have asked the previous to
> their slaughters.
>
> dunno why a medical professional would ask that
> question...............but I cant think of a
> logical reason to LIE to a medical
> professional............which makes me naturally
> question WHY someone would CHOOSE to lie to a
> medical professional in the first place.
>
> My first thought would be to ask the doc WHY
> he/she asked the question to begin with. I notice
> that information was NOT asked. Big red flag to
> me in this thread. Who gives a fuck about
> swimming pools I'd rather know WTF you asked me
> about guns all of a sudden in a doctors office.
>
> just sayin.................


Still trolling loser? Get a fucking job! LoLzzzzzzzzzzz


.
Attachments:

whoops sorry - hit enter
anyways, whole point is
1) OP aint being completely honest about something
2) doc got a hint from someone that somethings not 100% kosher
3) we dont have the whole full picture here
4) 5 will get you 10 that the Doc has a clue we dont on this

edit:

man, I musta butthurt you REAL BAD to get you to put on a dress and dance for me the way you do, making all these images for me :)

pic unrelated



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2013 08:17AM by Gordon Blvd.
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> whoops sorry - hit enter
> anyways, whole point is
> 1) OP aint being completely honest about
> something
> 2) doc got a hint from someone that somethings not
> 100% kosher
> 3) we dont have the whole full picture here
> 4) 5 will get you 10 that the Doc has a clue we
> dont on this
Attachments:

@gb strikes - this is true

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2013/01/22/why-doctors-should-not-ask-their-patients-about-guns/

edit: but I still think that if any NORMAL person was asked this by a doc out of the blue, the first response would be "um, why doc?" and the doc's response/answer would have been put out there as it would most certainly be useful fuel to whatever fire OP was trying to start.

Unless doc's answer was NOT useful fuel, but a commonsense answer which would put the whole thread to rest..........but I digress :) whole stort still smells fishy to me

pic unrelated



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2013 08:35AM by Gordon Blvd.
Attachments:

I saw my doctor a few weeks ago, and he asked if I had a gun. Asked if I smoked, drank, did drugs. All of those are related to health and safety. I don't care if it's the CDC asking (they do studies on causes of death and injury), the BATF asking (Congress authorized them to investigate federal crimes involving guns), or just my doctor or insurance company asking. The doctor wants to keep me healthy, and the insurance company doesn't want to pay for my hospital visit from a gun injury. All of these entities have a vested interest in whether or not you have a gun, and it isn't all about trampling on your precious rights. If you don't have a gun, you can't be injured by it.

Stop whining.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> whoops sorry - hit enter
> anyways, whole point is
> 1) OP aint being completely honest about
> something
> 2) doc got a hint from someone that somethings not
> 100% kosher
> 3) we dont have the whole full picture here
> 4) 5 will get you 10 that the Doc has a clue we
> dont on this
>
> edit:
>
> man, I musta butthurt you REAL BAD to get
> you to put on a dress and dance for me the way you
> do, making all these images for me :)
>
> pic unrelated


Still too fucking stupid to realize when you're being laughed at rather than being laughed with. Being the stupid fuck that you are, you still can't comprehend that 2nd grade butthurt memes don't cut it in the big-boy world. Now go out and get a job and try and support those fatass daughters of yours before your ex-wife takes out another restraining order bitch. LoLzzzzzzzz


Still a classic.........

.
Attachments:

> Still too fucking stupid to realize when you're
> being laughed at rather than being laughed with.
> Being the stupid fuck that you are, you still
> can't comprehend that 2nd grade butthurt memes
> don't cut it in the big-boy world. Now go out and
> get a job and try and support those fatass
> daughters of yours before your ex-wife takes out
> another restraining order bitch. LoLzzzzzzzz
>
>
> Still a classic.........
>
> .


says the guy who's only attempt at obtaining a mere SEMBLANCE of a real life is being my dingleberry

hahah ahh ah ha ha haah ha h ha ha ha haha ha ha hha

pic unrelated



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2013 09:00AM by Gordon Blvd.
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Still too fucking stupid to realize when you're
> > being laughed at rather than being laughed with.
>
> > Being the stupid fuck that you are, you still
> > can't comprehend that 2nd grade butthurt memes
> > don't cut it in the big-boy world. Now go out
> and
> > get a job and try and support those fatass
> > daughters of yours before your ex-wife takes
> out
> > another restraining order bitch. LoLzzzzzzzz
> >
> >
> > Still a classic.........
> >
> > .
>
>
> says the guy who's only attempt at obtaining a
> mere SEMBLANCE of a real life is being my
> dingleberry
>
> hahah ahh ah ha ha haah ha h ha ha ha haha ha ha
> hha
>
> pic unrelated


Gordon hating on Gordon. Even you, like all the rest of us, can't stand you. What a lozer. LoLzzzzzz


.
Attachments:

NAME NAMES! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which pediatrician asked? It is NOT a standard or
> relevant question. PERIOD!


Name names or it didn't happen!

T Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If you
> don't have a gun, you can't be injured by it.
>



Oh really?

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tdts Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Not once have I ever been asked that question.
> Am
> > I an exception? If so, why?
>
>
> c'mon now - you REALLY think doc asked OP this
> question if kid or other fam member hadnt said
> something previous to make this doc ask that?
>
> we arent getting FULL STORY here, people
>
> the reason I said what I said earlier about just
> telling the truth: If someone like a doctor is
> all of a sudden asking you about a gun in the
> house........................and you
> want/wish/choose to hide that info?
>
> YOU ARE SOUNDING LIKE COLORADO BATMAN, SANDYHOOK,
> WESTFIELD BOY, ETC.
>
> Cause I know all those guys would MOST CERTAINLY
> have hidden gun ownership from any medical
> professional that would have asked the previous to
> their slaughters.
>
> dunno why a medical professional would ask that
> question...............but I cant think of a
> logical reason to LIE to a medical
> professional............which makes me naturally
> question WHY someone would CHOOSE to lie to a
> medical professional in the first place.
>
> My first thought would be to ask the doc WHY
> he/she asked the question to begin with. I notice
> that information was NOT asked. Big red flag to
> me in this thread. Who gives a fuck about
> swimming pools I'd rather know WTF you asked me
> about guns all of a sudden in a doctors office.
>
> just sayin.................


Gordo, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Depends on what you read, and how you take it Literally.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/medicare.asp



You’re visiting a doctor because you have flu symptoms. After checking your heart, pulse and other vital signs, the doctor says, “By the way, the federal government has authorized me to ask you: What type and how many guns do you have in your home?"

Sound like George Orwell’s 1984?

No. It’s 2013.

And if President Barack Obama gets his way by executive order, doctors across the country could play a key role in his new gun control initiative.

