FL Gov. Scott to Sign Bill Muzzling Doctors on Gun Safety

NRA says doctors have ‘a political agenda’
Wingnuts • Views: 33,792

Florida governor Rick Scott has a full plate of far right legislation to sign; the Tea Party is taking Florida as far back as they can, while they’ve got a dedicated loon in office.

In addition to drug testing welfare recipients, Scott is also expected to sign a bill that will prohibit doctors from asking patients if they own guns.

Not just any patients. Children. The law is aimed specifically at pediatricians, to prevent them from asking kids about their parents’ guns and how they’re stored.

The right wing says pediatricians have “a political agenda.”

For decades, the American Academy of Pediatrics has encouraged its members to ask questions about guns and how they’re stored, as part of well-child visits.

But Marion Hammer, the National Rifle Association’s lobbyist in Tallahassee, says that’s not a pediatrician’s job.

“We take our children to pediatricians for medical care — not moral judgment, not privacy intrusions,” she says.

NRA lobbyists helped write a bill that largely bans health professionals from asking about guns. Hammer says she and other NRA members consider the questions an intrusion on their Second Amendment rights.

“This bill is about helping families who are complaining about being questioned about gun ownership, and the growing anti-gun political agenda being carried out in examination rooms by doctors and staffs,” Hammer says.

To equate a doctor’s concern for a patient’s health with a “political agenda” is the height of dishonest bad craziness.

As parents know, pediatricians ask a lot of questions. Dr. Louis St. Petery says it’s all part of what doctors call “anticipatory guidance” — teaching parents how to safeguard against accidental injuries. Pediatricians ask about bike helmets, seat belts and other concerns.

“If you have a pool, let’s talk about pool safety so we don’t have accidental drownings,” he says. “And if you have firearms, let’s talk about gun safety so that they’re stored properly — you know, the gun needs to be locked up, the ammunition stored separate from the gun, etc., so that children don’t have access to them.” …

“Many pediatricians will think twice about asking about firearms and discussing firearms safety,” he says. “What I think is going to happen is there’ll be more children injured and killed from firearms in the home that are not properly stored.”

Although Florida’s Legislature is the first to approve the measure, it’s also being considered in other states, including North Carolina and Alabama.

Jump to bottom

213 comments
1 Obdicut  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:18:19am

Small government!

Telling doctors what they can and can't say is totally all about small government. Yep.

2 ProMayaLiberal  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:18:50am

What. A. Douchebag.

3 Max  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:19:16am

NPR had a good segment about this yesterday. They reported that the American Academy of Pediatrics is a strong advocate of gun control and that their stance has become a source of concern for Floridian gun owners.

4 Kid A  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:19:24am

re: #1 Obdicut

Small government!

Telling doctors what they can and can't say is totally all about small government. Yep.

The Founders were conservatives!!!
/

5 BARACK THE VOTE  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:19:48am

re: #1 Obdicut

Small government!

Telling doctors what they can and can't say is totally all about small government. Yep.

They do it to women's doctors all the time. Why not children's?

Women and children first! -- NOT the GOP motto.

6 Charles Johnson  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:20:43am

re: #3 Max D. Reinhardt

NPR had a good segment about this yesterday. They reported that the American Academy of Pediatrics is a strong advocate of gun control and that their stance has become a source of concern for Floridian gun owners.

They support gun control because they experience first-hand the human carnage produced by America's dysfunctional right wing gun culture.

7 BARACK THE VOTE  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:20:57am

re: #4 Kid A

The Founders were conservatives!!!
/

And they loved the Baby Jesus! /

8 Kid A  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:21:35am

The right wing says pediatricians have “a political agenda.”

Yeah, I see pediatricians marching in the streets, carrying placards, pitchforks and torches screaming about guns ALL the time. Political agenda, my ass.

9 Kid A  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:22:33am

re: #7 iceweasel

And banned slavery!! Ask history professor Bachmann!!

10 jaunte  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:22:51am

Texas boy saved from pediatricians' political agenda:
[Link: www.upi.com...]

11 Obdicut  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:23:05am

re: #8 Kid A

They have an agenda of wanting fewer children to be shot by mishandling their parents' guns, or their neighbors guns, etc.

Those low-down finks.

12 Kid A  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:23:24am

re: #11 Obdicut

They have an agenda of wanting fewer children to be shot by mishandling their parents' guns, or their neighbors guns, etc.

Those low-down finks.

Commies!!!
//

13 Semper Fi  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:24:44am

Gonna call siblings to remind this is the 6th Mother's Day without Mom.

Happy Mom's Day ladies.

I'll lurk again after the Laker game which I'm sorta dreading.

14 HappyWarrior  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:24:53am

Those damn commie pediatricians. Listen, I am fine with gun ownership but there needs to be responsibility too. Gun safety especially for children is a good thing. When my late grandfather owned guns, he had them in his basement in a locked cabinet.

15 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:25:19am

re: #11 Obdicut

They have an agenda of wanting fewer children to be shot by mishandling their parents' guns, or their neighbors guns, etc.

Those low-down finks.

If you admit that guns accidents can happen, or that good gun protocols in the home can prevent those, you're on a slippery slope to taking away everyone's guns.

//Why, those dirty low-down rats who tell you to put the pot handles in so kids can't grab at them must want to take away our stoves, and make us eat cold food out of cans!!

16 PhillyPretzel  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:25:41am

re: #14 HappyWarrior
Exactly what I was thinking.

17 Kid A  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:26:12am

re: #15 SanFranciscoZionist

If you admit that guns accidents can happen, or that good gun protocols in the home can prevent those, you're on a slippery slope to taking away everyone's guns.

//Why, those dirty low-down rats who tell you to put the pot handles in so kids can't grab at them must want to take away our stoves, and make us eat cold food out of cans!!

Cat food!!

18 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:26:22am

re: #14 HappyWarrior

Those damn commie pediatricians. Listen, I am fine with gun ownership but there needs to be responsibility too. Gun safety especially for children is a good thing. When my late grandfather owned guns, he had them in his basement in a locked cabinet.

My dad used a lockbox.

I was in my mid-twenties before I got over my apprehension about touching the lockbox without supervision, such was the childhood indoctrination about not touching it without Daddy's presence and permission.

19 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:26:53am

Pediatrician: "Oh, hi officer. I wanted to pass on some very disturbing information I got from my 7-year-old patient Jamie S when I asked him he got some gun-cleaning solvent in his eyes."

Detective: "And?"

Pediatrician: "He tells me that his stepfather keeps two loaded submachine guns in the hall closet, a Desert Eagle .50 with 5 magazines in the nightstand, and an RPG-7 with 12 extra rockets under some loose floorboards in the kitchen."

Detective: "YOU'RE UNDER ARREST!"

20 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:28:39am

re: #13 Semper Fi

How could you be dreading the Laker game?
/

21 Kid A  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:28:59am

re: #19 Shiplord Kirel


Image: siren.gif

22 Semper Fi  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:30:58am

re: #20 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

How could you be dreading the Laker game?
/

Cause it looks like could be another "Beat LA!" type of game.

23 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:31:42am

re: #22 Semper Fi

Beat LA!

I don't know what you mean...

24 Semper Fi  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:32:28am

re: #23 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Beat LA!

I don't know what you mean...

I wish I didn't either.

25 jaunte  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:33:41am

It wuz a accident.

LARGO — Two Tampa Bay-area children have been injured in separate accidental shootings.

The Pinellas County Sheriff's Office says a 22-year-old Largo man faces a charge of aggravated child abuse after shooting a toddler.

Detectives say the man unloaded his shotgun Thursday morning, pointed it at the 20-month-old girl and pulled the trigger, not realizing that a round remained in the weapon.

The child was hospitalized with non-lifethreatening injuries.

In Clearwater, the sheriff's office says a 6-year-old boy accidentally shot his 8-year-old brother Thursday evening. Detectives say an adult was showing the boys his guns, and the younger child grabbed one and pulled the trigger.

The 8-year-old was hospitalized with a leg injury. No charges were filed.[Link: www.naplesnews.com...]

26 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:34:46am

re: #25 jaunte

It wuz a accident.

My hippie liberal dad always told me that you didn't point a gun at anything you weren't planning to shoot, loaded or unloaded.

27 jaunte  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:35:22am
28 HappyWarrior  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:36:03am

re: #25 jaunte

It wuz a accident.

What kind of idiot unloads a shotgun and points it at a 20 month old? As I said, responsibility dammit.

29 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:36:24am

They can ask about swimming pools all they want. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to own a pool. I does secure the right to own firearms, though.

/

30 BARACK THE VOTE  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:37:49am

re: #27 jaunte

"I'm far from careless," he said. "It was an accident."

Also:

The incident marks the second fatal accidental shooting in Broward County in a week. On Monday in Pompano Beach, Tiffany Littlepage, 21, was fatally wounded by a gunshot fired by a friend sitting in the back seat of the car she was driving, according to the Sheriff's Office.

Another accident.

31 Renaissance_Man  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:38:07am

Note also that in order to qualify as a Well Child visit, the paediatrician has to discuss at least one aspect of preventive medicine/safety. Often, it is guns in the home.

This very week I asked the dad of a kid with borderline ADD/highly impulsive behaviour who'd been brought in for cutting himself up when he decided he'd shave his head to be just like dad whether there were guns in the house, loaded or otherwise. The dad got a horrified expression of realisation on his face and said, yeah, we have three or four always loaded for home defence, mumble mumble mumble. I asked if that was really a good idea, given that we now have a boy who's seven and prone to doing really impulsive things. He looked embarrassed and promised to fix it.

I have no idea if he really will. (I have my doubts.) But these conversations are necessary. And they are not moral judgements, even if he was highly embarrassed by the realisation. However, much like in the case of the Giffords shooting, the reactions of some who act very much like they are being judged is very telling.

32 Tumulus11  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:38:44am
'We take our children to pediatricians for medical care — not moral judgment, not privacy intrusions' she says.


- - -

Dr. Paul Robinson, a specialist in adolescent medicine, told a Florida Senate committee recently that that [exception] would allow doctors to counsel suicidal teens. But there are other cases, he said, where the law — and the doctor's options — are less clear.

'What if I have an adolescent who's been bullied, who's not suicidal? I don't think, under the current bill, I'm entitled to ask him if there's a gun in the home, or if he's carried a gun to school, or if he's thinking of harming someone else with a gun.'

. The exception would apply only to preventing a potential suicide.
Preventing a potential mass murder in a school would be a 'moral judgment' .

33 SpaceJesus  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:42:15am

the siege mentality that provides the backbone of the "gun rights" movement really knows no bounds when it comes to reinforcing its persecution complex

34 What, me worry?  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:45:18am

I don't know how we'll ever recover from the horror of this man. It's just despicable.

35 Political Atheist  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:46:31am

This is no venue for the law. Either way.
I had a young couple I knew in the jewelry biz, who wanted to learn to use a gun defensively. Classes went well, a smart responsible situation. They were planning on a fast release gun lock box, which is the preferred way to store a defensive firearm. They got all that stuff as required.

Later she got pregnant and her doctor sternly insisted the gun be sold or transferred away from the upscale hillside home. Which was done.

One day a couple years later a cougar leaped over a low wall into their backyard pool area while looking for water. The toddler was out there supervised by mom but the cougar was between mom and the toddler girl. By sheer luck the animal was more thirsty than ravenous. Mom had called police who took more than ten minutes to arrive. The cougar was long gone. No harm came to anyone.

I simply illustrated circumstances vary widely.

This is an issue to be decided by the families involved. And Doctors as a policy (NOT a law) should not be reflexive gun control advocates. It's a potential accident issue, but not a medical issue. Car crashes happen, doctors advise good cars and good driving, with appropriate baby seats etc. They do not advocate moving withing walking distance to the job.

