# Fukkin Facist Florida Firearm Fanatics **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 7, 2011, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066 "2011-05-07T14:37:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 37
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/721 "2014-08-04T18:06:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Those issues are mostly important. (I do not see the criticality of “income inequality,” myself, I responded to this a few points up while talking to **Bone** > [@](#): > > and do not regard the “increasing influence” of corporations as an issue, because corporations like the New York Times and NBC Universal already hold so much sway that I suspect the concern is actually _dilution_ of their influence by other corporations that do not hold appropriately leftist views). There’s a big difference between “the NYT is a corporation, and it is also a newspaper, and that newspaper has editorial opinions, and those opinions carry great public weight and have lots of influence” and “Exxon is a corporation, and it pays lobbyists to convince politicians to offer $300 billion in taxpayer subsidies for things that Exxon is already doing, which are in practical terms just cash payments”. > [@](#): > > **Bone** has the right of it: I’m actually kind of amazed that I’m seeing this return to a refrain of, “It’s a fantasy that anyone wants to make sweeping gun control laws – why are you voting as though this is a danger?” > > After Sandy Hook, the reality was laid bare: there were plenty of people in power who were waiting and alert for a chance to do just that. I think there’s an excluded middle here. I don’t mean to say that no liberal politician has any interest in gun control. But it’s also 100% clear to me that the level of rhetoric and paranoia with which the gun community greeted Obama’s election was staggeringly out of proportion to what actually transpired. And there’s no reason to think that Obama really WAS intending to take away all the guns, but the groundswell of people buying up tons of AR-15s and extra ammunition and stockpiling it convinced him that it was a bad idea. I’m not sure which of these I think is more likely: (1) Obama maybe kinda sort would like gun control, but it’s way down on his list of priorities, so he talked about it a bit right after Sandy Hook, and then returned to working on things like health care that he really cares about or (2) Obama is strongly in favor of gun control, but is enough of a political realist to realize that it’s a third rail issue, so he reluctantly has let it slide, aside from a brief period after Sandy Hook when he thought there might be enough consensus But what is certainly NOT true is: (3) Obama is just ITCHING to release the STORM TROOPERS of the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT and the UN who will TAKE AWAY ALL YOUR GUNS and make it ILLEGAL TO BUY AMMO so you’d better go out and BUY MANY MANY GUNS RIGHT NOW, and in NO WAY are the gun manufacturers who are actually making a profit off of selling those guns at all behind this level of hysteria no way no sir bob. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/722 "2014-08-04T18:20:13Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I voted for Obama any time I saw his name on a ballot despite knowing his position on guns. I think that is a rational decision. And you’ll note that in fact (barring a very unlikely late-second-term-twist) it has worked out quite well… the policies of Obama’s that you did support have been pushed by the president, and gun control has gone basically nowhere. > [@](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > An action that was pretty clearly ILLEGAL, and thus basically irrelevant to a discussion of what the LAW should be. > > Who went to jail for that again? I don’t see what the relevance of that is. My point is, whatever the likelihood of there being a law passed at the federal level (I’m talking about the federal level because, frankly, I have zero idea what’s going on in the Idaho assembly and don’t hugely care, particularly given that it gets overridden by the supreme court anyhow) and then upheld which allows federal agents to confiscate guns that you currently legally own – and I believe that that likelihood is currently MINISCULE – the fact that one mayor legally overreached for some totally moronic reason during a time of unprecedented crisis does not really reflect on that likelihood one way or the other. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > (b) suppose you’re right, and they are motivated by something other than clinical criteria. Well, so what? Should they not be allowed to be? > > As a professional medical organization? I don’t think they should be doing it. I don’t know if they shouldn’t be allowed to do it but it undermines their credibility in other areas. It might lend credence to anti-vaccers who think that pediatricians are driven by an agenda. I suppose you could make an argument that including their commentary about guns will so offend gun-loving-folks that it will reduce the APA’s ability to give those people useful advice about other issues. But your response doesn’t seem to have been “huh, I believe that is a counterproductive paragraph, given the political climate in the USA today”, it seems more like “how outRAGEOUS that they should be so ANTI-GUN. Imagine it, a professional organization of DOCTORS!!! How dare they!?!?!?!?!”