Obama on Wednesday released 23 executive actions and orders to limit gun usage. And many already have stirred significant controversy.

Order 16, for example, might raise serious concerns with privacy advocates. The order, as summarized, states federal agencies will “clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”

In addition, a fact sheet provided by the White House with the order list elaborates: “Clarify that no federal law prevents health care providers from warning law enforcement authorities about threats of violence.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obama-guns-healthcare-doctors/2013/01/16/id/471708


A few lines in President Obama's sprawling gun control plan are stirring accusations from conservatives that the administration is trying to enlist doctors in a national campaign against owning firearms.
The easy-to-miss language was part of Obama's package of executive actions and legislative proposals that includes a new assault-weapons ban and universal background checks. The provision on doctors, though, has begun to generate just as much controversy.
"The idea that your doctor would ask you if you have firearms in your house as part of an examination of your health is repugnant," National Rifle Association President David Keene told Fox News on Thursday, accusing the administration of trying to "demonize firearms" by implying that owning them is a "health problem."
One of the 23 executive actions Obama approved Wednesday was to "clarify" that the federal health care overhaul "does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about gun in their homes."


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/17/does-white-house-plan-enlist-doctors-in-gun-control-fight/



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2013 10:18AM by Burke Brat.

liberal logic 102 Wrote:
>
>
> Gordo, what you've just said is one of the most
> insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no
> point in your rambling, incoherent response were
> you even close to anything that could be
> considered a rational thought. Everyone in this
> room is now dumber for having listened to it. I
> award you no points, and may God have mercy on
> your soul.


Christ, son - you cant even come up with an original insult? You seriously think ppl havent seen Billy Madison? Man, I wish yr dad had shoved it in harder -his apprehension at sticking it in such a diseased whore as yr mom is most CERTAINLY the cause of yr brains leaking out of her the way they obviously have............ putting up with yr inability to come up with even a basic retort is kinda sad LoLz


@any normal ppl - has anybody else been asked by a doc about gun ownership?

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> liberal logic 102 Wrote:
> >
> >
> > Gordo, what you've just said is one of the most
> > insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At
> no
> > point in your rambling, incoherent response
> were
> > you even close to anything that could be
> > considered a rational thought. Everyone in this
> > room is now dumber for having listened to it. I
> > award you no points, and may God have mercy on
> > your soul.
>
>
> Christ, son - you cant even come up with an
> original insult? You seriously think ppl havent
> seen Billy Madison? Man, I wish yr dad had shoved
> it in harder -his apprehension at sticking it in
> such a diseased whore as yr mom is most CERTAINLY
> the cause of yr brains leaking out of her the way
> they obviously have............ putting up with yr
> inability to come up with even a basic retort is
> kinda sad LoLz
>
>
> @any normal ppl - has anybody else been asked by a
> doc about gun ownership?

My doctor often asks. I'm legally blind and he is concerned for others.
I just tell him if and when it happens that the deceased said they had a gun and wanted to shoot me. The pro gunners will agree that you have a right to defend oneself.
I guesstamate four times before the police catch on.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> @any normal ppl - has anybody else been asked by a
> doc about gun ownership?


Yes. It's become a somewhat standard question that is asked now as part of a broad public health campaign. What exactly don't you understand about that even when presented with numerous examples showing that's so?

Likewise, if you're on any kind of pain meds there are a series of standard questions asked and they make even little old ladies do stuff like sign a dumb pledge saying that you're not a drug pusher and that you agree to submit to random drug testing.

I think under obamacare it is required for doctors to ask and then report to the government.

I wonder under obamacare if parental rectals are also required and then reported to the government.

the times Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think under obamacare it is required for doctors
> to ask and then report to the government.

False.

"It's the ATF."

False.

Jesus, people... See the Snopes link posted above.

Despite the intensive advertising campaign to paint the Dems as "liberal" ,the steady and continuous erosion of civil rights is perpetuated by both parties. If Bush had openly proposed the assasination of American citizens in America by any means, arrest without warrant or probable cause or warrantless wiretaps, the typical O-BOT would be outraged. Bush was /is a rent-a chimp for big money and was often portrayed in cartoons as "Curious George" the cartoon chimp. Cartoon characterizations are less necessary as photos serve the same purpose today, but Wall Street continues to prosper while 49% of Americans recieve some form of govt. support. O-Bots feel all is well allthough no substantive change is forthcoming . Repub drones react in a similar simple minded fashion when their guy wins.Wall street which finances both parties heavily laughs last and best at how easily 51% of the population can be programmed for another "historic ,landslide " election result.O-Bots fail to notice that their guy gave twice the billions to bail out his corporate sponsors and then appointed Goldman Sachs executives as Chairman of the Federal Reserve and Secretary of the Treasury.Who needs conspiracy theories when the population ,by and large ,cant see/understand what is in plain sight.
?

WOW how right you are.....blindness is politicians best friend.

blake lane 73 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Despite the intensive advertising campaign to
> paint the Dems as "liberal" ,the steady and
> continuous erosion of civil rights is perpetuated
> by both parties. If Bush had openly proposed the
> assasination of American citizens in America by
> any means, arrest without warrant or probable
> cause or warrantless wiretaps, the typical O-BOT
> would be outraged. Bush was /is a rent-a chimp for
> big money and was often portrayed in cartoons as
> "Curious George" the cartoon chimp. Cartoon
> characterizations are less necessary as photos
> serve the same purpose today, but Wall Street
> continues to prosper while 49% of Americans
> recieve some form of govt. support. O-Bots feel
> all is well allthough no substantive change is
> forthcoming . Repub drones react in a similar
> simple minded fashion when their guy wins.Wall
> street which finances both parties heavily laughs
> last and best at how easily 51% of the population
> can be programmed for another "historic ,landslide
> " election result.O-Bots fail to notice that their
> guy gave twice the billions to bail out his
> corporate sponsors and then appointed Goldman
> Sachs executives as Chairman of the Federal
> Reserve and Secretary of the Treasury.Who needs
> conspiracy theories when the population ,by and
> large ,cant see/understand what is in plain
> sight.
> ?

Sounds like your pediatrician has jumped on the crazy school shooting paranoia band wagon. My response to the pediatrician would be do you like my business and want me to keep coming here?


Damuri Ajashi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So I took the kid to see the pediatrician and
> after asking me all sorts of typical questions
> that doctors usually ask you when you take your
> kid to the doctor, the last question is "Do you
> have a firearm in the house?"
>
> I ask why they are asking and they say its because
> they want to give me safety information if I have
> a gun. So I ask them, do you do that same thing
> with swimming pools? They say no.
>
> WTF is that about? If pools are more dangerous to
> little kids than guns, why would they ask about
> guns? Does anyone who keep a gun in the house
> with a kid have ANY doubts about the bad shit that
> can happen? Do people who have pools have any
> idea about the bad shit that can happen?
>
> And they wonder why they don't want doctors doing
> "impartial" research on guns.