36 Henchman 25  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:50:15am

re: #19 Shiplord Kirel

The sad thing is, that's how the Right actually sees it.

37 Wozza Matter?  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:50:23am

re: #35 Rightwingconspirator

Unless the gun is outside with the owner - why not just get the toddler inside?

38 Charles Johnson  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:52:40am

re: #35 Rightwingconspirator

The thing is, for every story of a cougar that could have been shot if someone had a gun, pediatricians personally observe the effects of gun violence on a day to day basis, especially if they're in a large city.

I have to disagree that this isn't a doctor's business. And I disagree that there's anything reflexive about it; if the American Academy of Pediatrics is an advocate for gun control, it isn't because they're squishy liberals scared of guns -- it's because they deal with the violent results, in cases by the millions.

39 Decatur Deb  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:53:27am

re: #35 Rightwingconspirator

This is no venue for the law. Either way.
I had a young couple I knew in the jewelry biz, who wanted to learn to use a gun defensively. Classes went well, a smart responsible situation. They were planning on a fast release gun lock box, which is the preferred way to store a defensive firearm. They got all that stuff as required.

Later she got pregnant and her doctor sternly insisted the gun be sold or transferred away from the upscale hillside home. Which was done.

One day a couple years later a cougar leaped over a low wall into their backyard pool area while looking for water. The toddler was out there supervised by mom but the cougar was between mom and the toddler girl. By sheer luck the animal was more thirsty than ravenous. Mom had called police who took more than ten minutes to arrive. The cougar was long gone. No harm came to anyone.

I simply illustrated circumstances vary widely.

This is an issue to be decided by the families involved. And Doctors as a policy (NOT a law) should not be reflexive gun control advocates. It's a potential accident issue, but not a medical issue. Car crashes happen, doctors advise good cars and good driving, with appropriate baby seats etc. They do not advocate moving withing walking distance to the job.

The medical community has been treating accidents and violence epidemiologically for decades. It got a big boost at the CDC under Dr. C. Everrett Koop, the US Surgeon General under some left-wing ideologue named Gipper.

40 Romantic Heretic  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:53:42am

re: #11 Obdicut

They have an agenda of wanting fewer children to be shot by mishandling their parents' guns, or their neighbors guns, etc.

Those low-down finks.

Hey! Maimed and dead children are a small price to pay for our FREEDOM! (shouted like William Wallace in that awful movie)

///

41 Political Atheist  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:55:11am

re: #37 wozzablog

Sure. Just approach and walk by the cougar and grab the kid....

My point is the doctor likely did not consider the circumstance that arose. And gun accidents are very, very low in terms of fatal accidents in general.

[Link: www.guncite.com...]
A fatal gun accident, particularly when a child is involved, often makes state or national news. This gives the impression that: fatal gun accidents are more prevalent than other fatal accidents, gun accidents are increasing, and civilian gun ownership must be further restricted or regulated.

The reality does not correspond to the perception created by media coverage. Fatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent.

Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents.

(Gun supply statistics are from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, gun accident rates from the National Safety Council).

42 jaunte  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:56:19am
Physicians, gun owners tangle over Florida "don't ask" gun bill
Doctors who inquire about gun ownership would face a maximum of five years in prison and a $5 million fine.


Is this penalty specified in the final legislation? If so, they're nuts.

43 BARACK THE VOTE  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:57:08am

re: #40 Romantic Heretic

Hey! Maimed and dead children are a small price to pay for our FREEDOM! (shouted like William Wallace in that awful movie)

///

Hey, that movie was so womderful, this was the official monument to Wallace at Stirling Castle: the locals were very fond of vandalising it.

44 Political Atheist  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:57:13am

re: #39 Decatur Deb

The medical community has been treating accidents and violence epidemiologically for decades. It got a big boost at the CDC under Dr. C. Everrett Koop, the US Surgeon General under some left-wing ideologue named Gipper.

Do you think their emphasis is at all proportional to the actual accident stats? I say not, the gun thing gets special attention beyond what the numbers justify.

45 Kragar  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:57:33am

The doctor's weren't even advocating "DONT OWN A GUN!" gun control. All they were talking about was gun safety. Keep it locked up, out of reach, keep ammo and gun separate, etc.

46 bratwurst  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:58:00am

re: #38 Charles

The thing is, for every story of a cougar that could have been shot if someone had a gun, pediatricians personally observe the effects of gun violence on a day to day basis, especially if they're in a large city.

I have to disagree that this isn't a doctor's business. And I disagree that there's anything reflexive about it; if the American Academy of Pediatrics is an advocate for gun control, it isn't because they're squishy liberals scared of guns -- it's because they deal with the violent results, in cases by the millions.

Converse with ANY doctor who works the emergency room of a big city public hospital (aka gun and knife club) and you will quickly see that the concern has NOTHING to do with political orientation.

47 Political Atheist  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:58:23am

re: #42 jaunte

Is this penalty specified in the final legislation? If so, they're nuts.

I should repeat my opposition to this stupid law. There are far more legitimate issues to address.

48 sod  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:58:41am

Yesterday, right up the road from me:

Summerville -- Three-year-old India Grant just finished going to the bathroom with her mother's help Friday morning when she crossed through her parents' master bedroom and saw the family's loaded handgun sitting unsecured on a windowsill.

Dorchester County Coroner Chris Nisbet said India's mother was still in the bathroom closet when the child handled the .45-caliber firearm and looked into the barrel.

The gun fired.

Dorchester County sheriff's deputies rushed to the home of Corey and Amaris Grant about 10:45 a.m. and found the little girl lying dead in the bedroom from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Tragic

49 Kragar  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:58:48am

Just remember, if your kid shoots himself, its part of God's plan.

50 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:59:00am

re: #45 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The doctor's weren't even advocating "DONT OWN A GUN!" gun control. All they were talking about was gun safety. Keep it locked up, out of reach, keep ammo and gun separate, etc.

That is an attempt at weakining our God-given right to sleep with a loaded gun under our pillow.

/

51 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:59:30am

re: #41 Rightwingconspirator

Sure. Just approach and walk by the cougar and grab the kid...

My point is the doctor likely did not consider the circumstance that arose. And gun accidents are very, very low in terms of fatal accidents in general.

[Link: www.guncite.com...]
A fatal gun accident, particularly when a child is involved, often makes state or national news. This gives the impression that: fatal gun accidents are more prevalent than other fatal accidents, gun accidents are increasing, and civilian gun ownership must be further restricted or regulated.

The reality does not correspond to the perception created by media coverage. Fatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent.

Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents.

(Gun supply statistics are from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, gun accident rates from the National Safety Council).

All true, but the presence and mode of storage of guns in a home with children is a legitimate safety consideration. A law requiring pediatricians to keep this information confidential except in a crime investigation would be sufficient to protect 2nd Amendment rights. This is probably already covered by patient privacy policies and regulations.

52 Decatur Deb  Sun, May 8, 2011 11:59:43am

re: #44 Rightwingconspirator

Do you think their emphasis is at all proportional to the actual accident stats? I say not, the gun thing gets special attention beyond what the numbers justify.

The emphasis is buried in the general effort. Check the 'SafeKids' campaign history. Their biggest push has been for bike helmets and poison control.

[Link: www.safekids.org...]

53 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:01:50pm

What if a doctor had questioned this parent about his guns?

[Link: www.fresnobee.com...]

54 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:02:35pm

re: #52 Decatur Deb

The emphasis is buried in the general effort. Check the 'SafeKids' campaign history. Their biggest push has been for bike helmets and poison control.

[Link: www.safekids.org...]

90% of what they do is abortion counselling

(#not intented to be a statement of fact)

55 Wozza Matter?  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:02:44pm

re: #41 Rightwingconspirator

Misread your original post.

Still - you'd be leaving the kid alone with the cougar to go and fetch a gun if it wasn't on your person..

56 Political Atheist  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:02:48pm

re: #38 Charles

The thing is, for every story of a cougar that could have been shot if someone had a gun, pediatricians personally observe the effects of gun violence on a day to day basis, especially if they're in a large city.

I have to disagree that this isn't a doctor's business. And I disagree that there's anything reflexive about it; if the American Academy of Pediatrics is an advocate for gun control, it isn't because they're squishy liberals scared of guns -- it's because they deal with the violent results, in cases by the millions.

We agree that guns are dangerous equipment. Doctors are usually leery of anecdotal evidence like individual incidents. Doctors usually rely more on statistical data and deep research. I simply claim that the doctors/medical associations policies on guns are more a reflection of anecdotal evidence & the mass medias "if it bleeds it leads" tendencies not the real stats.

57 Renaissance_Man  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:02:53pm

Out of interest, does this mean that Florida's official policy towards firearms is now 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'?

58 Decatur Deb  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:03:51pm

re: #54 ralphieboy

90% of what they do is abortion counselling

(#not intented to be a statement of fact)

Anything to keep the accident stats down.

59 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:04:09pm

re: #57 Renaissance_Man

Out of interest, does this mean that Florida's official policy towards firearms is now 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'?

they want to change it do DON'T YOU DARE EVEN ASK!!!

60 What, me worry?  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:04:13pm

re: #38 Charles

The thing is, for every story of a cougar that could have been shot if someone had a gun, pediatricians personally observe the effects of gun violence on a day to day basis, especially if they're in a large city.

I have to disagree that this isn't a doctor's business. And I disagree that there's anything reflexive about it; if the American Academy of Pediatrics is an advocate for gun control, it isn't because they're squishy liberals scared of guns -- it's because they deal with the violent results, in cases by the millions.

Absolutely. How is it different than if a child is seen with a broken bone and the doctor suspects child abuse? Sometimes the pediatrician is the only link between the child's safety and their abuser.

Maybe if some attention was given to this situation by a doctor, an 8 year old wouldn't have shot his father and his father's friend.

[Link: www.cbsnews.com...]

Not mentioned in this story, but as I was following it at the time, the gun was loaded and lying under his father's bed.

61 Charles Johnson  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:04:21pm

This info is a bit out of date, but probably still close to the current situation; in fact, it's probably gotten worse. From the American Academy of Pediatrics: Firearm-Related Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population -- Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention 105 (4): 888 -- AAP Policy

In 1997, 32 436 firearm-related deaths (12.12/100 000) occurred in the United States, of which 4223 of the victims were children and adolescents younger than 20 years of age.1Handguns continue to account for the majority of deaths and injuries from firearms in the United States.2–6 Compared with the period from 1980 through 1985, death rates from firearms for children and adolescents increased by 31.8% during 1986 through 1992, primarily as a result of increases in the number of homicides.7 The data from 1993 through 1997 indicate a decline each year in the overall number of deaths and death rates from firearms. For all ages, the rate of firearm-related deaths fell in 1997 to 12.12 after peaking in 1993 at 15.36 per 100 000. In 1997, firearm-related deaths for adolescents 15 through 19 years of age decreased from 28.00 in 1994 to 18.84 in 1997 (Fig 1). This decrease establishes a downward trend after nearly 10 years of increase.
 
Nonetheless, by the year 2003, firearm-related deaths may become the leading cause of injury-related death.8 In fact, in 1996, in 5 states (Alaska, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, and Virginia) and the District of Columbia, firearm-related deaths already outnumbered the deaths related to motor vehicle crashes (A. Crosby, written communication, February 1999).

In 1997, firearm-related deaths accounted for 22.5% of all injury deaths in children and adolescents 1 through 19 years of age.1 Among adolescents 15 through 19 years of age, 32.2% of all injury deaths are firearm related (Table 1). Among black males 10 through 34 years of age, injuries from firearms are the leading cause of death.9 Most firearm-related deaths of children occur before their arrival at the hospital.

