# 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:** 39
**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 7, 2014, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/761 "2014-08-07T19:14:12Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think the dynamic in California is diffeerrent than it would be at the federal level. Yes it is. Why does it matter to the 37M people that live in CA that people in other states enjoy more freedom? That’s no reason to support any kind of restriction. > [@](#): > > California will always be restrictive compared to most states unless you get federal pre-emption. Would YOU personally be willing to get a license and register your guns with a gnome in Zurich who promises to never divulge your identity to anyone unless they have a specific permissible need for the information if it meant you could own and carry any firearm you liked (subject to reasonable restriction) anywhere you like in the country (barring private property and government property where armed security guards are present)? No. It would take a lot more than that to agree to registration. ---
**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 7, 2014, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/762 "2014-08-07T19:15:50Z")
> [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](#): > > I thought the US was an awesome place to live. Shouldn’t the suicide rate be really low? Maybe the access to weapons is artificially elevating the rate. Maybe the US should aspire to Mexico’s level of suicide. If you look at suicide levels, the lowest levels of suicide seems to be in mediterranean countries and catholic countries. I don’t know exactly why but I assume its cultural. > [@](#): > > Nope. Reducing easy access to the means reduces the rate. Suicide seems to be surprisingly spur of the moment. Here’s an easy cite, but there are lots. The UK gas example is nice, but there are others. > [Suicide prevention - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_prevention) And eventually, the suicide rate goes right back up doesn’t it? The Uk suicide rate dropped relative to other nations for a while and then it got right back in line with the rest of the world. So what are these others and do their rates stay low or do they revert to the mean as well? > [@](#): > > Are you actually talking to real doctors? I am referring to the AAP and their written literature that is distributed to their doctors. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/763 "2014-08-07T19:22:25Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You had me on licensing and registration right up until you say we should be ina country where guns are rare and restricted. I was saying to Bone that if he wants his personal family to be maximally safe, than what he should want is that HE has as many guns as he wants, but aside from that, for guns to be as rare as possible. After all, if he literally owned the only guns in the USA, then there would be zero chance of any criminal with a gun threatening his family. More practically, I was suggesting that he should support things like background checks which might make it 2% more of a hassle for a law-abiding citizen to get a gun, but 40% harder for a criminal to get a gun; because that sort of law will in the long run decrease the number of guns in the hands of criminals, but continue to allow Bone to own guns himself. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/764 "2014-08-08T01:00:51Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > The assertion is that pools are more dangerous than guns. > > Can you honestly say that you would be more worried about fifteen 10 year olds having a pool party than fifteen 10 year olds having a shooting party? > > Any sane person would not. More kids die in swimming pools BECAUSE MORE KIDS USE SWIMMING POOLS MORE OFTEN. > > It’s the denominator, stupid. If children used guns at an equal rate that they use swimming pools, the number of kids killed by guns would be vastly greater than the number killed by pools. > > This is just like the stupid fucks who tried to suggest that it was more dangerous to be driving in California than deployed to military duty in Iraq. How are you people so fucking stupid? Hey **Bricker** , I noticed you ran away on this issue. Too bad so many gun types cannot stand their ground around here! Seems like they’re all running off. ---
**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 8, 2014, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/765 "2014-08-08T03:03:20Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If you look at suicide levels, the lowest levels of suicide seems to be in mediterranean countries and catholic countries. I don’t know exactly why but I assume its cultural. I think you’re extrapolating from a quick glance. Nepal is 110. Pakistan is 98. Plus, no one is suggesting we can zero it out. I’m saying “making means of suicide less easily available will likely decrease suicide rates.” I’m not saying “forever”, or “to zero”. If the US’s rate is would drop to Australia’s due to decreased gun access due in part to physicians saying “hey, I suggest that you make sure your weapons are secure”, then that is a good thing. ---
**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 8, 2014, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/766 "2014-08-08T20:13:07Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Hey **Bricker** , I noticed you ran away on this issue. Too bad so many gun types cannot stand their ground around