Yikes! Poor things riding the bus too.

Does Katie have kids? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yikes! Poor things riding the bus too.


No doubt for sure could be
Attachments:

I ride the bus by choice idiot! Do you enjoy driving your worthless spoiled offspring around?

Does Katie have kids? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yikes! Poor things riding the bus too.

Oh I guess I hurt your feelings by pointing out your fat and your job which you are so ashamed of you won't even post what it is, if it even exists is? Do you think it is smart to make jokes about running over pedestrians when you are one? Maybe you should take your dumb ass to somewhere like Mississippi, lots of dummies like yourself there and they don't believe in public transit down there either.

Tough One Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does Katie have kids? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yikes! Poor things riding the bus too.
>
>
> No doubt for sure could be

Our pediatrician regularly asks us to fill out a form to confirm info and one of the question concerns firearms in the house. The first time I left it blank and she asked about it. I simply said that I had not missed it but think it's no concern of hers. We moved on and it's never been asked again when I leave that space blank.

1) It's not a health-related issue, IMO.
2) I don't know where that info would go to.
3) It's none of their damn business, whoever "they" may be.

Case closed.

My well meaning friend mentioned that I was a bit depressed about the loss of a dear friend of ours after a long battle with cancer. She shared this at a church prayer meeting. Some idiot went home and called 911 reporting me as a potential suicide. I was awaken by the police banging on my door at 10:30pm. Two fire trucks, an ambulance and three police officers. I was like what in the world is this. When I opened the door the poor cops could see 3-4 guns setting around and started asking if I was ok, do I plan on hurting myself.

I said nope, I was actually sleeping.

Jeff z Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My well meaning friend mentioned that I was a bit
> depressed about the loss of a dear friend of ours
> after a long battle with cancer. She shared this
> at a church prayer meeting. Some idiot went home
> and called 911 reporting me as a potential
> suicide. I was awaken by the police banging on my
> door at 10:30pm. Two fire trucks, an ambulance and
> three police officers. I was like what in the
> world is this. When I opened the door the poor
> cops could see 3-4 guns setting around and started
> asking if I was ok, do I plan on hurting myself.
>
> I said nope, I was actually sleeping.

I dont think prayer meetings share stuff like addresses.............
Attachments:

This is the mentality of liberals. Liberals really think people can not be responsible and require the government to take care of everything. What you eat, what you get paid, your health, and how you raise your family, etc. I don't hate liberals, I feel sorry for them.

Reston Peds has never asked that question and if they did I would find another doctor after I go off on them. It's none of their business.

StupidLibs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is the mentality of liberals. Liberals
> really think people can not be responsible and
> require the government to take care of everything.
> What you eat, what you get paid, your health,
> and how you raise your family, etc. I don't hate
> liberals, I feel sorry for them.
>
> Reston Peds has never asked that question and if
> they did I would find another doctor after I go
> off on them. It's none of their business.

And that's the reason they ask the question.
Keep freaking out on doctors and see where your next vacation will be.
Good or bad the world is changing.

@stupid- so lets see if I get this straight
a) you are incapable of simply answering "i wish not to answer that" like a normal person?
b) you are such a coward, you cant handle a simple question without going off on the doctor?
c) you would run like a little bitch to another doctor just over one question asked to you off of a list?

This is the mentality of gun nuts. Gun nuts really can not be responsible, cannot communicate like regular ppl, will run away like little girls if they cant control a situation, etc. I don't hate gun nuts, I feel sorry for them LoLz

edit: and keep in mind - just cause someone likes, owns a gun doesnt necessarily make them a gun nut.


But if yr saying that one question about yr gun will make you put in a dress and yell like a little girl - then yeah, yr a gun nut, k? And prolly one off his meds you can control yrself in a doctors office over a question, hoss. Just an fyi



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2013 08:24AM by Gordon Blvd.

The paranoia about this is insane, IMHO.

If the government wants to take your guns, they won't be using doctor records (or answers to doctor questions) to do it.

Sheesh.

Just answer "Yes, we have at least one firearm in the house and it is thoroughly safe from being used unauthorized not only by the kids, but anyone else as well".

Of course, if you can't answer the question that way, you're a jerk whose guns SHOULD be confiscated by the government because you have created an inherently extremely dangerous environment directly for kids and indirectly for everyone else.

Parental Opinion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course, if you can't answer the question that
> way, you're a jerk whose guns SHOULD be
> confiscated by the government because you have
> created an inherently extremely dangerous
> environment directly for kids and indirectly for
> everyone else.

I'm teaching my 7 y.o. to shoot and will buy her a gun this year.
A gun which is "hers". So ami creating an environment which is
"extremely dangerous" for her?

OK, PO, let the butthurt begin!

Dad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm teaching my 7 y.o. to shoot ...

Yes, I'm considering teaching my girl to shoot, too. In fact, just last week I was thinking about how to go about doing JUST that, strangely.

> ...and will buy her a gun this year...

Though I'm not considering buying a gun for my daughter, it certainly isn't out of the question at some point. My dad bought "me" a 410 gauge shotgun when I was about 12, I think, and I certainly went hunting and used that gun for small game, as well as shooting a .22 rifle, a 30-30 rifle, and a 380 semi-auto at an outdoor range right near my daughter's current age.

> ...A gun which is "hers"...

Yes, my shotgun was "mine", too.

> ...So am i creating an environment which is "extremely dangerous" for her?

If you do not lock up the weapons so they are inaccessible, then yes, you absolutely are creating an inherently and directly dangerous environment for her and her friends and you and the rest of your family and, in general as blatantly shown by that recent incident up north, for society as well.

Now...have you figured out that gun ownership, gun training, kids firing guns legitimately, etc have nothing to do with what I've posted here or before in this thread?

Parental Opinion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The paranoia about this is insane, IMHO.
>
> If the government wants to take your guns, they
> won't be using doctor records (or answers to
> doctor questions) to do it.
>
> Sheesh.
>
> Just answer "Yes, we have at least one firearm in
> the house and it is thoroughly safe from being
> used unauthorized not only by the kids, but anyone
> else as well".
>
> Of course, if you can't answer the question that
> way, you're a jerk whose guns SHOULD be
> confiscated by the government because you have
> created an inherently extremely dangerous
> environment directly for kids and indirectly for
> everyone else.