62 Wozza Matter?  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:04:54pm

re: #56 Rightwingconspirator

We agree that guns are dangerous equipment. Doctors are usually leery of anecdotal evidence like individual incidents. Doctors usually rely more on statistical data and deep research. I simply claim that the doctors/medical associations policies on guns are more a reflection of anecdotal evidence & the mass medias "if it bleeds it leads" tendencies not the real stats.

The statistical data is gathered from isolated incidents. No one wants to think this stuff happens regularly, but it does - and the number of "isolated incidents" proves that.

63 Political Atheist  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:05:41pm

re: #55 wozzablog

Going for help is not always a bad idea. She was in no position to rush in apart from perhaps triggering an attack by the drinking wildcat. BTW she had to back away to get to the phone for 911.

64 Political Atheist  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:06:01pm

re: #57 Renaissance_Man

Out of interest, does this mean that Florida's official policy towards firearms is now 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'?

*snickers*

65 Iwouldprefernotto  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:06:12pm

If a doctor doesn't report suspected child abuse, he can be sent to jail. But if he thinks that there are unlocked handguns in a kid's home, he, by law, must keep his mouth shut. thanks, but no thanks.

PS. Don't the Republicans believe in the first amendment? You know, the freedom of speachy part.

66 Decatur Deb  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:06:18pm

re: #62 wozzablog

The statistical data is gathered from isolated incidents. No one wants to think this stuff happens regularly, but it does - and the number of "isolated incidents" proves that.

Data is collected at emergency rooms under the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS).

67 Kragar  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:07:29pm

re: #61 Charles

Why do we even need a Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention? Shouldn't regular church attendance and prayer take care of that?

Big Government intruding on our lives once again!

68 jaunte  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:07:38pm

Here's a little more of the text:

CS/CS/HB 155 - Privacy of Firearm Owners
Privacy of Firearm Owners: Provides that licensed practitioner or facility may not record firearm ownership information in patient's medical record; provides exception; provides that unless information is relevant to patient's medical care or safety or safety of others, inquiries regarding firearm ownership or possession should not be made; provides exception for EMTS & paramedics; provides that patient may decline to provide information regarding ownership or possession of firearms; clarifies that physician's authority to choose patients is not altered; prohibits discrimination by licensed practitioners or facilities based solely on patient's firearm ownership or possession; prohibits harassment of patient regarding firearm ownership during examination; prohibits denial of insurance coverage, increased premiums, or other discrimination by insurance companies issuing policies on basis of insured's or applicant's ownership, possession, or storage of firearms or ammunition; clarifies that insurer is not prohibited from considering value of firearms or ammunition in setting personal property premiums; provides for disciplinary action.
[Link: www.myfloridahouse.gov...]


Prohibiting insurance companies from increasing their premiums for firearm owners seems unbalanced.

69 Decatur Deb  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:09:43pm

re: #68 jaunte

Here's a little more of the text:


Prohibiting insurance companies from increasing their premiums for firearm owners seems unbalanced.

And will probably kill the law. The market knows best.

70 Political Atheist  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:10:21pm

For pools better equipment & responsible behavior is advocated. For guns, not having them is advocated. Hmmm. Could it be the guns are evil meme?

[Link: dcspoolbarriers.com...]

Children: In 2005, of all children 1 to 4 years old who died, almost 30% died from drowning. Although drowning rates have slowly declined,1, 3 fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death for children ages 1 to 14 years.

71 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:10:22pm

re: #19 Shiplord Kirel

Pediatrician: "Oh, hi officer. I wanted to pass on some very disturbing information I got from my 7-year-old patient Jamie S when I asked him he got some gun-cleaning solvent in his eyes."

Detective: "And?"

Pediatrician: "He tells me that his stepfather keeps two loaded submachine guns in the hall closet, a Desert Eagle .50 with 5 magazines in the nightstand, and an RPG-7 with 12 extra rockets under some loose floorboards in the kitchen."

Detective: "YOU'RE UNDER ARREST!"

Correct course of action, in my estimation, as a Desert Eagle and a Soviet RPG are at least as likely to damage their users as their intended target.

/, kinda

72 Political Atheist  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:11:10pm

re: #68 jaunte

I agree.

73 Decatur Deb  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:12:14pm

re: #70 Rightwingconspirator

For pools better equipment & responsible behavior is advocated. For guns, not having them is advocated. Hmmm. Could it be the guns are evil meme?

[Link: dcspoolbarriers.com...]

Children: In 2005, of all children 1 to 4 years old who died, almost 30% died from drowning. Although drowning rates have slowly declined,1, 3 fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death for children ages 1 to 14 years.

I have guns. I would not have a pool when the kids were home (now grandkids). Intelligent control is not prohibition.

74 albusteve  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:13:41pm

if people are so stupid that they leave children with access to loaded weapons, no law will influence them otherwise, just piss them off....they should be prosecuted accordingly for manslaughter

75 reine.de.tout  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:13:44pm

re: #18 SanFranciscoZionist

My dad used a lockbox.

I was in my mid-twenties before I got over my apprehension about touching the lockbox without supervision, such was the childhood indoctrination about not touching it without Daddy's presence and permission.

Absolutely.
Our guns are in a locked cabinet, in an unused room, unloaded, and the key is somewhere else. The bottom drawer contains knives used for hunting/fishing, and it is also locked tight.

76 jaunte  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:14:32pm

re: #73 Decatur Deb

AMA conclusions on storage:

The 4 practices of keeping a gun locked, unloaded, storing ammunition locked, and in a separate location are each associated with a protective effect and suggest a feasible strategy to reduce these types of injuries in homes with children and teenagers where guns are stored.
[Link: jama.ama-assn.org...]
77 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:14:35pm

As a responsible parent, you are within your rights in this country to teach your children about firearms and shooting. Safety in storage, handling, and use is the first and highest priority in any such training. This is true of anyone who is learning to shoot, but especially of children.

There are in fact guns designed especially for children, the famous Stevens Favorite .22 rifle being, well, a real favorite. This is a single-shot rifle with a specific and slow loading procedure and logical safety features. It is a perfect teaching tool, though still a lethal weapon. It is also small and fairly light, but heavy enough to emphasize that it is not a toy.

78 Charles Johnson  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:15:33pm

In any case, even if the American Academy of Pediatrics has a "political agenda" (which I'm not willing to grant), this Florida law is insane. It's clearly putting children at risk to prevent their doctors from even ASKING QUESTIONS about gun safety in their home.

The real political agenda here is from the NRA and gun rights advocates. They've identified the AAP as one of their more effective enemies, so the NRA is moving to silence them, using the Tea Party's political clout.

79 allegro  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:15:48pm

re: #41 Rightwingconspirator

Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents.

Maybe because physicians are talking about gun safety to parents who haven't figured out that loaded guns that acre accessible to children is a really bad idea? It seems rather intuitive that this dramatic decrease in gun accidents is due to gun safety awareness.

80 Charles Johnson  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:15:55pm

re: #70 Rightwingconspirator

For pools better equipment & responsible behavior is advocated. For guns, not having them is advocated. Hmmm. Could it be the guns are evil meme?

[Link: dcspoolbarriers.com...]

Children: In 2005, of all children 1 to 4 years old who died, almost 30% died from drowning. Although drowning rates have slowly declined,1, 3 fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death for children ages 1 to 14 years.

Swimming pools have a purpose other than killing people.

81 Decatur Deb  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:16:00pm

re: #76 jaunte

AMA conclusions on storage:

That is almost a quote from the Army regulations on storing guns in housing units that are licensed for Family Child Care programs.

82 dragonfire1981  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:19:05pm

That's it! I've completely had it with this bullshit!

I could say a lot of things and mean every single one of them but most of them would get me banned.

So let me say this: It's NOT about "limited government", it's not about "fiscal responsibility" and it's not about "free markets". It's about making the rich richer and poor ignorant...in the name of God they claim to understand yet seem to actually know little about.

And they love to invoke the names of the Founders in this nonsense and claim America was intended to be a Christian nation. If that was the case why was the very FIRST thing they added to the constitution and prohibition on religion in government?

Beyond that, if they had wanted America to be a Christian state they probably would have mentioned it in the ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.

The Founders wouldn't love the America of today and they sure as hell wouldn't love the America the right wing wants to create. You see in the Founders time people and politicians had a LOT more of two things that are sorely lacking today: honesty and integrity.

A free America is great if everyone plays by the rules and has strong morals to back that up, but when things start going off the rails and it becomes of contest of who can screw who the most effectively (and benefit most in the process), someone or some entity HAS to step in, lest anarchy reign.

The founders envisioned an America where a lot of rules would NOT be needed because people would have the integrity and morals to do the right thing the majority of the time.

Do you think George Washington for a moment EVER thought that corporate interests would take over the country and that politicians would just become glorified yes men for their profit driven overlords? NO! That's exactly the kind of corrupt BS that drove these men out of Europe and to the new world in the first place.

These people like to talk about indoctrination and somehow teaching our kids that the environment should be protected and guns should be handled carefully and sexual activity should be done safely are "infringements" on our glorious "constitutional freedoms", yet they have no problem teaching their kids that the first black president isn't even a real President because he wasn't born here and here's an evil socialist who hates America and is out to destroy us all.

(is it sad I think my blood pressure is going up as I write this?)

I've read my Constitution and nowhere does it state: "We decree the people of the United States of America shall be kept ignorant henceforth and we trust our God to take care of any problems that arise."

This bothers me to no end because we aren't just screwing this generation, we're screwing the one after that and the one after that and so forth. It's said this generation will not retire as well of as our parents did. You think our kids are going to do better? The teen unemployment rate is at an all time high, more children are living with their parents for longer than ever before and good jobs are becoming more and more scarce.

It's funny to me, one of the first lessons I learned from my mother was to "clean up your messes and put things back the way you found it" Why can't we adopt this approach with our planet? It really doesn't take a lot of effort to be an environmentally conscious person. You don't even have to drive a Prius and keep three recycle bins out front of your house, you just need to be a responsible adult, a creature which is becoming ever rarer in American society...at all levels.

Think about students and historians 100 years from now looking back at the early 21st century. What will they think? They'll think that the election of the first Black president sent the Republican Party off the rails and gave new mainstream acceptance to a dangerous brand of far right principles under the guise of "fiscal responsibility".

It was said when Barack Obama became President that "change had to come to America." It had, but the not the kind that statement was referring to. (continued next post)

83 reine.de.tout  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:20:16pm

I've lived my entire life in homes with guns, properly stored and locked away.

And not a single one of those guns was owned for the purpose of killing people.

They were owned for the purpose of learning to use them for target shooting; and at one time, the Roi hunted, though he hasn't done that in years.

84 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:21:33pm

re: #65 Iwouldprefernotto

If a doctor doesn't report suspected child abuse, he can be sent to jail. But if he thinks that there are unlocked handguns in a kid's home, he, by law, must keep his mouth shut. thanks, but no thanks.

PS. Don't the Republicans believe in the first amendment? You know, the freedom of speachy part.

They just believe in the 2nd Amendment a lot more, and see it as necessary to secure those 1st Amendment rights they see being restricted by liberal statists.

85 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:22:05pm

re: #71 negativ

Correct course of action, in my estimation, as a Desert Eagle and a Soviet RPG are at least as likely to damage their users as their intended target.

/, kinda

I'd pay money to see some nutcase try to fire an RPG from his kitchen window when the evil feds come to haul him off to FEMA camp (only from a safe distance though).

86 What, me worry?  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:22:47pm

This man was elected because of Tea Party fervor. It was a close race between him an Alex Sink and if it hadn't been for the Tea Party, he never would have won. The fact that he should be in jail and not our governor was lost on millions of morons who thought we should have a "non-politician" business man running our state.