here! Seems like they’re all running off. Are you just bad at math or are you bad at everything? ---
**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 8, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/767 "2014-08-08T20:14:12Z")
> [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](#): > > I think you’re extrapolating from a quick glance. Nepal is 110. Pakistan is 98. Plus, no one is suggesting we can zero it out. > > I’m saying “making means of suicide less easily available will likely decrease suicide rates.” I’m not saying “forever”, or “to zero”. > > If the US’s rate is would drop to Australia’s due to decreased gun access due in part to physicians saying “hey, I suggest that you make sure your weapons are secure”, then that is a good thing. Granted its a quick glance and I was only looking at the EU/NATO/OECD countries. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/768 "2014-08-08T20:16:37Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Hey **Bricker** , I noticed you ran away on this issue. Too bad so many gun types cannot stand their ground around here! Seems like they’re all running off. I have despaired at teaching you. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/769 "2014-08-08T20:58:29Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m sure there are folks who believe all of those things. I couldn’t guess the population, but I would expect that a significant portion of these people simply see it as a way to ban guns, any gun. Posters on this board have expressed that sentiment. Feinstein has expressed that sentiment. One of the leading researchers at the CDC expressed this sentiment. They want to ban, and see it as a means towards that end. It’s hard to say how many people actually want what. But I think that when there’s a really divisive issue like this, it’s important to remember that there are people who hold positions that are more anti-gun than you, but who are not exaggerated zealots. > [@](#): > > I don’t think it’s the government’s business what I buy as long as I use it for legal purposes. This is a philosophical point. If something had no legal purpose whatsoever then perhaps government should get involved. Do you object to government restrictions on the sale of explosives? Really big saws without safety guards? Extremely powerful acids? Industrial-strength lasers? Cars? Houses? > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t be surprised if this were the case, and it is how I would expect and want them to behave. Well, one potential drawback you might want to keep in mind is what happens if and when the pendulum swings. If at some point the anti-gun folks are in the ascendancy, and suddenly you’re saying “hey, we should compromise, let’s find a point that’s somewhere in between what you want and what I want” and they’re saying “oh, sure, you want to compromise NOW, but where as your compromise back when YOU guys were on top?”, etc. A scorched earth policy makes good practical sense, as long as you are certain you will ALWAYS have the whip hand, just like getting rid of the filibuster makes sense as long as you’re certain you will always be the majority party. ---
**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 8, 2014, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/770 "2014-08-08T21:45:28Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > It’s hard to say how many people actually want what. But I think that when there’s a really divisive issue like this, it’s important to remember that there are people who hold positions that are more anti-gun than you, but who are not exaggerated zealots. Noted. For varying definitions of exaggerated and zealots. > [@](#): > > Do you object to government restrictions on the sale of explosives? Really big saws without safety guards? Extremely powerful acids? Industrial-strength lasers? Cars? Houses? Which type of explosives? Firecrackers and Tannerite? Or more high yield? I can’t think of many civilian applications for explosives so I’d be open to restricting those, but low yield explosives can be really fun. I don’t know why anyone would want a really big saw with no safety guard, but hey, more power to em if they do. Acids…I’m not a chemist so you’d have to fill me in on the purpose of that. Breaking Bad style, or more like hobbyist? Lasers…Sounds fun. Cars should be a free for all, except standards when on public roads are fine. Houses - what restrictions are there besides if you have the money (assuming you are talking about purchase, not construction). Warranties of merchantability would still exist. All of these examples aren’t necessarily on point though since arms have constitutional protection. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2014, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/771 "2014-08-08T21:59:33Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > All of these examples aren’t necessarily on point though since arms have constitutional protection. Sure, but you seem to have at least 3 different positions with respect to regulations-and-restrictions-but-not-bans… (1) you don’t think the government should meddle in private sales of legal objects at all (a position which I think most people support in general but few people think is really absolute) (2) you might support these laws if they were really constructed right, but you would never trust the government to actually enforce them (3) guns are constitutionally protected, and thus even if you might support regulations, the constitution forbids it even more