Not a question of paranoia. It's more a matter of privacy and not participating in some idiotic, ideology-driven attempt to influence public perception re having a gun in the home. Which is exactly what it is.

If a doctor is, for example, dealing with someone who they suspect is seriously depressed or otherwise a potential danger to themselves or others, then obviously that may be a legitimate question. But that's not what this is. It's a push by the American Academy of Pediatrics and others to turn gun ownership into a public health issue which then, as a stated strategy, can provide an opportunity for greater regulation.

Parental Opinion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The paranoia about this is insane, IMHO.
>
> If the government wants to take your guns, they
> won't be using doctor records (or answers to
> doctor questions) to do it.

Yes they will, theyll track it however they can. Thats not the point anyway. The point is that the information is going somewhere, who knows where. More than likely it is being dissected in some bullshit CDC or other health journal about the dangers of guns linking it it child autism or some other bullshit like all of their gun studies are. No need to give them more data to manipulate it.

Furthermore even if the information went no where its the invasion of privacy and how Drs are being used for a political agenda. There is NOTHING about a gun that is medically relevant to why your child is at the Dr. Unless they are a hunter or a shooter making small talk theyre being used to mine information from people for political purposes.

> Just answer "Yes, we have at least one firearm inthe house and it is >thoroughly safe from being
> used unauthorized not only by the kids, but anyone
> else as well".

Why give them the information. More like just ask "how is this medically relevant"

> Of course, if you can't answer the question that
> way, you're a jerk whose guns SHOULD be
> confiscated by the government because you have
> created an inherently extremely dangerous
> environment directly for kids and indirectly for
> everyone else.

If you actually believe that not giving information to the CDC to manipulate so they can continue to try and get guns banned creates an "inherently extremely dangerous environment" then you are just a complete and utter idiot. Theres just no other way to respond to such a moronic statement really

My kids' pediatrician asks me (or the kid--and with me right there) at every check up. I just start rattling off all of the "assault rifles" and large mag pistols I've ever trained on. He doesn't know whether I'm BS'ing him or not and he never will. End of issue.

@Gordon Blvd

"@stupid- so lets see if I get this straighta) you are incapable of simply answering "i wish not to answer that" like a normal person?b) you are such a coward, you cant handle a simple question without going off on the doctor?c) you would run like a little bitch to another doctor just over one question asked to you off of a list?"

You don't get it. It has nothing to do with guns. It's a matter of privacy and respecting the patient and parental rights. If I owned a gun or guns, it's none of their business or anyone else's. The doctor is there to provide a service for which I pay for. Nothing else.

And it's not running you idiot, It's taking MY business elsewhere and I can take my tier 1 cadillac insurance to another doctor if the doctor wants to be the government's whore rather then sticking to their job. I am a consumer, I can shop for another doctor. I know the very idea of being able to make a decision without Uncle Sam kills liberals like you. To bad!





So if the doctor wants to panhandle for big brother, he will lose my business. End of story.

I think under obamacare they are required to ask all patients adult and children. If you refuse to answer I am sure they will put that down as a yes and also require further investigation by the Feds maybe an IRS audit.

It's good to see this discussion. The issue is not very important to me. Guns are here to stay and I just hope that all gun owners can be responsible.

I do wonder about the genuine fear that seems to emminate from particular gun owners. Unless you're very young or not aware of our history you'd know there's nothing to fear, in this great country, from having a right regulated a bit. The slippery slope arguement doesn't hold up very well when put in historical context. We are a moderate country where changes occur slowly and, in general, lag behind popular opinion.
I guess gun owners who understand the powerful implications that come from owning a gun and are as worried about them falling into the wrong hands as they are about their rights are just left out of the discussion.
If i can say anything it's just that, from my outside perspective, if I meant to do harm, be an evil agent, I'd probably think about aquiring weapons in Virginia. No one wants that, so how do we make it more difficult?

NAME NAMES! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which pediatrician asked? It is NOT a standard or
> relevant question. PERIOD!


I call this entire thread BS.

Name Names!

Roger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's good to see this discussion. The issue is not
> very important to me. Guns are here to stay and I
> just hope that all gun owners can be responsible.
>
> I do wonder about the genuine fear that seems to
> emminate from particular gun owners. Unless you're
> very young or not aware of our history you'd know
> there's nothing to fear, in this great country,
> from having a right regulated a bit. The slippery
> slope arguement doesn't hold up very well when put
> in historical context. We are a moderate country
> where changes occur slowly and, in general, lag
> behind popular opinion.

Since the founding of the country we have given up individual freedoms for various reasons. Once a law is on the books it is almost always their to stay. Every year more and more laws are added not taken away.

Im not saying our government is the 2nd coming of the Soviet Union, but there are at the very least some leaders in Washington right now that have a very different idea of what types of freedoms we should be allowed to have. They want one set of rules for themselves and everyone else to live by what they say is best.

What starts out as a little regulation today grows into a lot of regulation tomorrow. The governments first interest is to protect its own power not your rights. Any government is capable of turning tyrannical when given the ultimate power of citizens never questioning it and just going along with whatever it wants.

An armed citizenry does contain the governments power which is a good thing, but remember we did have internment camps in WW2. It was what it was, but the idea that our government is incapable of trampling rights and we should just trust it to know whats best for us couldnt be further from the truth.

> I guess gun owners who understand the powerful
> implications that come from owning a gun and are
> as worried about them falling into the wrong hands
> as they are about their rights are just left out
> of the discussion.

What powerful implications? Its a gun its a tool, you handle it responsibly and use it at the range or if necessary. Its not a new born baby there are no powerful implications, you dont have to nurture it so it doesnt go on a rampage.

Bad guys are going to have guns if they want them period. It really is that simple.


> If i can say anything it's just that, from my
> outside perspective, if I meant to do harm, be an
> evil agent, I'd probably think about aquiring
> weapons in Virginia. No one wants that, so how do
> we make it more difficult?

Its quite clear you dont have any sort of working knowledge of how all this stuff works. No offense but your views seem to be built upon all the bs the media is putting out there which just simply isnt true. Theyre really doing a disservice to the american public with how they are just pushing an agenda.

If you live out of state you cant buy a handgun in VA without having it transferred to a gun store in your home state, so no people from DC dont come to VA to buy a gun. They would have to become a resident of VA and then have a VA drivers license for 30 days. This idea that DC gangs are coming to VA to buy guys is a complete and utter myth.

Furthermore the idea that someone needs to have a gun to do harm is completely inaccurate. Someone that wants to do harm is going to do harm. Murders, rapes, assaults ect happen every day that have nothing to do with guns.