I would make the statement that THEY deserve what THEY get when he makes law of every fucked up piece of legislation that's put before him, but the THEY is actually ME and so WE have to suffer through it.

87 Stanghazi  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:23:22pm

BronxZoosCobra Bronx Zoo's Cobra

Some snakes eat their own young. #happymothersday

88 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:23:26pm

re: #80 Charles

Swimming pools have a purpose other than killing people.

I never used one for anything else...

/

89 dragonfire1981  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:23:28pm

I would never in my wildest dreams thought the election of the first Black president would be met with such suspicion and hostility and paranoia as we've seen. It's astounding. Completely astounding.

And what makes me saddest of all is at the end of the day I think America is still a great country with many great people and benefits. It's our leaders who have let us down. We are no longer a country "of the people and by the people." Politicians are now owned by corporations. They care nothing for their constituents, they just want that next big campaign donation so they can keep their cushy job and free health care.

America DOES need change but not the kind the far right (or the far left) wants. I doubt I will see it in my lifetime but I will never stop believing that it is possible and I will never stop believing there are people out there who have America's best interests at heart.

I wish I could post this entire response to every crazy post on this site because it's how I feel every single time. I should maybe page the whole thing up separately. This is the first time I have ever fully voiced my opinion on this and it ended stretching a lot longer than I planned.

For all who are still with me. Thanks for reading.

90 Decatur Deb  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:24:12pm

re: #85 Shiplord Kirel

I'd pay money to see some nutcase try to fire an RPG from his kitchen window when the evil feds come to haul him off to FEMA camp (only from a safe distance though).

If the kitchen were small and tough enough, he might land at the feet of the nearest agent.

91 reine.de.tout  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:24:22pm

re: #83 reine.de.tout

I've lived my entire life in homes with guns, properly stored and locked away.

And not a single one of those guns was owned for the purpose of killing people.

They were owned for the purpose of learning to use them for target shooting; and at one time, the Roi hunted, though he hasn't done that in years.

That said, I have no problem at all with pediatricians finding out if a home is safe for children to live in.

I went through my house before my daughter started crawling. I got down on my hands and knees and crawled through the house to see exactly what it was she would be able to have access to at that level, and then I took care of those things that posed a danger - light sockets, cleaning supplies, etc. It's obvious there are lots of parents who have no clue how to childproof a house, and if a pediatrician's questions can provide information for them to advise the parents, that's a good thing.

92 Stanghazi  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:24:34pm

re: #86 marjoriemoon

This man was elected because of Tea Party fervor. It was a close race between him an Alex Sink and if it hadn't been for the Tea Party, he never would have won. The fact that he should be in jail and not our governor was lost on millions of morons who thought we should have a "non-politician" business man running our state.

I would make the statement that THEY deserve what THEY get when he makes law of every fucked up piece of legislation that's put before him, but the THEY is actually ME and so WE have to suffer through it.

I cannot imagine what you Floridians are going to go through for the next few.

93 Renaissance_Man  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:24:53pm

re: #56 Rightwingconspirator

I simply claim that the doctors/medical associations policies on guns are more a reflection of anecdotal evidence & the mass medias "if it bleeds it leads" tendencies not the real stats.

It isn't. Firstly, contrary to the persecution complex gun advocates enjoy feeling, I have seen little evidence of any concerted effort towards gun control advocacy in the patient encounter. You should be discussing something preventive in the short time you have. Firearms in the home wouldn't even be in the top 10. All of us spend a lot more time pleading with patients about not smoking, eating vegetables, not drinking Coke, drinking less alcohol, seat belts, brushing teeth, medicine safety, and, with summer approaching, pool safety. I can count on one hand the number of times I've talked to patients about gun safety in the past 6 months, and in every case it was for a reason, such as 'impulsive child with history of doing stupid stuff'. So there's no organised effort on the part of doctors to push for gun control.

Secondly, the comparison between firearms and other causes of injury and death is a specious one. Yes, cars and swimming pools cause many more injuries and deaths. Neither is equivalent to firearms. Cars are a necessity of modern life, and asking people to do without for safety is to impose ridiculous and unnecessary hardships. Pools are for entertainment, just like firearms, but the cost and hassle of removing a pool entirely is prohibitive, and furthermore the pool is something that the children can also enjoy, unlike firearms, which are toys for adults. Smoking would be a closer analogy - a luxury item used for entertainment and pleasure that can (or in the case of smoking, will) have very bad side effects. And similarly, despite the inherent problems, there is no real will to effect changes politically due to money and/or ideology.

So, similar to smoking, when a doctor asks about guns, he will often recommend that they are gone entirely, even if the patient ends up compromising to increased safety. Because it's almost always an unnecessary luxury item that has the potential for very bad consequences, and not just for the user.

94 Charles Johnson  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:25:30pm

re: #83 reine.de.tout

I've lived my entire life in homes with guns, properly stored and locked away.

And not a single one of those guns was owned for the purpose of killing people.

They were owned for the purpose of learning to use them for target shooting; and at one time, the Roi hunted, though he hasn't done that in years.

Then obviously, you're not part of the problem. The American Academy of Pediatrics is specifically concerned with handguns and "assault rifles," and these weapons really have only one purpose: killing people. This isn't always a bad thing. The best case is self-defense, of course.

But that's what they do. One thing.

95 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:26:54pm

re: #93 Renaissance_Man

. Because it's almost always an unnecessary luxury item that has the potential for very bad consequences, and not just for the user.

Guns are no luxury. They are necessesity in order to defend our rights.

/

96 reine.de.tout  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:27:10pm

re: #94 Charles

Then obviously, you're not part of the problem. The American Academy of Pediatrics is specifically concerned with handguns and "assault rifles," and these weapons really have only one purpose: killing people. This isn't always a bad thing. The best case is self-defense, of course.

But that's what they do. One thing.

I have no problem with the a doctor finding out if a home is safe for kids to live in. (and our gun collection does include two handguns, but no assault rifles, there's no reason I can see to have one of those).


See:
re: #91 reine.de.tout

That said, I have no problem at all with pediatricians finding out if a home is safe for children to live in.

I went through my house before my daughter started crawling. I got down on my hands and knees and crawled through the house to see exactly what it was she would be able to have access to at that level, and then I took care of those things that posed a danger - light sockets, cleaning supplies, etc. It's obvious there are lots of parents who have no clue how to childproof a house, and if a pediatrician's questions can provide information for them to advise the parents, that's a good thing.

97 TedStriker  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:27:29pm

re: #26 SanFranciscoZionist

My hippie liberal dad always told me that you didn't point a gun at anything you weren't planning to shoot, loaded or unloaded.

Yup...never point a gun at anything you aren't prepared to kill.

98 celticdragon  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:27:55pm

re: #42 jaunte

Is this penalty specified in the final legislation? If so, they're nuts.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the Constitutionality of this. The doctor/patient relationship is also a private contract, and doctors have 1st Amendment rights like any other American. They can discuss anything they like with their patients, and the patient is free to find another doctor if he or she is unhappy.

I do not see how the hell this can even remotely pass any court challenge.

99 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:28:13pm

re: #97 talon_262

Yup...never point a gun at anything you aren't prepared to kill.


And never kill anything you aren not prepared to eat...

100 Political Atheist  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:28:44pm

re: #80 Charles

Sure, but guns do have recreational uses too. Not just defensive, not just hunting or wildlife management. Setting that fact aside underpins the guns are evil meme.

Again the law proposed is well beyond foolish.

I'd just like to see AMA policies altered in a way to advocate responsible use & storage rather than elimination. The resources to back that effort are out there well funded & looking to expand.

101 Charles Johnson  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:28:47pm

re: #98 celticdragon

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the Constitutionality of this. The doctor/patient relationship is also a private contract, and doctors have 1st Amendment rights like any other American. They can discuss anything they like with their patients, and the patient is free to find another doctor if he or she is unhappy.

I do not see how the hell this can even remotely pass any court challenge.

It's just crazy, on a lot of levels.

102 Targetpractice  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:29:15pm

re: #101 Charles

It's just crazy, on a lot of levels.

Seems like a perfect description of the far-Right in recent years.

103 Decatur Deb  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:29:17pm

re: #99 ralphieboy

And never kill anything you aren not prepared to eat...

Except zombies.

104 albusteve  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:29:51pm

in our society, many people are consumed with American Idol, whereas gun safety is an annoying afterthought to them

105 celticdragon  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:29:55pm

re: #82 dragonfire1981

Do you think George Washington for a moment EVER thought that corporate interests would take over the country and that politicians would just become glorified yes men for their profit driven overlords? NO! That's exactly the kind of corrupt BS that drove these men out of Europe and to the new world in the first place.

This.

I've read quite a bit on some of the Founders, and Washington and Jefferson would be aghast at what we have done in their name.

106 Political Atheist  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:30:11pm

re: #91 reine.de.tout

That said, I have no problem at all with pediatricians finding out if a home is safe for children to live in.

I went through my house before my daughter started crawling. I got down on my hands and knees and crawled through the house to see exactly what it was she would be able to have access to at that level, and then I took care of those things that posed a danger - light sockets, cleaning supplies, etc. It's obvious there are lots of parents who have no clue how to childproof a house, and if a pediatrician's questions can provide information for them to advise the parents, that's a good thing.

Baby "safeing" a house is a big job. Chemicals, knives, guns, electric cords....Good advise is needed by every first child couple.

107 jaunte  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:30:54pm

re: #98 celticdragon

I don't think 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' guarantees the right to fine other people when they ask you if you own one.

108 Charles Johnson  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:31:21pm

re: #100 Rightwingconspirator

Sure, but guns do have recreational uses too. Not just defensive, not just hunting or wildlife management. Setting that fact aside underpins the guns are evil meme.

I don't see guns as inherently evil. I own one myself. But a gun is a tool for committing violence, that's just a fact.

109 reine.de.tout  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:31:32pm

re: #106 Rightwingconspirator

Baby "safeing" a house is a big job. Chemicals, knives, guns, electric cords...Good advise is needed by every first child couple.

Absolutely. And where I live, guns would be a part of that. I probably went overboard with the crawling around, LOL - but I wanted to be absolutely sure.

110 albusteve  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:32:38pm

re: #108 Charles

I don't see guns as inherently evil. I own one myself. But a gun is a tool for committing violence, that's just a fact.

kill those commie skeets!

111 Obdicut  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:33:11pm

re: #100 Rightwingconspirator

They couldn't, without violating their medical ethics, really. They're not experts on who can be a responsible owner. They can't make the judgement of who is capable of handing a firearm and keeping it safe from their children. Their only course, with the health of their patients as their primary concern, is to recommend not having them.

The results will be that most people ignore them, some people will get rid of guns or not get them, and others will become more responsible.

They have no coercive force; all they're doing is speaking. It's not an attack on gun rights in any way, shape, or form.

112 albusteve  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:33:20pm

re: #109 reine.de.tout

Absolutely. And where I live, guns would be a part of that. I probably went overboard with the crawling around, LOL - but I wanted to be absolutely sure.

bet you were ready for nap time after that

113 Decatur Deb  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:33:51pm

re: #109 reine.de.tout

Absolutely. And where I live, guns would be a part of that. I probably went overboard with the crawling around, LOL - but I wanted to be absolutely sure.

No, you didn't. Army inspectors going over Child Development Centers and Child Care homes wear blue jeans for a reason.

114 celticdragon  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:34:10pm

re: #107 jaunte

I don't think 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' guarantees the right to fine other people when they ask you if you own one.

No, not that I am aware of.

I own guns, including 2 assault rifles. If asked by my child's physician about them, I would say they are kept out of his reach and unloaded, and that he knows not to handle any weapon unless I am directing him (like with my musket, for instance).