than it does for explosives and cars I’m not trying to point this out to imply that you’re being self-contradictory, I’m just trying to puzzle out exactly what your position is. ---
**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 9, 2014, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/772 "2014-08-09T00:18:21Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Sure, but you seem to have at least 3 different positions with respect to regulations-and-restrictions-but-not-bans… > (1) you don’t think the government should meddle in private sales of legal objects at all (a position which I think most people support in general but few people think is really absolute) > (2) you might support these laws if they were really constructed right, but you would never trust the government to actually enforce them > (3) guns are constitutionally protected, and thus even if you might support regulations, the constitution forbids it even more than it does for explosives and cars > > I’m not trying to point this out to imply that you’re being self-contradictory, I’m just trying to puzzle out exactly what your position is. I’m fairly certain what the current jurisprudence around firearms are currently, at the federal level, as well as in my own state (also at the federal appellate level as well in some jurisdictions). When discussing what the law actually is, that is a fairly concrete discussion in areas that the issues have been raised and settled. There’s always opportunity to revisit and overturn those, but that’s a more difficult road to hoe. #1 - I don’t think the government should meddle in private sales of legal objects, but I know they will and to the extent they do it should be minimal, IMO. I hold pretty strong libertarian views. #2 - You’d have to clarify “these laws” in that statement. If we are talking strictly as it pertains to firearms, then yes, I agree with that statement. #3 - I don’t agree with that statement. It’s true guns are constitutionally protected, but that does not mean that the constitution forbids regulation. It does mean that regulation must overcome a greater hurdle than non-constitutionally protected things, like explosives and cars. The extent of those hurdles and hypothetical regulation will be the subject of debate - and litigation. I don’t think any of these are contradictory. Take for example, Missouri. [They just amended their state constitution:](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/08/06/missouri-state-constitutional-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-strengthened-by-a-61-39-vote/) > [@](#): > > The changes read (additions marked in bold, deletions in strikeout): > > That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; [del]but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.[/del] **The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.** That would be a good start. It puts limits on laws that impact arms, carry, ammunition, and accessories (read: magazines). Compels the State to defend this law, sets the standard of review scrutiny. I fully endorse this new amendment (though I would say “person” not citizen). ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2014, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/773 "2014-08-09T00:26:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have despaired at teaching you. Wait, you’re teaching me about measuring exposure to risk? Do go on. For instance, you think that the proper way to measure risk from pools is the number of pools, rather than the number of times kids use the pools? I asked - given two identical kids, which one is more at risk for drowning, the kid who swims once or the kid who swims every day? You didn’t answer. While you are answering, can you explain person-time for me, oh wise one? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2014, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/774 "2014-08-09T00:35:27Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Are you just bad at math or are you bad at everything? This is hilarious, coming from the dumbass who doesn’t know what “controlling for” means - who didn’t know that given two significant predictors in a multivariate regression model, one cannot explain the other? The same dumbass who doesn’t know what a significance test comparing two parameters would look like? Who didn’t understand confidence intervals around a mean? This moron wants to talk about math skills? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2014, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/775 "2014-08-09T01:23:47Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Wait, you’re teaching me about measuring exposure to risk? Do go on. > > For instance, you think that the proper way to measure risk from pools is the number of pools, rather than the number of times kids use the pools? Neither. The number of times kids use pools is relevant, but undoubtedly there are pool-related deaths for kids that were not “using” the pool. > [@](#): > > I asked - given two identical kids, which one is more at risk for drowning, the kid who swims once or the kid who swims every day? The kid who swims every day. > [@](#): > > While you are answering, can you explain person-time for me, oh wise one? Yes. And you are wise to ask. Confronting your ignorance is the first step before you can humbly endeavor to learn. Person-time is better conceptualized as _incidence rate_. This rate is a single, merged measure that captures both the number of persons at risk of a specified incident and the time those were at risk. In this way we can imagine discussing twelve person-years, which might reflect one person at risk for twelve years, two persons at risk for six years, four persons at risk for three years, and so forth. Now, when you understand that, let me know, and we can move on to population attributable risk. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2014, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/776 "2014-08-09T02:46:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Neither. The number of times kids use pools is relevant, but undoubtedly there are pool-related deaths for kids that were not “using” the pool. Yes, undoubtedly, but that doesn’t change the nature of measuring exposure. > [@](#): > > The kid who swims every day. Exactly. So why were you arguing for using the number of pools as the denominator when evaluating the dangerousness of pools? Seems pretty stupid. > [@](#): > > Yes. And you are wise to ask. Confronting your ignorance is the first step before you can humbly endeavor to learn. > > Person-time is better conceptualized as _incidence rate_. This rate is a single, merged measure that captures both the number of persons at risk of a specified incident and the time those were at risk. In this way we can imagine discussing twelve person-years, which might reflect one person at risk for twelve years, two persons at risk for six years, four persons at risk for three years, and so forth. Bzzzt! Nice try, and shouldn’t you cite your sources? Think about what you wrote. The INCIDENCE RATE? What is a rate? Think about it. To have an INCIDENCE rate, don’t you need an INCIDENT? So, person-time is NOT conceptualized as the incidence rate. It is commonly the denominator in the incidence rate. You may have heard me say “It’s the denominator, stupid” several times. So, the incidence rate is the number of incidents per person-time. Dummy. Try copying from better sources in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2014, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/777 "2014-08-09T14:53:50Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Yes, undoubtedly, but that doesn’t change the nature of measuring exposure. Exactly. So why were you arguing for using the number of pools as the denominator when evaluating the dangerousness of pools? Seems pretty stupid. Bzzzt! Nice try, and shouldn’t you cite your sources? > > Think about what you wrote. The INCIDENCE RATE? What is a rate? Think about it. > > To have an INCIDENCE rate, don’t you need an INCIDENT? So, person-time is NOT conceptualized as the incidence rate. It is commonly the denominator in the incidence rate. > > You may have heard me say “It’s the denominator, stupid” several times. So, the incidence rate is the number of incidents per person-time. > > Dummy. Try copying from better sources in the future. I wrote from memory. Why aren’t you citing sources? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2014, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/778 "2014-08-09T14:59:54Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Dummy. Try copying from better sources in the future. If what I said was wrong, isn’t that pretty good evidence I did NOT copy it? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2014, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/779 "2014-08-10T15:18:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If what I said was wrong, isn’t that pretty good evidence I did NOT copy it? Good point. As you rightly observe, it is not possible to copy something incorrectly. You is smart. ---
**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:** [November 20, 2014, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/780 "2014-11-20T23:06:06Z")
[11th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds (PDF)](http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201214009.pdf) the law in question: > [@](#): > > As such, we find that the Act is a legitimate regulation of professional > conduct. The Act simply codifies that good medical care does not require inquiry > or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient’s care. It is uncontroversial that a state may police the boundaries of good medical practice by > routinely subjecting physicians to malpractice liability or administrative discipline > for all manner of activity that the state deems bad medicine, much of which > necessarily involves physicians speaking to patients. Although the Act singles out > a particular subset of physician activity as a trigger for discipline, this does little to > alter the analysis. Any burden the Act places on physician speech is thus entirely > incidental. Plaintiffs remain free—as physicians always have been—to assert their > First Amendment rights as an affirmative defense in any actions brought against > them. But we will not, by striking down the Act, effectively hand Plaintiffs a > declaration that such a defense will be successful. Furthermore, when the Act is > properly understood as a regulation of physician conduct intended to protect > patient privacy and curtail abuses of the physician-patient relationship, it becomes > readily apparent from the language of the Act the type of conduct the Act prohibits. > Accordingly, we reverse the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor > of Plaintiffs, and vacate the injunction against enforcement of the Act. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066.md?page=38) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066.md?page=40)