That said to answer your question if you want to get illegal guns off the street you need to address the issue of gangs. The guns you actually should be worried about are the illegal ones. These are almost all controlled by gang members. Gun crime is the highest in inner city gang areas and young black males are disproportionally responsible for gun crime stats as both an offender and a victim. Solve the gang issue you solve the gun issue.

Now the problem is the gang issue isnt going to go away over night. It will take a cultural shift and for young black males to start looking up to people like a Clarence Thomas or RG3 or other successful well spoken black men who have made themselves successful at what they do instead of the Lil Waynes of the world.

The other huge problem is that the good citizens of the inner city are at the mercy of the gangs. Young people join gangs for protection because no one else has the ability to protect themselves and the gangs just run the area literally. Gun bans have disarmed the area so the gangs have nothing to fear except for the police who are a reactionary force and cant be everywhere. New taxes and laws making it more expensive to buy guns also do nothing more than make sure that only well off people have the ability to protect themselves.

This could go on and on but the take away point is reduce gang power and membership and gun crime will plummet dramatically.

Your defense of the doctor's position does nothing to address the absurdity of the point that the doctor is not asking about the more dangerous item - the pool. Let me ask even more absurd, and ill-conceived questions that probably address more immediate threats to a child...

Do you smoke?
Is your IQ above 85?
Do you take you child to McDonald's?
Do you believe in creationism, intelligent design, or any other form of modern mythology?
Have you ever accessed child pornography via the Internet?
Did you pierce your child's ears without consent?
Is your income at least 300% above the poverty line?
Do you own more that 11 books? (sadly, this is the per capita average in the US)
Did you ever strike your child with a closed hand?
Has your child ever observed you striking another person?
Have you ever touched your genitals in front of your child?
Have you ever made your child touch your genitals?
Are you fat?
Is your child fat?
How often does your child eat any processed food?

Need I continue?

"Do you believe in creationism, intelligent design, or any other form of modern mythology?"

Why do you care that I believe in God?

Damuri Ajashi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So I took the kid to see the pediatrician and
> after asking me all sorts of typical questions
> that doctors usually ask you when you take your
> kid to the doctor, the last question is "Do you
> have a firearm in the house?"
>
> I ask why they are asking and they say its because
> they want to give me safety information if I have
> a gun. So I ask them, do you do that same thing
> with swimming pools? They say no.
>
> WTF is that about? If pools are more dangerous to
> little kids than guns, why would they ask about
> guns? Does anyone who keep a gun in the house
> with a kid have ANY doubts about the bad shit that
> can happen? Do people who have pools have any
> idea about the bad shit that can happen?
>
> And they wonder why they don't want doctors doing
> "impartial" research on guns.


The Doctor was worried about the OP. nothing more.
I'm concerned about him too and after reading a few more posts, concerned about a few more.

Under obamacare doctors answer to the federal government. They cannot decline to ask such questions of patients or risk sanctions by the feds.

@Maybe - no fooling, right? Its just a stupid question. Why not just say "i dont wish to answer". No biggie, right?

@fugid - well, if you are really that concerned the are not asking those questions, then why are you not doing something about it? Why are you whining here that doctors are not asking those questions that YOU SAY YOU FEEL address more immediate threats to a child? p.s. last i checked a bullet in a kid was more an immediate threat than how many books they read o_0

@102 - ROFLMAO at you thinking gangs are some sorta new thing. http://www.ojjdp.gov/jjbulletin/9808/history.html

notice that when guns got deregulated in the 80s is when gangs started REALLY getting "popular" LoLz:

In the modern era, youth gangs have been influenced by several trends. In the 1970's and 1980's, because of increased mobility and access to more lethal weapons, many gangs became more dangerous (Klein, 1995; Klein and Maxson, 1989; Miller, 1974, 1992; Spergel, 1995). Gang fights previously involving fists or brass knuckles increasingly involved guns. The growing availability of automobiles, coupled with the use of more lethal weapons, fueled the growth of drive-by shootings, a tactic that previously took the form of on-foot hit-and-run forays (Miller, 1966).


so yeah.........gangs been around since Nationbuilding. Dunno how you didnt know that.

j d taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Under obamacare doctors answer to the federal
> government. They cannot decline to ask such
> questions of patients or risk sanctions by the
> feds.

What? Where are you getting this fantasy?

Greybeard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> j d taylor Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Under obamacare doctors answer to the federal
> > government. They cannot decline to ask such
> > questions of patients or risk sanctions by the
> > feds.
>
> What? Where are you getting this fantasy?


Why do you always seem to post only when GB is posting? Vectors aligning. Data shows promise. Calculating.........Calculating........Calculating........

..<*((((><..<*((((><..<*((((><.. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Greybeard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > j d taylor Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Under obamacare doctors answer to the federal
> > > government. They cannot decline to ask such
> > > questions of patients or risk sanctions by
> the
> > > feds.
> >
> > What? Where are you getting this fantasy?
>
>
> Why do you always seem to post only when GB is
> posting? Vectors aligning. Data shows promise.
> Calculating.........Calculating........Calculating
> ........

Please do tell us when moron loser GB IS NOT posting? When GB is cashing his/her welfare check?

DA Catcher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ..<*((((><..<*((((><..<*((((><.. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Greybeard Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > j d taylor Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Under obamacare doctors answer to the
> federal
> > > > government. They cannot decline to ask such
> > > > questions of patients or risk sanctions by
> > the
> > > > feds.
> > >
> > > What? Where are you getting this fantasy?
> >
> >
> > Why do you always seem to post only when GB is
> > posting? Vectors aligning. Data shows promise.
>
> >
> Calculating.........Calculating........Calculating
>
> > ........
>
> Please do tell us when moron loser GB IS NOT
> posting? When GB is cashing his/her welfare
> check?


George Mason and GB. That is all I can say.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> @102 - ROFLMAO at you thinking gangs are some
> sorta new thing.
> http://www.ojjdp.gov/jjbulletin/9808/history.html

You truely are one of the dumbest liberals this board has ever seen. Im officially putting you in their hall of fame with eye of weasel, radiophile, and ferfux. Hell you may all just be the same person but if you all added up your intelligence and worked together you might be able to think your way out of a paper bag.

> notice that when guns got deregulated in the 80s
> is when gangs started REALLY getting "popular"
> LoLz:

FOR the 100th time, GUNS WERE ALREADY ILLEGAL IN CITIES THE GANGS WERE OPERATING OUT OF.

> In the modern era, youth gangs have been
> influenced by several trends. In the 1970's and
> 1980's, because of increased mobility and
> access to more lethal weapons, many gangs became
> more dangerous (Klein, 1995; Klein and Maxson,
> 1989; Miller, 1974, 1992; Spergel, 1995). Gang
> fights previously involving fists or brass
> knuckles increasingly involved guns. The growing
> availability of automobiles, coupled with the use
> of more lethal weapons, fueled the growth of
> drive-by shootings, a tactic that previously took
> the form of on-foot hit-and-run forays (Miller,
> 1966).