I would then get on with the rest of the visit.

115 ProMayaLiberal  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:34:28pm

Tripoli is boiling. A tweet:


troutish: RT @Tripolitanian: Journalists in #Tripoli remain locked up in a 5-star prison while the city shows signs of re-awakening. | #Libya #Feb17
half a minute ago

an elaboration which is being seen on Twitter all over the place:

Freedom4Libya
Traffic being diverted away from Martyr's Square in #Tripoli due to heavy clashes in Soug Eljuma'a and Tajoura districts

116 dmon  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:35:02pm

Guess that whole GOP thing about not letting government interfere with the doctor/ patient relationship was bullshit then.........

Who would have thought?/

117 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:35:43pm

re: #77 Shiplord Kirel

As a responsible parent, you are within your rights in this country to teach your children about firearms and shooting. Safety in storage, handling, and use is the first and highest priority in any such training. This is true of anyone who is learning to shoot, but especially of children.

There are in fact guns designed especially for children, the famous Stevens Favorite .22 rifle being, well, a real favorite. This is a single-shot rifle with a specific and slow loading procedure and logical safety features. It is a perfect teaching tool, though still a lethal weapon. It is also small and fairly light, but heavy enough to emphasize that it is not a toy.

Oh, forgot to mention: For an extra 17 dollars, the Stevens rifle comes in a take-down version. This is easy for an adult to take apart for storage, very difficult for a child to put back together.

118 aagcobb  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:35:56pm

How is this law not blatantly unconstitutional? I'm sick of politicians trying to micromanage doctor-patient relationships, in abortion clinics and now this. Next thing you know, anti-vaccers will demand a law requiring pediatricians to warn parents that vaccines can cause autism.

119 reine.de.tout  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:36:58pm

re: #112 albusteve

bet you were ready for nap time after that

Yep.
Problem was my daughter never napped, or rather, it was two 15-minute naps a day. I was exhausted. Hell, I am exhausted to this day!

120 HappyWarrior  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:37:04pm

re: #118 aagcobb

Next thing you know, anti-vaccers will demand a law requiring pediatricians to warn parents that vaccines can cause autism.

If they do that, I am going to be pissed. As someone with Asperger's, I am sick of the anti vaxxers using us as their means to go after vaccines. Vaccines save lives.

121 Political Atheist  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:37:16pm

re: #111 Obdicut

They couldn't, without violating their medical ethics, really. They're not experts on who can be a responsible owner. They can't make the judgement of who is capable of handing a firearm and keeping it safe from their children. Their only course, with the health of their patients as their primary concern, is to recommend not having them.

The results will be that most people ignore them, some people will get rid of guns or not get them, and others will become more responsible.

They have no coercive force; all they're doing is speaking. It's not an attack on gun rights in any way, shape, or form.

A better policy is within their reach if they would choose to use it. A better policy might be more effective. To be fair I strongly suspect rural doctors take a different approach than urban doctors.

122 albusteve  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:38:16pm

re: #118 aagcobb

How is this law not blatantly unconstitutional? I'm sick of politicians trying to micromanage doctor-patient relationships, in abortion clinics and now this. Next thing you know, anti-vaccers will demand a law requiring pediatricians to warn parents that vaccines can cause autism.

Fedzilla...the new GOP attack beast
should this continue I may start to feel oppressed

123 albusteve  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:39:04pm

re: #119 reine.de.tout

Yep.
Problem was my daughter never napped, or rather, it was two 15-minute naps a day. I was exhausted. Hell, I am exhausted to this day!

ha...now my baby is chasing her own baby around the house...funny that

124 Targetpractice  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:39:17pm

re: #116 dmon

Guess that whole GOP thing about not letting government interfere with the doctor/ patient relationship was bullshit then...

Who would have thought?/

Nah, they don't want government between you and your doctor, they want an insurance bean-counter there. "Free market" and all, that dontchaknow.

125 calochortus  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:41:38pm

re: #41 Rightwingconspirator

Sure. Just approach and walk by the cougar and grab the kid...

So going in the house, getting your handgun and shooting a cougar who is standing between you and your child is a great plan? If you don't kill the animal instantly (or miss and hit your kid), you'll have one large and angry cat on your hands.

126 Obdicut  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:41:40pm

re: #121 Rightwingconspirator

A better policy is within their reach if they would choose to use it. A better policy might be more effective. To be fair I strongly suspect rural doctors take a different approach than urban doctors.

I'm not sure you understood me. Advocating responsibility is not a better policy if you're not a competent judge of who is going to be responsible. Not everyone will.

Guns, to doctors, present a health hazard. That is their sole existence to them. And doctors have to-- absolutely have to-- be advocates for their patients first. You can take their advice, or not; they're coming from the position of what's best for your health, and that's all.

I don't get why the idea of anyone advocating getting rid of guns-- voluntarily, with no coercion-- is a bad policy. Do you seriously think everyone should own a gun?

Those rural doctors may very well be competent judges of which gun owners are responsible owners or not. I do not doubt for a minute that they likewise use that knowledge to tell those patients they don't believe are capable of being responsible to get rid of their guns. Do you think they err in doing that?

Or are you operating from the point of view that holds everyone is capable of being a responsible gun owner? That is most definitely not true, except in the most Platonic sense.

127 Charles Johnson  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:42:42pm

Even recreational use of guns is a violent activity, by the way.

That doesn't mean I'm saying it's bad, I'm not. But it's potentially deadly violence, requiring special safety precautions.

That's why I bristle a little when gun ownership is compared to swimming pools. They're simply not in the same class, and not comparable. A swimming pool is designed to help people, not kill them. It's potentially dangerous, but not remotely the same way as a handgun.

128 TedStriker  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:43:27pm

re: #38 Charles

The thing is, for every story of a cougar that could have been shot if someone had a gun, pediatricians personally observe the effects of gun violence on a day to day basis, especially if they're in a large city.

I have to disagree that this isn't a doctor's business. And I disagree that there's anything reflexive about it; if the American Academy of Pediatrics is an advocate for gun control, it isn't because they're squishy liberals scared of guns -- it's because they deal with the violent results, in cases by the millions.

QFT...it seems to me that hardcore wingnuts firearms owners don't give two shits about what happens when people don't treat firearms with due caution and respect and children get hurt or killed by the thousands every year. Nope, I don't think they care about that grim footnote, just so long as their sacrosanct Second Amendment rights are not interfered with in any way, even if it makes sense to keep and handle firearms in ways that helps to prevent injuries and fatalities to children when they shouldn't even be handling those firearms.

The general vibe I'm getting from Scott and his supporters on this subject is "we know kids get hurt or killed in firearms accidents that can mostly be avoided if the firearms owners stored and handled their firearms responsibly, but hey, you know to make an omelet, you gotta break a few eggs...DON"T TREAD ON ME!!11ty".

Fucking assholes...

129 Amory Blaine  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:43:46pm

9 guns for every 10 people in this country plus all the guns we pollute other countries with. Anyone who claims "they're coming for our guns" is either stupid or a liar.

130 Targetpractice  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:44:21pm

re: #122 albusteve

Fedzilla...the new GOP attack beast
should this continue I may start to feel oppressed

The GOP loves "big government," so long as they're the ones holding the leash.

131 Decatur Deb  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:45:08pm

Who dropped the "Governor Valdemort" line? I can't find it to upding it.

132 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:45:20pm

I've never owned any kind of firearm.

I've discharged a few weapons.

Never felt comfortable around them or holding them.

133 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:45:39pm

re: #131 Decatur Deb

Try Voldemort.

134 celticdragon  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:45:50pm

re: #130 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

The GOP loves "big government," so long as they're the ones holding the leash.

Exactly. Too small to dispute anything their corporate masters demand, but big enough to keep teh faggots and teh uppity wimminz and brown skinned people in line...

135 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:47:12pm

re: #131 Decatur Deb

Who dropped the "Governor Valdemort" line? I can't find it to upding it.

And try the previous thread...

136 Charles Johnson  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:47:46pm
137 HappyWarrior  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:48:01pm

re: #130 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

The GOP loves "big government," so long as they're the ones holding the leash.

Pretty much. It's a myth that the GOP is for small government especially the so-cons.

138 Decatur Deb  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:48:47pm

re: #135 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

And try the previous thread...

Ah. 'Spy' was blasting by for a bit, there.

139 Amory Blaine  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:48:51pm

re: #132 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I've never owned any kind of firearm.

I've discharged a few weapons.

Never felt comfortable around them or holding them.

I target shoot once or twice a year and also accompany friends and family for deer and duck hunting (I don't hunt).

140 calochortus  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:49:04pm

re: #136 Charles

Crazy right wing tweet of the day.

You probably noticed, but that doesn't make any sense.

141 albusteve  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:49:32pm

re: #136 Charles

Crazy right wing tweet of the day.

that's at least a .40, maybe even a .45APC

142 lostlakehiker  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:49:51pm

re: #93 Renaissance_Man

It isn't. Firstly, contrary to the persecution complex gun advocates enjoy feeling, I have seen little evidence of any concerted effort towards gun control advocacy in the patient encounter. You should be discussing something preventive in the short time you have. Firearms in the home wouldn't even be in the top 10. All of us spend a lot more time pleading with patients about not smoking, eating vegetables, not drinking Coke, drinking less alcohol, seat belts, brushing teeth, medicine safety, and, with summer approaching, pool safety. I can count on one hand the number of times I've talked to patients about gun safety in the past 6 months, and in every case it was for a reason, such as 'impulsive child with history of doing stupid stuff'. So there's no organised effort on the part of doctors to push for gun control.

Secondly, the comparison between firearms and other causes of injury and death is a specious one. Yes, cars and swimming pools cause many more injuries and deaths. Neither is equivalent to firearms. Cars are a necessity of modern life, and asking people to do without for safety is to impose ridiculous and unnecessary hardships. Pools are for entertainment, just like firearms, but the cost and hassle of removing a pool entirely is prohibitive, and furthermore the pool is something that the children can also enjoy, unlike firearms, which are toys for adults. Smoking would be a closer analogy - a luxury item used for entertainment and pleasure that can (or in the case of smoking, will) have very bad side effects. And similarly, despite the inherent problems, there is no real will to effect changes politically due to money and/or ideology.

So, similar to smoking, when a doctor asks about guns, he will often recommend that they are gone entirely, even if the patient ends up compromising to increased safety. Because it's almost always an unnecessary luxury item that has the potential for very bad consequences, and not just for the user.

Guns aren't always a luxury item for entertainment. I recall going up to a rural house near the highway after a minor accident, hoping to induce the homeowner to make a call on my behalf. (This, in the days before cell phones). I was met by the lady of the house and her three friends, Smith, Wesson, and Rin-Tin-Tin.

And how else can it be? She's all alone. If I'm a predator, dialing 911 won't much help; whatever's going to happen will be over and done with long before the sheriff makes it out of town, much less 30 miles down the road.

Everything worked out perfectly in the end, and I had no complaint with her caution.

The fact that a great many rural homes are similarly on their guard has to be one limiting factor in rural home invasions. Sure, such weapons are hardly ever used---but one reason this is so has to be that crooks weigh the odds and the odds are much better for other lines of work, legal or illegal.

143 Amory Blaine  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:50:27pm

re: #136 Charles

Crazy right wing tweet of the day.

That woman looks like she's wearing Noriegas blazer.

144 TedStriker  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:50:38pm

re: #100 Rightwingconspirator

Sure, but guns do have recreational uses too. Not just defensive, not just hunting or wildlife management. Setting that fact aside underpins the guns are evil meme.

Again the law proposed is well beyond foolish.