. I feel like you’re reacting as if saying that someone should not own guns is an invasion of personal privacy tantamount to saying that someone shouldn’t be Christian, or shouldn’t be gay, or something. Telling someone you think they should not own guns isn’t a violation of their rights. Owning a gun is a constitutionally protected right. That doesn’t make gun owners a protected class the same way that a minority group with a history of suffering discrimination is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/723 "2014-08-04T19:26:49Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > There’s a big difference between “the NYT is a corporation, and it is also a newspaper, and that newspaper has editorial opinions, and those opinions carry great public weight and have lots of influence” and “Exxon is a corporation, and it pays lobbyists to convince politicians to offer $300 billion in taxpayer subsidies for things that Exxon is already doing, which are in practical terms just cash payments”. Yes. There is a difference. In the first case, the corporate opinions that are protected and subsidized are ones that you like. > [@](#): > > I think there’s an excluded middle here. I don’t mean to say that no liberal politician has any interest in gun control. But it’s also 100% clear to me that the level of rhetoric and paranoia with which the gun community greeted Obama’s election was staggeringly out of proportion to what actually transpired. And there’s no reason to think that Obama really WAS intending to take away all the guns, but the groundswell of people buying up tons of AR-15s and extra ammunition and stockpiling it convinced him that it was a bad idea. I’m not sure which of these I think is more likely: > (1) Obama maybe kinda sort would like gun control, but it’s way down on his list of priorities, so he talked about it a bit right after Sandy Hook, and then returned to working on things like health care that he really cares about > or > (2) Obama is strongly in favor of gun control, but is enough of a political realist to realize that it’s a third rail issue, so he reluctantly has let it slide, aside from a brief period after Sandy Hook when he thought there might be enough consensus > > But what is certainly NOT true is: > (3) Obama is just ITCHING to release the STORM TROOPERS of the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT and the UN who will TAKE AWAY ALL YOUR GUNS and make it ILLEGAL TO BUY AMMO so you’d better go out and BUY MANY MANY GUNS RIGHT NOW, and in NO WAY are the gun manufacturers who are actually making a profit off of selling those guns at all behind this level of hysteria no way no sir bob. I agree. But I think (2) is pretty much on the mark, and the _reason_ there was not enough consensus was the unrelenting attention to the issue. If a couple election cycles had gone by without worrying about electing pro-gun politicans, there might well have been such a consensus after Sandy Hook. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/724 "2014-08-04T19:42:40Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I think it’s a question of risk analysis… the negative weight you should assign to voting for a less-pro-gun candidate isn’t the worst case that could happen, it’s the worst case that could happen multiplied by the likelihood of that worst case. So to be a rational single-issue voter, you have to not only think that gun control is more important than any other issue (and in fact, arguably more important than all other issues put together), you also have to think that it’s constantly hanging in the balance. There’s also the efficacy of voting in a block. Similar to organized labor recognizing that only through solidarity are they at their peak, as long as like minded people vote together even if the risk analysis may on balance come out the other way, will the effectiveness of the block hold strong. If this weren’t the case, then opposition groups would and do attempt to divide the block and re-argue the issue every time, hoping to pick apart the block through a combination of attrition and this type of risk calculus. This is why so many gun control proposals isolate hunters or other groups of folks. It’s an attempt to divide the population saying something like, ‘oh we’re not targeting you, just those other guys! Or, we’re only targeting this type of weapon, not that other one!’ > [@](#): > > The American Dream, to me, the thing that has the potential to be the most amazingly wonderfully USA-USA-We’re-Number-1-American-Exceptionalism, is the idea that both of those two kids have a chance to grow up, get a great education, go to college, and go out into the world and be successful and get good jobs and own homes and so forth. Now, obviously, their opportunity has never been remotely EQUAL. But I’ve read studies which indicate that it’s getting LESS equal. It’s getting HARDER for kids who grow up poor to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and work hard and become doctors or lawyer or small business owners or what have you. It’s unfortunate if this is the case. The solution to this is long term in nature. Politicians banning guns is happening now. One is of more immediate concern than the other. > [@](#): > > If I could choose one of two possible futures for the USA in 100 years: > (1) Like today, but the trend has reversed