What is this bullshit? Where do you even find this crap the Journal of touchy feely rainbow and hugs?

Or in actuality what really happened was the rise of drug cartels down south that started pushing this products into the country. After Carter crapped on the economy it became very tempting for the poor and lower income in the inner cites to sell the drugs and join the gangs.

Actually Im not even going to bother, either prove youre done trolling and want to learn or Im just going to keep treating you like the idiot youve proven yourself to be

> so yeah.........gangs been around since
> Nationbuilding. Dunno how you didnt know that.


I dont even know what you think I said at this point I dont understand the fucking idiot language.

I almost never respond to threads beginning with "So..." on the theory that words of more than two syllables will confuse the poster. Here, though, it's important to recognize the adverse impact on children of parents' lead levels. Shooting, reloading and improper cleaning up after either can dramatically and rapidly increase lead levels way above the "10" the federal government is trying to get the occupational safety and health communities to adopt.

NoVA Transplant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We have been asked this question at every
> well-child visit I've been to--and my oldest is
> 21. AND, they KNOW we have firearms in the house
> b/c my husband is a LEO. I think its a standard
> question in many clinics....


no it isn't. I have never had a doctor of any type ask this, ever.

You think being asked that question is bad. Years ago I banged a stripper and got the clap. Everytime I see another doctor I can tell when they get to that part of my medical record because they smile and say hmmm. And yes it is like pissing barbed wire.

Parental Opinion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The paranoia about this is insane, IMHO.
>
> If the government wants to take your guns, they
> won't be using doctor records (or answers to
> doctor questions) to do it.
>
> Sheesh.
>
> Just answer "Yes, we have at least one firearm in
> the house and it is thoroughly safe from being
> used unauthorized not only by the kids, but anyone
> else as well".
>
> Of course, if you can't answer the question that
> way, you're a jerk whose guns SHOULD be
> confiscated by the government because you have
> created an inherently extremely dangerous
> environment directly for kids and indirectly for
> everyone else.


remember most of what you beleive to be reality comes from the TV.

there are 4 types of mentality on this issue:
1. sheep (protect us from the boogey man, mob, unelected masses, omg a kid made a poptart to look like a gun)
2. sheep dogs (gun owners, military, police)
3. wolves (predators, psychopaths, drug cartels, corrupt cops, corrupt politicans, commies, red coats, etc.)
4. shepherds (leaders)

more people die from medical mistakes than gun violence so this whole line of questioning from medical personel is ironic.

notnot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NoVA Transplant Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We have been asked this question at every
> > well-child visit I've been to--and my oldest is
> > 21. AND, they KNOW we have firearms in the
> house
> > b/c my husband is a LEO. I think its a
> standard
> > question in many clinics....
>
>
> no it isn't. I have never had a doctor of any type
> ask this, ever.

As noted way above, we've been asked this repeatedly at our kid's pediatrician and have always answered it as noted without feeling bad or disconcerted at all.

The nurse (never a doctor since this is typically a "prescreen") also asks if there are any smokers in the house, BTW.

Lighten up, dude. Take the question in the spirit that it's given. Don't you wish Adam Lanza's mother was asked this question, and caused her to think? ON the other hand, I think he surreptitiously reported you to the ATF. Look out your window. Do you see a dark Ford sedan with Govt tags parked down the block? Yeah, that's me.

jcman01 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lighten up, dude. Take the question in the spirit
> that it's given. Don't you wish Adam Lanza's
> mother was asked this question, and caused her to
> think? ON the other hand, I think he
> surreptitiously reported you to the ATF. Look out
> your window. Do you see a dark Ford sedan with
> Govt tags parked down the block? Yeah, that's me.


The implication that the Sandy Hook shooting would have been changed by this question is ridiculous

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jcman01 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lighten up, dude. Take the question in the
> spirit
> > that it's given. Don't you wish Adam Lanza's
> > mother was asked this question, and caused her
> to
> > think? ON the other hand, I think he
> > surreptitiously reported you to the ATF. Look
> out
> > your window. Do you see a dark Ford sedan with
> > Govt tags parked down the block? Yeah, that's
> me.
>
>
> The implication that the Sandy Hook shooting would
> have been changed by this question is ridiculous

Late at nite while moving your hand down to...well you know where do you wonder why know one likes you and you can only fantasize about women because you can't get a date?
You need to lighten up, LL102
Your gonna die a lonely old man.

If you think that this isn't ideologically driven, then you're very naive.

One of the primary groups pushing this is the American Academy of Pediatrics. They are not at all impartial on the matter of gun ownership and actively advocate for "the strongest possible regulations of handguns for civilian use."

Here is their "Advice to parents" from their web site:


"Advice to parents

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

- Do not purchase a gun, especially a handgun.
- Remove all guns present in the home.
- Talk to your children about the dangers of guns, and tell them to stay away from guns.
- 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."


They further have directly lobbied to permit compilation of gun ownership data from medical records.

Fair enough to come down on whatever side of the gun issue that you want, but don't pretend that there aren't other motivations involved here. Not necessarily on the part of an individual physician but certainly at a more broad level on the part of the AAP and similar groups who drive this type of thing down to them as "best practices."

Here's the real logic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Late at nite while moving your hand down to...well
> you know where do you wonder why know one likes
> you and you can only fantasize about women because
> you can't get a date?
> You need to lighten up, LL102
> Your gonna die a lonely old man.

I couldnt care less if people on here who can only repeat talking points dont like me when I expose their BS.

Since there was no way you could disprove what I had said about Sandy Hook you decided to change the subject, typical

Its a standard question anymore. That leaves you two options. 1. Say "I'd prefer not to answer." 2. Display your ignorance in a thread that won't die.

Gets Realz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One of the primary groups pushing this is the
> American Academy of Pediatrics.

Hmmm...pediatric office, THE professional society for pediatricians...I think I see a connection here.

> ...They are not at all impartial on the matter of gun ownership and
> actively advocate for "the strongest possible regulations of handguns for
> civilian use."...

Hmmm...why would a highly-educated group of physicians who provide medical care to children DO such a thing!?

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

This is a true statement of the purest form.

> - Do not purchase a gun, especially a handgun.

The Society is stating the obvious...sometimes people just don't get it so they have to be slapped multiple times in the face with the obvious.

> - Remove all guns present in the home.
> - Talk to your children about the dangers of guns,
> and tell them to stay away from guns.
> - 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."