I'd just like to see AMA policies altered in a way to advocate responsible use & storage rather than elimination. The resources to back that effort are out there well funded & looking to expand.

Charles (and the AAP) wasn't talking about all guns, AFAIK, but those whose primary designed purpose (handguns and "assault" rifles) is to enable people to kill other humans. Not for hunting game, not for recreational shooting, but to kill people, whether in combat on a battlefield or in self-defense; frankly, to me, it sholdn't matter what type of gun it is or what it's used for, gun owners should handle and store their weapons responsibly and out of reach of children.

145 celticdragon  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:51:33pm

re: #136 Charles

Crazy right wing tweet of the day.

I love the Michelle Bachmann glassy eyed stare she has.

They both remind me of that wacko Marshall Applewhite from the Heaven's Gate suicide cult.

When it comes to making up these Obama hatred memes, does anyone else here think like me that they made up a random accusation generator that works like a mad libs?

Just punch up a new Obama conspiracy theory every couple of days and throw it out there. See which ones work!

146 HappyWarrior  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:51:41pm

So, that's what happens when you teach your crazy grandmother how to use twitter.

147 aagcobb  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:52:06pm

re: #136 Charles

Reminds me of the emails a relative of mine was sending when she was in the manic phase of manic depression. Paranoid and nonsensical.

148 HappyWarrior  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:53:13pm

The funny thing is she probably thinks she's a loving person and it's the liberals like Obama who are the real hateful ones.

149 Decatur Deb  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:53:54pm

re: #145 celticdragon

I love the Michelle Bachmann glassy eyed stare she has.

They both remind me of that wacko Marshall Applewhite from the Heaven's Gate suicide cult.

When it comes to making up these Obama hatred memes, does anyone else here think like me that they made up a random accusation generator that works like a mad libs?

Just punch up a new Obama conspiracy theory every couple of days and throw it out there. See which ones work!

There's probably an app for that.

150 Lidane  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:54:33pm

re: #137 HappyWarrior

Pretty much. It's a myth that the GOP is for small government especially the so-cons.

Exactly. It's why I laugh every time someone tells me that the GOP is a party of smaller government. That's total bullshit, unless you define smaller government as government that's small enough to fit in your bedroom or in a woman's vagina.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans are parties of big government. but at least the Dems are honest about it.

151 Political Atheist  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:54:53pm

re: #127 Charles

My genuine apologies for any aggravation. My pool comparison was an attempt to illustrate where the AMA went for a meme rather than the actual accident stats. Not easy as the stats are so used and abused by advocates of one side or another... I do agree pools and guns themselves are a poor comparison.

We agree on some of this (the law at hand) and disagree on much of the rest. My last point I'll make on this is that I disagree that target shooting is a violent activity.

152 Decatur Deb  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:55:17pm

re: #148 HappyWarrior

The funny thing is she probably thinks she's a loving person and it's the liberals like Obama who are the real hateful ones.

Of course she is--she's a Reverend, dedicated to loving her neighbor as herself.

153 calochortus  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:55:24pm

re: #148 HappyWarrior

What I'm not getting is why she would care if Blacks are "repatriated" to Africa?

154 Political Atheist  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:56:15pm

Going upstairs >>>

155 Decatur Deb  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:56:20pm

re: #151 Rightwingconspirator

My genuine apologies for any aggravation. My pool comparison was an attempt to illustrate where the AMA went for a meme rather than the actual accident stats. Not easy as the stats are so used and abused by advocates of one side or another... I do agree pools and guns themselves are a poor comparison.

We agree on some of this (the law at hand) and disagree on much of the rest. My last point I'll make on this is that I disagree that target shooting is a violent activity.

So you don't wear hearing protection and shooting glasses?

156 aagcobb  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:56:32pm

re: #148 HappyWarrior

The tweet is so incoherent and insane, other than the fact that Obama is mentioned it doesn't make sense as a right-wing conspiracy. Repatriating blacks to Africa would seem like a crazy moonbat conspiracy theory.

157 lostlakehiker  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:56:58pm

re: #111 Obdicut

They couldn't, without violating their medical ethics, really. They're not experts on who can be a responsible owner. They can't make the judgement of who is capable of handing a firearm and keeping it safe from their children. Their only course, with the health of their patients as their primary concern, is to recommend not having them.

The results will be that most people ignore them, some people will get rid of guns or not get them, and others will become more responsible.

They have no coercive force; all they're doing is speaking. It's not an attack on gun rights in any way, shape, or form.

But doctors are not on their home turf when it comes to this topic. How can they know the local incidence of jewelry-store robbery and murder, for instance? By reading the paper, perhaps. But that's not a medical journal.

The patient knows as well as the doctor that guns go bang. This isn't a mystery. It isn't something like smoking, where you pull the trigger on yourself but the bang comes years later. A pastor, a cop, a trusted friend, an expert adviser in matters of home security, an insurance agent---all these may be in a better position to give advice than an MD.

If the patient is suicidal or something, that'd be a different story.

158 aagcobb  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:57:16pm

re: #151 Rightwingconspirator

How about when they use pictures of the President as the target?

159 Decatur Deb  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:57:18pm

re: #154 Rightwingconspirator

Going upstairs >>>

re: #155 Decatur Deb

So you don't wear hearing protection and shooting glasses?

You'll never escape me, RWC

160 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:58:26pm

re: #99 ralphieboy

And never kill anything you aren not prepared to eat...

I am NOT going to eat a home invader. I have no idea where he might have been. And some of them carry diseases.

161 moderatelyradicalliberal  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:58:47pm

re: #116 dmon

Guess that whole GOP thing about not letting government interfere with the doctor/ patient relationship was bullshit then...

Who would have thought?/

Whatever accusations the GOP makes about others, they are guilty of themselves.

Seriously, what is wrong with these people?

162 celticdragon  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:59:13pm

re: #157 lostlakehiker

The patient knows as well as the doctor that guns go bang. This isn't a mystery. It isn't something like smoking, where you pull the trigger on yourself but the bang comes years later. A pastor, a cop, a trusted friend, an expert adviser in matters of home security, an insurance agent---all these may be in a better position to give advice than an MD.

The pediatrician is the one who deals with the two year old kid who gets a 9mm in the abdomen from the five year old who found the Glock in the nightstand. Who else is better positioned to ask about it, do you suppose?

163 HappyWarrior  Sun, May 8, 2011 12:59:51pm

re: #150 Lidane

Exactly. It's why I laugh every time someone tells me that the GOP is a party of smaller government. That's total bullshit, unless you define smaller government as government that's small enough to fit in your bedroom or in a woman's vagina.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans are parties of big government. but at least the Dems are honest about it.

I mean this is the same party that greatly expanded the war on drugs (Hi, President Reagan) or used opposition to gays marrying to get the base out (Hello, FMA and President Bush.) When you rely on the religious right as a huge part of your base and then pander to them, you're not being small government.

164 Lidane  Sun, May 8, 2011 1:00:00pm

re: #162 celticdragon

The pediatrician is the one who deals with the two year old kid who gets a 9mm in the abdomen from the five year old who found the Glock in the nightstand. Who else is better positioned to ask about it, do you suppose?

The NRA, of course. That pediatrician just has an agenda, don'tcha know.

///

165 albusteve  Sun, May 8, 2011 1:00:07pm

re: #162 celticdragon

The pediatrician is the one who deals with the two year old kid who gets a 9mm in the abdomen from the five year old who found the Glock in the nightstand. Who else is better positioned to ask about it, do you suppose?

the police....it's criminal at that point

166 celticdragon  Sun, May 8, 2011 1:02:13pm

re: #165 albusteve

the police...it's criminal at that point

I was talking about asking whether the guns was there to be played with in the first place...

167 Renaissance_Man  Sun, May 8, 2011 1:02:35pm

re: #162 celticdragon

The pediatrician is the one who deals with the two year old kid who gets a 9mm in the abdomen from the five year old who found the Glock in the nightstand. Who else is better positioned to ask about it, do you suppose?

See, that's exactly what this law is supposed to do. Protect innocent guns from the stigma that comes when some hate-filled liberal with an agenda politicises a tragedy. I mean, a child just got shot. Have we no shame, that we want to start using the tragedy for political gain even in the Emergency Room?

168 calochortus  Sun, May 8, 2011 1:03:01pm

re: #157 lostlakehiker

But doctors are not on their home turf when it comes to this topic. How can they know the local incidence of jewelry-store robbery and murder, for instance? By reading the paper, perhaps. But that's not a medical journal.

The patient knows as well as the doctor that guns go bang. This isn't a mystery. It isn't something like smoking, where you pull the trigger on yourself but the bang comes years later. A pastor, a cop, a trusted friend, an expert adviser in matters of home security, an insurance agent---all these may be in a better position to give advice than an MD.

If the patient is suicidal or something, that'd be a different story.

I'm not sure that my gynecologist is on her home turf when dealing with domestic violence, but Kaiser has every Ob/Gyn ask if you are "safe at home" at every visit. Presumably Kaiser has decided that it is in everyone's interest to ask this question.
With questions about guns, I would imagine it is intended to remind people who just haven't given the matter thought. They are legion, and what can it hurt. They probably tell you not to keep drain cleaner in a coke bottle under your sink too. (I knew someone years ago whose stepson had multiple surgeries and continuing problems because his parents did just that, and the kid drank some.)

169 TedStriker  Sun, May 8, 2011 1:04:15pm

re: #151 Rightwingconspirator

My genuine apologies for any aggravation. My pool comparison was an attempt to illustrate where the AMA went for a meme rather than the actual accident stats. Not easy as the stats are so used and abused by advocates of one side or another... I do agree pools and guns themselves are a poor comparison.

We agree on some of this (the law at hand) and disagree on much of the rest. My last point I'll make on this is that I disagree that target shooting is a violent activity.

Any operation of a firearm is a violent activity, IMO, even on a range. Think about it...there's reasons why ranges have berms and rules to use eye and ear protection and to stay off the range while firing is underway.

You know I'm right about this...

170 calochortus  Sun, May 8, 2011 1:04:44pm

re: #168 calochortus

PIMF- and what can it hurt to ask the question?

171 Political Atheist  Sun, May 8, 2011 1:05:02pm

re: #155 Decatur Deb
Of course I do. Heh much of the day yesterday.
But skydivers wear eye protection too. Not a violent sport. Okay now ya got me to break my word in 151.

Ya scoundrel. :-)

172 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, May 8, 2011 1:05:31pm

re: #166 celticdragon

I was talking about asking whether the guns was there to be played with in the first place...

Bingo. This is a safety issue, and the idea that it's more important for the doctor not to ask your child about guns than for YOU to know that your kid is fully aware that you've got a loaded gun somewhere he can get at it is plain silly.

173 Decatur Deb  Sun, May 8, 2011 1:06:31pm

re: #171 Rightwingconspirator

Of course I do. Heh much of the day yesterday.
But skydivers wear eye protection too. Not a violent sport. Okay now ya got me to break my word in 151.

Ya scoundrel. :-)

You never had a reserve opening at terminal velocity.

174 Political Atheist  Sun, May 8, 2011 1:14:42pm

re: #169 talon_262
Okay I prolly did as well as I can to make my points but to be fair enough to answer yours-& this goes to Decatur deb too-
That's violent in a very different context than criminal use of a gun. Heck I need ear and eye protection to do parts of my job like when I use a casting torch. I never thought of that as violent, just potentially dangerous. In the broadest sense many activities require some bodily protection.

175 Decatur Deb  Sun, May 8, 2011 1:16:55pm

re: #174 Rightwingconspirator

Kid here for Mother's Day--BBL

176 Summer Seale  Sun, May 8, 2011 1:18:26pm

I'm not a legal expert by far, but isn't this illegal? You know...something called the first amendment which actually comes before the second amendment? As in: free speech? The right to ask whatever the fuck you please from anyone you want?