itself, and children of janitors are becoming lawyers and doctors at a higher rate than they ever have before. Also, private ownership of guns is WAY more restricted than it is now > (2) Guns are super-duper legal and unrestricted, but social mobility is vastly further reduced. Children of the rich almost always end up rich. Children of the poor almost always end up poor. > > It’s not even close. (1) is so much better it’s not even debatable. And it’s FAR more “American” in all the ways that really matter. If you simply deleted the beginning of #1 that says, “like today,” then a communist nation would satisfy that criteria. In general - my response would be similar to above. Any potential solution to these issues are long term in nature. The vast majority of proposals I’ve seen to address these things are worse than the problem they are trying to solve. And, Bricker notwithstanding, the labor market for new lawyers right now is not very good. Law school in the past several years has not been a good investment. > [@](#): > > Was that addressed to me specifically, or to liberals in general? Sort of to you, since you said those issues were more important to you, but mostly in general. Not to liberals or conservatives since I think support for gun control and gun rights crosses those labels, but just towards those who support gun control while simultaneously thinking those other issues are more important. If they are in fact more important - then those folks would have more allies if they supported gun rights. For example, I voted for Jerry Brown for governor. He was more pro-gun than Meg Whitman. > [@](#): > > … on the list of things Obama and the current Democratic congressional leadership have actually put significant time and effort into, gun control is just not very high on the list. Sure there was one flurry of interest, entirely understandably, right after an incident in which a guy with a gun KILLED A BUNCH OF ELEMENTARY STUDENTS, but then it died down again. The timing was understandable, but the extent to which it was pushed and what specifically was pushed was not. Essentially it showed that given the right set of circumstances those that advocate for gun control would push as much as they could possibly do to ban guns. It will have renewed and invigorated the defense of gun rights for a generation, IMO. You take from that sequence of events that the gun control movement is not very effective or anything to worry about. I interpret it in the opposite, and only through vigilance will people who feel like me be able to defeat similar efforts in the future. > [@](#): > > I don’t mean to say that no liberal politician has any interest in gun control. But it’s also 100% clear to me that the level of rhetoric and paranoia with which the gun community greeted Obama’s election was staggeringly out of proportion to what actually transpired. And there’s no reason to think that Obama really WAS intending to take away all the guns, but the groundswell of people buying up tons of AR-15s and extra ammunition and stockpiling it convinced him that it was a bad idea. I’m not sure which of these I think is more likely: > (1) Obama maybe kinda sort would like gun control, but it’s way down on his list of priorities, so he talked about it a bit right after Sandy Hook, and then returned to working on things like health care that he really cares about > or > (2) Obama is strongly in favor of gun control, but is enough of a political realist to realize that it’s a third rail issue, so he reluctantly has let it slide, aside from a brief period after Sandy Hook when he thought there might be enough consensus I think it’s #2. Which means continued vigilance else we’d wake up one day and find our rights have been legislated away. > [@](#): > > I don’t see what the relevance of that is. My point is, whatever the likelihood of there being a law passed at the federal level (I’m talking about the federal level because, frankly, I have zero idea what’s going on in the Idaho assembly and don’t hugely care, particularly given that it gets overridden by the supreme court anyhow) and then upheld which allows federal agents to confiscate guns that you currently legally own – and I believe that that likelihood is currently MINISCULE – the fact that one mayor legally overreached for some totally moronic reason during a time of unprecedented crisis does not really reflect on that likelihood one way or the other. During an unprecedented crisis is when the need for arms is most acute. Think about which businesses didn’t burn down during the LA riots. And while the likelihood of something draconian passing at the federal level is not as high as at the local level, that makes not a whit of difference for the residents of that particular locality. Your neighboring city just banned standard capacity magazines. Do the residents of Sunnyvale care that it wasn’t passed at the federal level? What difference does it make to them? It may be worse, since there are more court challenges to file. > [@](#): > > I feel like you’re reacting as if saying that someone should not own guns is an invasion of personal privacy tantamount to saying that someone shouldn’t be Christian, or shouldn’t be gay, or something. Telling someone you think they should not own guns isn’t a violation of their rights. Owning a gun is a constitutionally protected right. That doesn’t make gun owners a protected class the same way that a minority group with a history of suffering discrimination is. Saying someone shouldn’t own guns in the context of a doctor visit, to me, is borderline invasion of privacy. I’m not going to make a big stink about it, but I’d prefer they don’t ask. What saying someone shouldn’t own guns is IMO, is saying that a person shouldn’t have available the most effective means of self defense, that they should rely on the goodwill of criminals to not target them, and that they should abdicate any responsibility for the defense of themselves or their family to either someone else, or random chance. It’s most certainly not a violation of their rights, but it is incredibly insulting and authoritarian. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/725 "2014-08-04T19:47:18Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > And, Bricker notwithstanding, the labor market for new lawyers right now is not very good. Law school in the past several years has not been a good investment. I’m not a new lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/726 "2014-08-04T19:58:47Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Saying someone shouldn’t own guns in the context of a doctor visit, to me, is borderline invasion of privacy. It depends; does he ask you before or after he sticks his finger up your asshole? Privacy in a doctors office is quite subjective, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/727 "2014-08-04T20:06:41Z")
If he finds a gun up there, the rest of your exam is likely to be brief and perfunctory. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/728 "2014-08-04T20:44:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. There is a difference. > > In the first case, the corporate opinions that are protected and subsidized are ones that you like. Nonsense, unless you’re talking about the NYT having influence and ramming through bills that provide subsidies for the NYT. If, on the other hand, the NYT uses its influence to help shape the dialog about gay marriage or global warming or immigration, then that’s not at ALL comparable, because the NYT is using its influence to agitate for causes that it believes are in the country’s best interest, while Exxon is (in the example I proposed) using its influence to agitate for causes that are clearly and directly in Exxon’s best interest. There is no comparison between those two things. > [@](#): > > But I think (2) is pretty much on the mark, and the _reason_ there was not enough consensus was the unrelenting attention to the issue. If a couple election cycles had gone by without worrying about electing pro-gun politicans, there might well have been such a consensus after Sandy Hook. Do you have a quick summary of what law(s) were seriously proposed after Sandy Hook and how close they realistically came to passing? I’m not talking about rhetoric, I’m talking about actual seriously proposed legislation. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/729 "2014-08-04T20:51:38Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > It depends; does he ask you before or after he sticks his finger up your asshole? … What’s my lawyer doing in the room anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/730 "2014-08-04T20:59:14Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > It depends; does he ask you before or after he sticks his finger up your asshole? Privacy in a doctors office is quite subjective, don’t you think? Touché ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/731 "2014-08-04T21:59:05Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > What’s my lawyer doing in the room anyway? Jotting down notes: " Disposable rubber gloves! Bill as office supplies! " ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/732 "2014-08-04T22:34:28Z")
Remind me never to include citations in the pit again. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/733 "2014-08-05T01:00:31Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > There’s also the efficacy of voting in a block. Similar to organized labor recognizing that only through solidarity are they at their peak, as long as like minded people vote together even if the risk analysis may on balance come out the other way, will the effectiveness of the block hold strong. > > If this weren’t the case, then opposition groups would and do attempt to divide the block and re-argue the issue every time, hoping to pick apart the block through a combination of attrition and this type of risk calculus. This is why so many gun control proposals isolate hunters or other groups of folks. It’s an attempt to divide the population saying something like, ‘oh we’re not targeting you, just those other guys! Or, we’re only targeting this type of weapon, not that other one!’ Of course, there are also drawbacks to this. For instance, what if you’re someone who strongly agrees with 80% or so of the NRA’s positions, and that agreement is very important to you, but you disagree with them about 20%. The NRA, and groups of pro-gun people in general, tend to support candidates who agree with 100% of their positions (as you’d expect). So being part of a big block gives you a big voice, but it also gives you a big voice that is not necessarily saying what you want it to say. Taking a step back, though, I guess I’m still puzzled as to WHY precisely gun control is SO important to you, seemingly out of proportion to plenty of other issues which, on the surface, seem like they ought to be at least in the same league of importance. > [@](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > If I could choose one of two possible futures for the USA in 100 years: > > (1) Like today, but the trend has reversed itself, and children of janitors are becoming lawyers and doctors at a higher rate than they ever have before. Also, private ownership of guns is WAY more restricted than it is now > > (2) Guns are super-duper legal and unrestricted, but social mobility is vastly further reduced. Children of the rich almost always end up rich. Children of the poor almost always end up poor. > > > > It’s not even close. (1) is so much better it’s not even debatable. And it’s FAR more “American” in all the ways that really matter. > > If you simply deleted the beginning of #1 that says, “like today,” then a communist nation would satisfy that criteria. There’s a HUGE difference, though, and it’s a crucial one that is often elided over (intentionally or not) in discussions between the left and the right. I have absolutely zero problem with people being rich. In fact, it’s awesome. The fact that people who work hard can get rich drives enormous amounts of innovation and culture and all sorts of other things. So I’m not at all sad if we end up in a society where 1% are very poor, 9% are poor, 20% are lower middle class, 30% are middle class, 25% are upper middle class, 10% are rich, 4% are really really rich, and 1% are insanely rich, or something of that sort. In fact, that’s exactly how it should be. What’s important to me, though, is that when the children of one generation of people with that stratification grow up, this newer generation has a chance to be in a different bracket than their parents were. So someone works hard and busts her butt and invents a better mousetrap and grows her mousetrap corporation and eventually becomes so filthy rich that she bathes in pools of champagne? Hey, good for her. And there’s no way that her children aren’t going to start out at an advantage over the children of the janitors who clean out her factories. But the bigger that advantage is, the worse for society overall, as far as I’m concerned. (And there are plenty of filthy rich people such as Warren Buffet who agree with me entirely.) > [@](#): > > It will have renewed and invigorated the defense of gun rights for a generation, IMO. You take from that sequence of events that the gun control movement is not very effective or anything to worry about. I interpret it in the opposite, and only through vigilance will people who feel like me be able to defeat similar efforts in the future. Well, that’s an interesting he-saw she-saw kind of issue. How close did we actually come to having sweeping gun control bills passed and implemented? And how sweeping were they? > [@](#): > > I think it’s #2. Which means continued vigilance else we’d wake up one day and find our rights have been legislated away. Sure, but there’s a difference between “continued vigilance” and “continued placing of this issue above all others at all times”. I’m not saying “hey, stop caring about gun control, you’re cool, chillax, go off on a 10-year-hunting-trip and when you come back I promise your guns will still be legal”, I’m saying “if you treat gun control as constantly in razor-edge-balance-crisis mode, you’re neglecting all the other issues that are facing the US”. > [@](#): > > During an unprecedented crisis is when the need for arms is most acute. I’m not disagreeing, I’m just not sure what the relevance of the fact that the New Orleans mayor legally overreached, and then was later smacked down by the courts, is. > [@](#): > > Saying someone shouldn’t own guns in the context of a doctor visit, to me, is borderline invasion of privacy. I’m not going to make a big stink about it, but I’d prefer they don’t ask. So you are about to take your newborn child home from the hospital. The doctor asks… -have you childproofed the electrical outlets? -do you have proper rear-facing child seats? -do you own a pool? -do you own guns? Is that fourth question more of an invasion of privacy than any of the previous ones? > [@](#): > > What saying someone shouldn’t own guns is IMO, is saying that a person shouldn’t have available the most effective means of self defense, that they should rely on the goodwill of criminals to not target them, and that they should abdicate any responsibility for the defense of themselves or their family to either someone else, or random chance. It’s most certainly not a violation of their rights, but it is incredibly insulting and authoritarian. I think it’s hard to discuss that without a really precise definitely of what both “someone” and “shouldn’t” mean. I personally do not own guns. Since I have made that decision for myself, I guess that means that I think that a person like me living in my neighborhood “shouldn’t” own guns. One of my good friends who lives about 10 blocks away does own guns. He has two sons under the age of 5. He stores them in a super-heavy gun safe in his garage\*. Do I think he “shouldn’t” own guns? Well, if he’d chosen to get rid of his guns when he had kids, I would have thought that was a reasonable thing to do. I know that he’s an INCREDIBLY responsible and careful person. At the same time, no matter how careful he is, there’s now some possibility of a perfect storm of events happening which results in one of his kids somehow gaining access to a gun in his home, which would be less likely if he didn’t own guns at all. What does that all add up to? Not sure, but I certainly don’t think it’s condescending or authoritarian for his pediatrician to have brought up the issue when he was first bringing his kids home. \*Obviously I mean he stores the guns, not the kids. Except when they’re on timeout. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/734 "2014-08-05T02:37:18Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > While the number of guns in the US is high and increasing, the number of households with firearms is in the decline. What share of households have gun enthusiasts as opposed to a gun somewhere that they’ve forgotten about? > > More deeply suicide, like homicide, has a large number of cofactors. Empirical research is necessary to tease them out and measure them across countries. Your question does little to shed light on the role of gun culture on self inflicted injury as well as potential mitigating factors: only research can do that. Sure. OK. But at least part of the argument seems to be that a lot of our suicides are occurring because of guns. Suicides that would not occur if guns were not readily available. And I am just wondering why (if guns are effectively producing suicides that would not otherwise occur) a country like ours (even with the reduced number of households with firearms) which is relatively awash in guns would have a very average rate of suicide. I mean doesn’t it undermine the notion that guns=suicide for you at all? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/735 "2014-08-05T03:05:51Z")
> [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](#): > > Most physicians would disagree. As a physician, I disagree. Regardless of politics, guns are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, particularly in the US, and not just for pediatric patients. > > Gun deaths -all comers - are about 10.2 per 100,000. Gun homicide is 3.5 per 100,000. (1) > > Accidents are the 5th leading cause of death in the US, suicide is 10th. (1). Firearms contribute to both. About half of American suicides are with guns, 6.3 out of 12.3 per 100,000. How do you explain the fact that your suicide rate is absolutely average for a wealthy developed western nation despite being awash in guns? > [@](#): > > In fact, having a gun in the house makes dying by homicide and (if male) suicide more likely (2). There was a similar study by a fellow named Kellerman years ago and his study found that having a gun in the house made you 2.7 times more likely to be murdered. It also found that living alone made you more likely to be murdered than having a gun. It also found that renting your home made you more likely to be murdered than either living alone or having a gun. It also found that engaging in illicit drug activity made you more likely to be murdered than someone who just had a gun or just rented their home or just lived alone. This should make you wonder how much of the increased risk of murder is caused by having the gun in the house versus how many gus are owned because the subject is likely to be murdered. > [@](#): > > Gun suicides as a separate category would rank at #15th most common causes of death, just below Parkinson’s disease (7.4 per 100,00) and edging out aspiration (5.8 per 100,000). (1) > > Gun deaths are set to exceed traffic fatalities for the first time next year (3) so if a physician can reasonably ask about seat belts and car seats, then it would seem guns safety would be an equally legitimate concern. Sure, but pediatricians ask if you have a car seat and if you’re using it properly. They ask gun owners to get rid of their guns and if the gun is necessary THEN they ask questions about gun safety. > [@](#): > > Getting back to pediatrics, gun accidental deaths run at 1.82 per 100,000 teenagers (15-19) (4), while homicide is the second leading cause of death among teens (10.4 per 100,000, ages 12-19), and 82% involve firearms. (5) Errmm. You know you can’t just add up crude rates for different racial groups and arrive at a composite crude rate, right? At the very least you should average them, not add them up, if you were just looking for a rough estimate. According to Wisqars the crude rate in the 15-19 age range, the crude rate is .42 per 100,000. If 1.37 black males, 0.0 black females, 0.43 white males and 0.03 white females (out of 100,000 of each) accidentally get shot to death the mixed crude rate has to be average and weighted. The firearm homicide death rate for age range 10-14 is 0.66 for age range 15-19 the firearm homicide death rate is 7.76. Just FYI, didn’t want you to get too shocked because you added instead of averaged the numbers. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/736 "2014-08-05T03:07:41Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Yup. > > Even comparisons [within one country](http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/08/22/aje.kwt197.abstract) need to be made with some caution. So you would ignore our absolutely average suicide rate and and just continue to believe that guns are effectively causing suicides? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/737 "2014-08-05T03:11:01Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Wait, what? You’re saying that because living alone and having a gun in the house are both significant predictors in a multivariate regression model, that living alone could explain why having a gun in the house is significantly predictive of death by homicide? No. > [@](#): > > Bwahaha! You absolute moron! Jesus Christ are you a dummy. This is the alpha and omega of your argument and it explains why you don’t survive long in great debates, before people shoo you away for being too stupid for adult conversations. You can safely be ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/738 "2014-08-05T03:25:08Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > If I could choose one of two possible futures for the USA in 100 years: > (1) Like today, but the trend has reversed itself, and children of janitors are becoming lawyers and doctors at a higher rate than they ever have before. Also, private ownership of guns is WAY more restricted than it is now > (2) Guns are super-duper legal and unrestricted, but social mobility is vastly further reduced. Children of the rich almost always end up rich. Children of the poor almost always end up poor. > > It’s not even close. (1) is so much better it’s not even debatable. And it’s FAR more “American” in all the ways that really matter. And what if the choice was (1) Utah style gun laws across the country with greater equality of opportunity; or (2) Massachussetts style gun control with much less equality of opportunity? As Bone said, if we took the issue off the table, he would be able to vote based on other priorities and pro-gun people are just as frequently equality of opportunity (in the sense that a janitor should have at close to the same opportunity as Bill Gates’ children as we can reasonably achieve) as anyone else. The gun issue is a political loser for liberals. In swing districts and swing states, the gun issue hurts liberals more than it helps them. For example Virginia would not have gone for Obama if he campaigned on an Assault Weapons B ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/739 "2014-08-05T03:31:31Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > There’s a big difference between “the NYT is a corporation, and it is also a newspaper, and that newspaper has editorial opinions, and those opinions carry great public weight and have lots of influence” and “Exxon is a corporation, and it pays lobbyists to convince politicians to offer $300 billion in taxpayer subsidies for things that Exxon is already doing, which are in practical terms just cash payments”. I know its off topic but I agree. If we ever have tyranny in this country, I don’t think its going to come from ideologically driven elected officials, its going to be driven by the profit motive. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2014, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/740 "2014-08-05T03:42:55Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I think that is a rational decision. And you’ll note that in fact (barring a very unlikely late-second-term-twist) it has worked out quite well… the policies of Obama’s that you did support have been pushed by the president, and gun control has gone basically nowhere. I don’t think that we are going to see any new federal laws that increase gun control. > [@](#): > > I don’t see what the relevance of that is. Well it doesn’t matter now that other instances have been pointed out. > [@](#): > > My point is, whatever the likelihood of there being a law passed at the federal level (I’m talking about the federal level because, frankly, I have zero idea what’s going on in the Idaho assembly and don’t hugely care, particularly given that it gets overridden by the supreme court anyhow) and then upheld which allows federal agents to confiscate guns that you currently legally own – and I believe that that likelihood is currently MINISCULE – the fact that one mayor legally overreached for some totally moronic reason during a time of unprecedented crisis does not really reflect on that likelihood one way or the other. It occured at the state level in California. But I agree it won’t happen at the federal level (which BTW is also subject to being overturned by SCOTUS) > [@](#): > > I suppose you could make an argument that including their commentary about guns will so offend gun-loving-folks that it will reduce the APA’s ability to give those people useful advice about other issues. But your response doesn’t seem to have been “huh, I believe that is a counterproductive paragraph, given the political climate in the USA today”, it seems more like “how outRAGEOUS that they should be so ANTI-GUN. Imagine it, a professional organization of DOCTORS!!! How dare they!?!?!?!?!”. > > I feel like you’re reacting as if saying that someone should not own guns is an invasion of personal privacy tantamount to saying that someone shouldn’t be Christian, or shouldn’t be gay, or something. Telling someone you think they should not own guns isn’t a violation of their rights. Owning a gun is a constitutionally protected right. That doesn’t make gun owners a protected class the same way that a minority group with a history of suffering discrimination is. Like I said, I don’t think the law is a good idea but I also think that pediatricians are overemphasizing the risk associated with guns relative to other risks. Particularly as it relates to small children. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066.md?page=38)