See above - their aim (giggle) is to tell rank-n-file parents that, duh, "If you and your kids' friends don't have access to guns, we don't have to worry about gun deaths/injuries with those kids too much"

> They further have directly lobbied to permit
> compilation of gun ownership data from medical
> records.

Hmmm...I think a link would be nice for this little factoid, though the words used to describe their efforts probably have been chosen to present the most negative view of whatever they've actually been doing.

> Fair enough to come down on whatever side of the
> gun issue that you want, but don't pretend that
> there aren't other motivations involved here...

What and why ARE the "other motivations"? Do they PROFIT from their anti-gun efforts? Hmmm...no, they don't as far as I can see - just the opposite as a matter of fact. How about their opponents on this particular issue? Do THEY profit from their pro-gun stance? Oh...hmmm...maybe we better stay away from THAT particular side of this silly made-bigger-than-life debate, huh?

In any case, I own guns. They're locked up so even an enterprising teenybopper would have a very hard, maybe even impossible, time getting to them without my approval. When I'm out of the house and a group of teenyboppers are in the house, I have as-close-to-100%-as-is-possible confidence they're not doing anything at all with guns from the house.

And when that nurse asks me if there are guns in the house I answer 'Yeah, but..." in a straight-forward "We've handled that particular real problem appropriately" manner.

Too bad that dead gun-owning idiot up north with the literally crazy son (though he was no longer a kid, he certainly was "kid-like") didn't take steps to keep guns out of his hands without her close supervision, huh?

As long as there are guns in American households there will be deaths...period
Guns were not conceived, invented and revolutionized to shoot paper targets.
The pro gunners will say anything to justify their insecurities but the simple fact is a gun is just a lazy way to kill another human.
"I would rather fuck than fight" 1970
Ask away, Doctors

"teach your children ...well" Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As long as there are guns in American households
> there will be deaths...period
> Guns were not conceived, invented and
> revolutionized to shoot paper targets.
> The pro gunners will say anything to justify their
> insecurities but the simple fact is a gun is just
> a lazy way to kill another human.
> "I would rather fuck than fight" 1970
> Ask away, Doctors


Why don't they ask if the parents smoke pot? Why don't they ask if you have alcohol in the house that the kids can get to? Why don't they ask if you have cable channels in the house that are not v-chipped? I own guns for protection. That is my right as an American and as a human. How I decide to protect myself and my family is no one's business but mine as long as I'm not hurting anyone that isn't trying to hurt me. You are nothing but a sheep bleating incoherently about matters you can't understand. "lazy way to kill.." What a fool.

Having a little trouble with the tomahawk, chief?
Maybe the little cubs should lock the guns away from you.
It's to early for the firewater.

"teach your children ...well" Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> "I would rather fuck than fight" 1970
> Ask away, Doctors


Of course to your comment, but the question is whether you would let an intruder F your wife, daughters, maybe sons, while your tied up in the basement?

guy in the countryside Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "teach your children ...well" Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > "I would rather fuck than fight" 1970
> > Ask away, Doctors
>
>
> Of course to your comment, but the question is
> whether you would let an intruder F your wife,
> daughters, maybe sons, while your tied up in the
> basement?

If it happens, you deal with it. I was taught to sleep light and cary a big stick. But I don't spend my waking hours contemplating this situation. When a gun is your only course of action then you have lost. What if you are in the bathroom when this happens? Do you shit,shower and maybe shave while strapping? How about the intruders? More than one? Or maybe just a bunch of friends coming over to indulge in a choice of poison.
Your chances of being in a auto accident are 1,000 times more likely to happen than intruders. I used to live in the country and we would hear cars almost a mile off on the road. If you didn't hear the animals at night, then something was going on in the forest.
As a comrade said after we returned to the land of golden arches.
"Shit bro,I don't think we are in Nam anymore"
Live in peace and it ain't nothin.

On a side note: if you need to get married then pick the ugliest and stop worrying.

Stalin and Hitler knew the key to success was to control the media, create class warfare, then disarm the population. Sound familiar?

I suppose that is one way to protect your children. I'm glad I don't live in your house.

guy in the countryside Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suppose that is one way to protect your
> children. I'm glad I don't live in your house.

I never had children. At least none I'm aware of. They are cute when born but don't become interesting until the age of twenty something. I guess I'm a bit selfish but there's a lot of in between. Some bros came home and procreated but I came back to contemplate. The buck stops here so to speak. Always thougt humans need space and when crowded, someone gets upset. I've been thru two upsets and didn't like my darkside. Protect and cherish your kids. Property is temporary but family is all you really need. If the government wants your children for promoting freedom somewhere else, volunteer and sacrifice yourself. Sacrifice is the only thing you can truly give....or so I've been told.
Time for a drink and a smoke.

Parental Opinion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gets Realz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> ... See above - their aim (giggle) is to tell
> rank-n-file parents that, duh, "If you and your
> kids' friends don't have access to guns, we don't
> have to worry about gun deaths/injuries with those
> kids too much"


It's not so much the question of whether there may be some reasonable potential concern regarding firearms. Obviously clearly so. It's more a matter of why firearms in particular are pushed to the foreground relative to a wide variety of dangers in the home when on an objective, scientific basis they are far, far down the list of dangers to children.

In terms of why, at a practical level and as far as how such things come to be (if you've never worked around similar groups/associations who develop similar policy positions), is that some subset of activists within the group tend to push various positions, political and otherwise, as official policy statements on the larger group. In the same way that they, for example, recently came out in support of gay marriage. Just because they are doctors doesn't mean that there can't be ideology in play and that everything is done from some sterile, objective basis especially when at the level of association-type organizations like this.


>
> > They further have directly lobbied to permit
> > compilation of gun ownership data from medical
> > records.
>
> Hmmm...I think a link would be nice for this
> little factoid, though the words used to describe
> their efforts probably have been chosen to present
> the most negative view of whatever they've
> actually been doing.


Not presented in a negaitve manner, rather simply a factual statement which reflects their policy position. They have in fact been party to a suit in FL to overturn a state law limiting the ability of doctors to ask such questions. That's a fairly solid position I'd say regardless how you might interpret it for better or worse given personal ideology.


"AAP Statement on President Obama’s Gun Violence Prevention Recommendations

1/16/2013

Thomas K. McInerny, MD, FAAP, president, American Academy of Pediatrics
“The nation’s pediatricians applaud President Obama for his leadership in the wake of the recent violence at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. The President’s federal policy recommendations today represent the necessary national commitment to addressing gun violence prevention and mental health access in a comprehensive, meaningful way. We are pleased that the President accepted AAP recommendations provided during our Jan. 3 meeting with the White House Task Force on Gun Violence Prevention.

“Among other proposals, the President took action to direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies to research the causes and prevention of gun violence and to clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors from asking their patients about guns in the home."


This statement and lobbying around it was directly related to prohibitions included in "Obamacare" which specifically restrict collecting and using such information in any sort of record-keeping manner. The Obama administration and the AAP favor the ability to do so and a position which permits the data to be used for aggregated analysis and, at minimum, as a means to ask and push the matter of guns in the home from a public health position. I don't think either would disagree with my assessment. It is what it is.


>
> > Fair enough to come down on whatever side of
> the
> > gun issue that you want, but don't pretend that
> > there aren't other motivations involved here...
>
> What and why ARE the "other motivations"? Do they
> PROFIT from their anti-gun efforts? Hmmm...no,
> they don't as far as I can see - just the opposite
> as a matter of fact. How about their opponents on
> this particular issue? Do THEY profit from their
> pro-gun stance? Oh...hmmm...maybe we better stay
> away from THAT particular side of this silly
> made-bigger-than-life debate, huh?


Motivations do not necessarily need to be profit-driven. Nobody accused them of having some profit motive. They very clearly can and do (per their own policy statements) have motivations otherwise. Again, it's more of a question of relative dangers within the broader context of dangers in the home and pushing firearms restrictions over many others on what seems to be on the basis of ideology versus what the numbers would indicate in terms of priorities.


>
> In any case, I own guns. They're locked up so even
> an enterprising teenybopper would have a very
> hard, maybe even impossible, time getting to them
> without my approval. When I'm out of the house and
> a group of teenyboppers are in the house, I have
> as-close-to-100%-as-is-possible confidence they're
> not doing anything at all with guns from the
> house.
>
> And when that nurse asks me if there are guns in
> the house I answer 'Yeah, but..." in a
> straight-forward "We've handled that particular
> real problem appropriately" manner.
>
> Too bad that dead gun-owning idiot up north with
> the literally crazy son (though he was no longer a
> kid, he certainly was "kid-like") didn't take
> steps to keep guns out of his hands without her
> close supervision, huh?

You don't seem to understand... Simply having a gun in the house greatly increases your risk. Doesn't matter how you store and handle it, what you teach your kids, etc., etc. You are doomed by the percentage increase in risk (regardless that the numerical risk may still be a tiny number in the scheme of things). At least as they tend to present it anyway. ;)

Gets Realz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You don't seem to understand... Simply having a
> gun in the house greatly increases your risk.

No it doesn't. Greatly is a HUGE over exaggeration. Over 100 million homes in the US have guns. Over 300 million guns are in the US. Not even 1/10 of 1 percent of gun owners will be affected by a shooting of ANY kind and thats just using from the raw numbers not accounting for how many of those shootings were actually in a home because a gun was there.

A more accurate statement would have been "Having a weapon in the house increases your risk of being shot than if a weapon never comes into the home, but that increase is statistically insignificant. The increase is somewhere between a .01 and .0001 percent chance."

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gets Realz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > You don't seem to understand... Simply having a
> > gun in the house greatly increases your risk.
>
> No it doesn't. Greatly is a HUGE over
> exaggeration. Over 100 million homes in the US
> have guns. Over 300 million guns are in the US.
> Not even 1/10 of 1 percent of gun owners will be
> affected by a shooting of ANY kind and thats just
> using from the raw numbers not accounting for how
> many of those shootings were actually in a home
> because a gun was there.
>
> A more accurate statement would have been "Having
> a weapon in the house increases your risk of being
> shot than if a weapon never comes into the home,
> but that increase is statistically insignificant.
> The increase is somewhere between a .01 and .0001
> percent chance."


Ummmm... I was being facetious.

But you're correct and that highlights how AAP and other groups disingenuously use stats like that with no context. e.g., When they cite things as being "43 times more likely," while knowingly not mentioning that it's 43 times .000001 and still a relatively tiny risk in the scheme of things and very low relative to other risks in the home.

Likewise things like aggregating a wide range of age groups into what's presented as "children" in order to capture relatively older youths including large numbers of predominately young black male deaths associated with gang and drug violence and then failing to distinguish between that and simply having a gun in the home. They're not dumb people and they know how to do stats on a valid basis so it's hard to argue that such presentations aren't done knowing that they are deceptive in order to promote a particular point of view.

Gets Realz Wrote:

> Ummmm... I was being facetious.

My bad.

> But you're correct and that highlights how AAP and
> other groups disingenuously use stats like that
> with no context. e.g., When they cite things as
> being "43 times more likely," while knowingly not
> mentioning that it's 43 times .000001 and still a
> relatively tiny risk in the scheme of things and
> very low relative to other risks in the home.

Whenever you see a report that only says something like 43 times more likely without giving the actual number as well you know its a biased study. They picked that wording because it makes it sound dangerous where if you saw the actual number you would know that their conclusions are full of bs if they are acting like it was significant.

Its much like how the anti gun groups look at gun violence on the state level as opposed to looking at it by county which shows you the gun crime is overwhelmingly concentrated in the cities of the state where guns are already banned.

> Likewise things like aggregating a wide range of
> age groups into what's presented as "children" in
> order to capture relatively older youths including
> large numbers of predominately young black male
> deaths associated with gang and drug violence and
> then failing to distinguish between that and
> simply having a gun in the home. They're not dumb
> people and they know how to do stats on a valid
> basis so it's hard to argue that such
> presentations aren't done knowing that they are
> deceptive in order to promote a particular point
> of view.

Agreed. They start at their conclusions and work backwards to figure out how much they can get away with to skew the numbers in their favor. The medicines that the prescribe are FAR more likely to harm you or your child than a child is to find a gun in a home and shoot themselves or someone else with it if you even have the slightest bit of common sense in how you handle guns in a home with a child.

Theres really only a certain age group that you really need to worry about with kids anyway. A kid thats 2 or 3 is to young to get to a gun unless you leave it on the floor and a kid thats 12 or 13 is old enough to be taught about firearm safety and know better. Its probably that 6 to 9 age range where the kids are able to get to stuff but to young to fully comprehend it that you would need to worry about and again just using common sense you can basically eliminate the risk.

The overwhelming majority of even child gun "accidents" have nothing to do with a kid finding a gun in the house and something happening. Youre absolutely right that the majority of it is gang related whether it happens in a gang or because of a gang which is why they always have to include the teenage age group in their stats.

Frankly if they were so concerned about kids they should be concerned about the over medication of them and how many are put on ritalin and things like that to be easier to control. Or the overuse of CT scans in medicine today. Or how casually orthopedic surgeries are performed with no precautions to prevent blood clots. Guns certainly wouldnt crack the top 10 things they should be spending their time addressing and probably not even the top 100.