177 TedStriker  Sun, May 8, 2011 1:26:06pm

re: #176 Summer

I'm not a legal expert by far, but isn't this illegal? You know...something called the first amendment which actually comes before the second amendment? As in: free speech? The right to ask whatever the fuck you please from anyone you want?

The Bill of Rights generally only covers interference of those rights from the government (which is what this bill would do), not between private individuals and organizations. As I see it, this proposed FL bill would violate doctor's First Amendment rights, as well as violate and diminish patient-doctor privilege.

178 sagehen  Sun, May 8, 2011 1:27:16pm

re: #176 Summer

I'm not a legal expert by far, but isn't this illegal? You know...something called the first amendment which actually comes before the second amendment? As in: free speech? The right to ask whatever the fuck you please from anyone you want?

Not when it's doctors asking questions the right wing doesn't like. Or providing information the right wing wishes wasn't true. e.g., the gag rule that states doctors can't mention abortion to a medicaid patient, even if in their best medical judgment it's something she should seriously consider.

179 Romantic Heretic  Sun, May 8, 2011 1:34:34pm

re: #65 Iwouldprefernotto

PS. Don't the Republicans believe in the first amendment? You know, the freedom of speachy part.

If my personal experience with one of them holds true and was not a isolated incident, no, they don't.

180 Summer Seale  Sun, May 8, 2011 1:43:21pm

re: #178 sagehen

Not when it's doctors asking questions the right wing doesn't like. Or providing information the right wing wishes wasn't true. e.g., the gag rule that states doctors can't mention abortion to a medicaid patient, even if in their best medical judgment it's something she should seriously consider.

Yeah, I understand what you mean but I think enough is enough. A doctor should be allowed to ask anything he or she wants from a patient. If a patient doesn't want to answer, or discuss it, then that's up to them. But I really think the AMA should just fight this on constitutional grounds.

It's time the Supreme Court put an end to this "don't ask this and don't ask that" crap. Doctors are people too, and they have free speech rights. And when somebody walks into a hospital or a doctor's office, any staff should have the same rights of speech they do on the street. If the hospital wants to limit that speech and is a private organization, then that's their thing. But other than that, I see this is a grave breach of constitutional rights which needs to be stopped now - and that goes for talking about Abortion as well. If somebody doesn't want to talk about it or do it, they can always say no.

So yeah, I think whatever anyone has to say about it right now, it's still insanely illegal and unconstitutional.

181 Obdicut  Sun, May 8, 2011 1:44:14pm

re: #157 lostlakehiker

But doctors are not on their home turf when it comes to this topic. How can they know the local incidence of jewelry-store robbery and murder, for instance?

That's completely irrelevant. That's what I'm saying. Doctors are only looking at, and only offering, the medical perspective. You're free to dismiss it.

Remember, this is just about a doctor speaking. There's no force. So it's really baffling when people say that they should change their policy to what you agree with.

By reading the paper, perhaps. But that's not a medical journal.

The patient knows as well as the doctor that guns go bang. This isn't a mystery. It isn't something like smoking, where you pull the trigger on yourself but the bang comes years later. A pastor, a cop, a trusted friend, an expert adviser in matters of home security, an insurance agent---all these may be in a better position to give advice than an MD.

So, why shouldn't the doctor give his point of view? Why is that so damn scary?

If the patient is suicidal or something, that'd be a different story.

Or, say, if they were talking medication that affects memory, or drank a lot, or had a temper, or any of the thousand other reasons an MD might know.

Thanks for making my point.

182 SidewaysQuark  Sun, May 8, 2011 2:20:01pm

Swimming pools are dangerous too. A doctor has a right to let a parent know that if they're so inclined.

Under no circumstances should a doctor's free speech be muzzled, and under no circumstances should an individual's right to own a firearm (or pool) be infringed.

183 lostlakehiker  Sun, May 8, 2011 2:22:33pm

re: #162 celticdragon

The pediatrician is the one who deals with the two year old kid who gets a 9mm in the abdomen from the five year old who found the Glock in the nightstand. Who else is better positioned to ask about it, do you suppose?

Would any of those other sources advise differently? You could ask a drunk in the gutter if it's a good idea to keep a loaded gun on the nightstand with a five year old in the house and you'd get the right answer.

The parent who neglects elementary precautions on this level has almost certainly also saved lye in an orange juice container and left it in a bottom cabinet, right next to the rat poison and the Ginsu knives.

There are so many things that can go wrong, things you'd not spot instantly. For instance, a bookshelf that has stood for years can just go over, for no particular reason. An MD can mistakenly diagnose as the flu, a ruptured appendix, and you can believe him. To name just two of the far too many ways to come close to losing a child.

I'm not saying doctors ought to keep silent on the topic. But given that time is short, and that schools teach kids what to do if they find a gun [anywhere], most of the time I'd guess that digressing into gun safety is probably stealing time from more pressing safety issues.

184 lostlakehiker  Sun, May 8, 2011 2:36:56pm

re: #168 calochortus

I'm not sure that my gynecologist is on her home turf when dealing with domestic violence, but Kaiser has every Ob/Gyn ask if you are "safe at home" at every visit. Presumably Kaiser has decided that it is in everyone's interest to ask this question.
With questions about guns, I would imagine it is intended to remind people who just haven't given the matter thought. They are legion, and what can it hurt. They probably tell you not to keep drain cleaner in a coke bottle under your sink too. (I knew someone years ago whose stepson had multiple surgeries and continuing problems because his parents did just that, and the kid drank some.)

Aw, dang. And here I gave almost exactly that as an example in a recent post, not having read yours. That's really sad.

The practice of routinely inquiring, gently, into domestic violence makes sense. If the question is always, but always, asked, it loses its sting if it had one. I might go further: with older men, it might make sense too. Domestic violence goes both ways, and the balance of vulnerability can change.

Adult to adult, almost any question can be fair game during a medical consultation. How's your sex life? How's your finances? How do you like your boss?

In a pediatric setting, I can imagine that there might be some questions that can shade into prying. Does Mommy watch the Home Shopping Channel? Does Daddy watch Al Jazeera? Or Fox News? Are Daddy and Mommy afraid of La Migra?

But the law should not forbid any such line of inquiry. There could be a context in which such questions were appropriate. Questions about guns included, of course.

185 SidewaysQuark  Sun, May 8, 2011 2:48:06pm

Well, what the hell is wrong with assuming that doctors can be reasonable and ask reasonable questions, and that, if they exceed their bounds, that a patient can choose a new doctor?

In other words, for chrissake, this is stupid. Solve some real problems, lawmakers.

186 Dark_Falcon  Sun, May 8, 2011 3:00:08pm

re: #185 SidewaysQuark

No its not stupid. The American Academy of Pediatrics is a anti-gun bunch of busybodies. I like this law.

187 Obdicut  Sun, May 8, 2011 3:03:56pm

re: #186 Dark_Falcon

Can you please show how this law doesn't violate the first amendment?

188 celticdragon  Sun, May 8, 2011 3:09:26pm

re: #183 lostlakehiker

Would any of those other sources advise differently? You could ask a drunk in the gutter if it's a good idea to keep a loaded gun on the nightstand with a five year old in the house and you'd get the right answer.

The parent who neglects elementary precautions on this level has almost certainly also saved lye in an orange juice container and left it in a bottom cabinet, right next to the rat poison and the Ginsu knives.

There are so many things that can go wrong, things you'd not spot instantly. For instance, a bookshelf that has stood for years can just go over, for no particular reason. An MD can mistakenly diagnose as the flu, a ruptured appendix, and you can believe him. To name just two of the far too many ways to come close to losing a child.

I'm not saying doctors ought to keep silent on the topic. But given that time is short, and that schools teach kids what to do if they find a gun [anywhere], most of the time I'd guess that digressing into gun safety is probably stealing time from more pressing safety issues.

Then find another doctor.

189 celticdragon  Sun, May 8, 2011 3:11:23pm

re: #186 Dark_Falcon

No its not stupid. The American Academy of Pediatrics is a anti-gun bunch of busybodies. I like this law.

You actually like a law where the government can tell a group of people what they can and cannot say?

Are you high? Can I have some?

190 Charles Johnson  Sun, May 8, 2011 3:22:12pm

re: #186 Dark_Falcon

No its not stupid. The American Academy of Pediatrics is a anti-gun bunch of busybodies. I like this law.

It's a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

191 Charles Johnson  Sun, May 8, 2011 3:24:38pm

If the bill becomes law, it will be challenged and struck down without a doubt. There's no way it's constitutional to tell doctors they can't discuss safety risks with patients.

192 TedStriker  Sun, May 8, 2011 3:26:32pm

re: #190 Charles

It's a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

re: #191 Charles

If the bill becomes law, it will be challenged and struck down without a doubt. There's no way it's constitutional to tell doctors they can't discuss safety risks with patients.

Not only is this law a bad law, in that it infringes on doctors' First Amendment protections, but it seems to me that it would also interfere with doctor-patient privilege.

193 dragonfire1981  Sun, May 8, 2011 5:04:17pm

re: #190 Charles

It's a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

I thought the constitution was meant to govern only interactions between American Citizens and the government, hence why private websites (like this one) can censor whatever speech they choose.

So how do first amendment rights play into this? A doctor is not a government representative.

194 RogueOne  Sun, May 8, 2011 5:11:47pm

re: #185 SidewaysQuark

Well, what the hell is wrong with assuming that doctors can be reasonable and ask reasonable questions, and that, if they exceed their bounds, that a patient can choose a new doctor?

In other words, for chrissake, this is stupid. Solve some real problems, lawmakers.

That's my question. Do pediatricians routinely question kids without their parents in the room? If not then I don't see a problem. If a parent doesn't want to answer a question they can tell the dr. themselves, they don't need a law to take care of them.

195 Obdicut  Sun, May 8, 2011 5:13:46pm

re: #193 dragonfire1981

So how do first amendment rights play into this? A doctor is not a government representative.

Because this is a law restricting speech. That's entirely the point. The government has no right to arbitrarily restrict speech.

196 RogueOne  Sun, May 8, 2011 5:16:08pm

re: #195 Obdicut

Because this is a law restricting speech. That's entirely the point. The government has no right to arbitrarily restrict speech.

I'm not so positive. If it only keeps the dr. from asking certain questions they can still give all the safety information they feel is appropriate.

197 Obdicut  Sun, May 8, 2011 5:18:16pm

re: #196 RogueOne

I'm not so positive. If it only keeps the dr. from asking certain questions they can still give all the safety information they feel is appropriate.

Huh? It's a clear restriction on speech. There's nothing mysterious or doubtful about it.

198 RogueOne  Sun, May 8, 2011 6:34:25pm

re: #197 Obdicut

Huh? It's a clear restriction on speech. There's nothing mysterious or doubtful about it.

Their speech rights do not supersede the patients privacy rights. I don't think it's so clear that their speech rights are restricted if the law only limits what they are allowed to ask their patients.

199 ilzito guacamolito  Sun, May 8, 2011 8:08:03pm

Wow. This is some scary stuff. First, there are teachers woefully unqualified to judge whether a child is ADD, ADHD, etc. yet their word is gospel mainly, because they do not want to deal with any possible difficulty in class. The chance that they prefer not to deal with children that may actually be thinking outside the box must be unfathomable. There are countless cases of children being branded as such merely, because the teachers are incapable or unwilling to deal with anything except their next raise and whether they’ll have to (gasp!) contribute to benefits.
Now I have to worry about whether my child mentions that I keep handguns at home and that they are allowed to touch them. Cripes! Will this result in me being visited by the local constabulary with a child welfare contingent in tow? Save us from those who presume to know better than us. My children are taught how to properly handle weapons and when to use them, if ever.
I wish you all a fruitful life.
Visu labu!

200 Charles Johnson  Sun, May 8, 2011 9:35:23pm

re: #199 ilzito guacamolito

Better check under the bed for scary teachers and doctors before you go to sleep.

201 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, May 8, 2011 9:36:40pm

re: #200 Charles

OOGA BOOGA!

202 Holidays are Family Fun Time  Sun, May 8, 2011 10:07:06pm

According to the CDC, in 2007 (the last year for which data is available) unintentional firearm deaths for children 14 and under is 10th on the list. The first is drowning with 458, next is MV accidents with 428 and all the way down at 10th is Firearms at 18 deaths. Clearly, the hype about the rampage of child gun deaths is out of proportion.

The choice to own a motor vehicle is not a civil right, the choice to own a firearm is.

Now, I have no problem with Psychiatrists asking if there are guns in the home as there is a direct link to the availablity of a gun and suicide. I'll even go so far as to say the danger of someone going off their meds and accidentally shooting a child is a cause for concern.

I really would be more than upset if a pediatrician asked my child if there were guns in our home. Mostly because we don't want this information available to those who may want to rob our house. Our child, when he was younger was instructed not to answer any questions asked by anyone concerning firearms and to direct that person to one of his parents. Mainly because it is NO ONE's business.

It is my fervent wish that every gun owner would take classes on gun safety and operation and have their older children do the same. I would also wish that every one who drives a car would do so as safely as possible. I can't always have my wish, but that doesn't mean I have the right to limit another's rights for my own peace of mind.

203 Holidays are Family Fun Time  Sun, May 8, 2011 10:07:43pm
204 Obdicut  Mon, May 9, 2011 2:44:47am

re: #198 RogueOne

Their speech rights do not supersede the patients privacy rights.

Since the doctors can't coerce the patients to say anything, that has nothing to do with this. There's no force. Seriously, dude, you have the most arbitrary and ad-hoc view of rights. You're completely inconsistent.

I don't think it's so clear that their speech rights are restricted if the law only limits what they are allowed to ask their patients.

Yeah. I mean, how could a law only restricting what they can say be a limitation of speech?

/

205 RogueOne  Mon, May 9, 2011 4:20:27am

re: #204 Obdicut

Since the doctors can't coerce the patients to say anything, that has nothing to do with this. There's no force. Seriously, dude, you have the most arbitrary and ad-hoc view of rights. You're completely inconsistent.

It's early so I'll let the reading comprehension related snark slide.

That was my original question, is this bill about asking questions of kids or parents? If it's about asking parents then the law is unneeded, an adult knows (or should know) they don't have any obligation to answer questions. If it's about asking children, without adult representation, these questions then I can see why that would upset people.

What is so confusing about anything I've said other than it doesn't fit your view? We already limit what employers are allowed to ask of their employees, what business owners are allowed to ask of their customers, and what government is allowed to ask of it's citizens. How would telling doctors they aren't entitled to violate the privacy of their clients, by questioning their children, a violation of their speech rights?


Yeah. I mean, how could a law only restricting what they can say be a limitation of speech?

/

Limiting what they're allowed to ask does not put any limitation on what they are allowed to say. They can still give all the gun safety info they want, they just aren't allowed to ask if it's germane to the family.

Lastly, I've said repeatedly that I'm not sure and I don't know. It's not important to me that I be right all the time. You should try it, it's refreshing.

206 Obdicut  Mon, May 9, 2011 4:27:13am

re: #205 RogueOne

If it's about asking children, without adult representation, these questions then I can see why that would upset people.

Doesn't change the first amendment aspect in the least.

Limiting what they're allowed to ask does not put any limitation on what they are allowed to say.

You're just joking at this point, right? Limiting what they're allowed to say doesn't put a limitation on what they're allowed to say?

We already limit what employers are allowed to ask of their employees, what business owners are allowed to ask of their customers, and what government is allowed to ask of it's citizens.

We don't actually limit what employers are allowed to ask. The limitation on employers questions is what they do with that information; if you're asking if someone is gay or straight, for example, the concern is that that information will be used in an unlawful way. it's not illegal to ask.

Business owners, likewise. It's not about the actual speech, it's about what they do with it.

And no, there aren't any limitations that I know of on what government can ask. You can always just, you know, not answer. Can you cite a limitation on what government is allowed to ask, please?

Lastly, I've said repeatedly that I'm not sure and I don't know. It's not important to me that I be right all the time. You should try it, it's refreshing.

Heh. I'm wrong a lot. I think you've got me well beat in that area, though. Especially when it comes to your incredibly bizarre notion of what rights are and how they function.

207 Obdicut  Mon, May 9, 2011 4:55:17am

re: #206 Obdicut

Basically, all the restrictions on employers/business owners asking for info is in service of the 14th amendment; so that people aren't rejected from jobs or service because of their race, age, ethnicity, etc. It's a restraint on speech because the assumption is that that speech, in that circumstance, is going to be used for unconstitutional ends.

In this case, there is absolutely no unconstitutional end to which this information can be put by the doctor. All they can do is then recommend to the parents that they get rid of the guns. There's no force, no penalty, no coercion involved. It's not remotely the same.

208 RogueOne  Mon, May 9, 2011 5:14:32am

re: #206 Obdicut

.......

We don't actually limit what employers are allowed to ask. The limitation on employers questions is what they do with that information; if you're asking if someone is gay or straight, for example, the concern is that that information will be used in an unlawful way. it's not illegal to ask.

Steer clear of these 10 illegal job interview questions
[Link: www.techrepublic.com...]


Business owners, likewise. It's not about the actual speech, it's about what they do with it.

There are numerous consumer protection laws that limit what information business owners are allowed to ask. Asking for a zip code when using a credit card is illegal in a lot of places.


And no, there aren't any limitations that I know of on what government can ask. You can always just, you know, not answer. Can you cite a limitation on what government is allowed to ask, please?

Ever heard of a Terry Stop?
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]


Heh. I'm wrong a lot. I think you've got me well beat in that area, though. Especially when it comes to your incredibly bizarre notion of what rights are and how they function.

You're 0-3 thus far but don't let that shake the certainty of your view.

209 Obdicut  Mon, May 9, 2011 5:57:39am

re: #208 RogueOne

Steer clear of these 10 illegal job interview questions
[Link: [Link: www.techrepublic.com...]...]

Yes. The reason the questions are illegal is because there's a presumption that the information will be used. It's not that the question is illegal on its own, it's that the denial of the job, etc. is illegal. The question is illegal because it will lead to a violation of constitutional rights.

That is, in fact, my point. Which for some reason, escapes you.


There are numerous consumer protection laws that limit what information business owners are allowed to ask. Asking for a zip code when using a credit card is illegal in a lot of places.

Because that information could be used to deny service on constitutionally protected categories. Again-- that's my point.

Ever heard of a Terry Stop?

Yes. And cops are free to ask for a more thorough search. And the citizen is allowed to refuse. That's, again, my point.


You're 0-3 thus far but don't let that shake the certainty of your view.

Heh. Sure I am, Rogue.

Please explain what constitutional right is being infringed upon by the doctor asking an adult, or a child, if their are guns in their home. What unconstitutional use could that information be used for?

210 mr.fusion  Mon, May 9, 2011 6:45:00am

Florida's legislative session just ended......check this out

St Pete Times

Version of an old joke:

Q. Did you know that in Florida, a person is hit by a car every 15 minutes?

A. Wow! I bet he gets tired of that.

Well, that's what it was like watching the 2011 Florida Legislature for the past two months.

You'd see a headline that said, more or less, Dumbest law in history passes, and about the time you finished yelling about that one, the next one came along. Wham!

After 30 years, I am reluctant to say that it was the Worst Session Ever. But, you know, this one is in the running. Let's go through a few issue areas:

(1) The biggest theme of 2011 was the repeal of a lot of Florida's laws about growth and the environment, in the name of "creating jobs."

We've been in a recession, and we haven't recovered yet. But when we do, these new laws are going to surprise, even stun, a lot of Floridians.

This Legislature threw out much of the Growth Management Act of 1985. It's back to the days in which anybody can build anything, as long as they get Festus and Jim-Bob on the local board to go along.

It is now the official policy of this state that we no longer have to worry about the impact of growth on roads, schools or certain other things.

Citizens who try to fight it are in for a surprise, too - the laws have been rewritten to favor approval of development and are stacked against challenges.

(2) The 2011 Florida Legislature also will be known for shutting down direct citizen political activity while cementing its own power.

That includes cutting back early voting, which has been increasingly popular.

That includes blocking many Floridians (those who have moved or changed their name) from casting a regular ballot on Election Day. They can cast only a "provisional" ballot that has to be approved or disapproved separately.

That includes a crackdown on citizen groups that register voters, with new rules and penalties. Voter registration, once considered patriotic, is now borderline criminal.

As for citizen petitions to change the Florida Constitution, the Legislature declared signatures on them will be valid for only two years, making it much harder to get a citizen idea on the ballot.

But for itself, the Legislature brought back a corrupt practice known as "leadership funds." It is legal again for the leaders of the Legislature itself to collect campaign money directly from those seeking favorable treatment.

(3) If it weren't for all the other bad ideas, the screaming headlines of 2011 would be about budget cuts as we have never seen. It will take months for the full, bitter effects to be felt around the state, from weaker enforcement of nursing home standards to less protection for nature to teacher layoffs.

(4) Floridians will find a slew of laws favorable to business and not so favorable to them. Homeowners insurance companies can raise rates more easily and don't have to pay the full value of a claim as fast. The last generation of Floridians who rely entirely on a wired telephone in their home will find that their phone company has been entirely deregulated and can do whatever it wants.

(5) For better or worse, the 2011 Legislature made large-scale changes more or less on the fly. It rewrote the rules for how teachers are hired and fired in Florida. In a stroke, it privatized Medicaid, turning over $20 billion-plus to private corporations to decide who gets what care, without even requiring them to spend X percent on patients!

Oh, and repeat after me: It is Liberal Big Government for the feds to pass a health care law because that would Intrude on the Doctor-Patient Relationship. On the other hand, it's okay for the Legislature to stomp all over that relationship with new rules ordering every woman who wants an abortion to have an ultrasound first.

211 hellosnackbar  Mon, May 9, 2011 7:18:29am

Re#Charles all,
I agree absolutely with everything you've said.
As a one time gun owner(in South Africa)in a rage of frustration I went out with
my 9mm to dispose of next doors dog;which was keeping me from sleep.
Thankfully my rage subsided a few seconds before I had the mutt lined up.
I find the statement"guns don't kill people people kill people" facile.
The glaring fact is that guns provide a means to kill very easily;and one cannot
travel back in time to negate the killing deed.
I regard the unrestricted ownership of firearms as insane(as daft as the unrestricted possession of heroin).
The libel laws here are similarly insane.
To restrict a doctor whose motive is to preserve life from asking such questions;
is a case of dogma trumping common sense.

212 ContinentalOp  Mon, May 9, 2011 9:23:36am

It's dangerous to make predictions, but: Law will be thrown out on First Amendment grounds about fifteen seconds after it reaches federal court. Florida will spend a few odd million losing appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court, which will refuse to hear the case.

213 SidewaysQuark  Mon, May 9, 2011 10:28:03am

re: #186 Dark_Falcon

No its not stupid. The American Academy of Pediatrics is a anti-gun bunch of busybodies. I like this law.

Yah, it's pretty stupid. If the American Academy of Pediatrics wants to be "a anti-gun bunch of busybodies", that's their prerogative. No one's forcing you to take their advice. This is nothing but a muzzle on free speech.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh