BTW, interpreting the data how they have and recommending that pediatricians advise no guns in the house as the ideal, with safe storage awareness for those who will have guns anyway, is hardly facist, whether you agree or disagree with the statement. Facism requires using the power of the state to enforce something. Say like passing a law that prevents speech that you suspect you might disagree with. Now if the AAP was succeeding in getting laws passed that prevented gun ownership, then you might be able to claim an analogy, but while this law is facist, the AAP guideline is only speech that you disagree with. Yes potentially naggy speech, but still just speech.
Yabbut, you keep misspelling “fascist,” so the means your side is wrong.
:rolleyes:
The hell is wrong with this statement? “As long as a possible threat exists, we shall continue to inform parents of the potential hazards and how to avoid them?” This makes sense, no?
Evidently, what’s “wrong” with it is that it postulates that it is anything short of gun-grabbing police state Big Brotherism to ever characterize a firearm as a potential hazard that should be avoided or mitigated.
What’s wrong with it is the cultural baggage leftover from the 70s and 80s gun regulation heyday (and, for that matter, of the ongoing gun regulation heyday in many urban areas) that a lot of people automatically add to their perceptions of the intent of statements like that.
I assume you will have no problem writing to them and telling them the problems with their position, along the same lines as you asked NRA members in this thread to do. Especially when the AAP calls out for bans on “assault weapons”, a type of weapon responsible for an incredibly small number of fatalities and injuries to children via accidents (or even homicides, IIRC). In fact their pushing for that last measure demonstrates that their position has a fair amount of politics in it of the Democratic flavor, and that they aren’t coming to the table with clean hands, so to speak. Or are you going to defend a position that “assault weapons” are a major source or risk of accidental childhood injuries and fatalities?
And has the AAP made a statement calling for the removal of swimming pools from houses with children, or government bans on swimming pools? I searched and doggone it, I can’t find any such position on their website. I wonder why not?
“Assault weapons” do not exist.
DSeid, maybe you should consider coming up north.
PM me.
As I always have to do with these types of threads, these comparisons are as misleading as the assertions that were once made regarding the relative safety of American service personnel in Iraq versus California. It’s all in the denominator. I’d go on, but …
…if you can do away with all the empirical evidence on the issue with one wave of your hand, you’re not likely going to be readily educated regarding relative risk.
Further, I just thought I’d take a look at the data available via the CDC. In 2007, there were 122 unintentional firearms deaths among youth (people between 0 and 18 years of age). There were 885 poisonings and 1,033 drownings. (Please see again, however, the meaning and relevance of the concept of “denominator.”)
There were, however, 3,060 unintentional non-fatal firearms injuries among youth in 2007.
But part of the reasons why I as a professional would query firearms presence in the household would not be for accidental injuries. There are a number of ways that firearms in the household serve as a risk factor apart from accidents. On that note, the total number of youth killed by firearms in 2007 was 2,251, and there were 12,371 non-fatal firearms injuries to youth.
So, I think your claim that the issues pertaining to other types of concerns that pediatricians would have being “orders of magnitude” greater than firearms injuries is off by orders of magnitude.
I haven’t read the law to see what restrictions are placed on psychologists and the querying of risk factors. I wouldn’t like to have my hands tied, however.
Yes, specifically the NRA and AAP positions.
I have no issue with information or discourse regarding safe storage and handling of firearms. In fact I encourage it.
Do you really think that the AAP’s ineffectual statements are comparable to the elimination by the state of free speech in a private setting if someone might say something that some people might not agree with?
While I appreciate that you really are just being snarky I will actually address this point seriously. No it is not.
I have in fact been engaged, via published forums in our journals, in debates about several of the AAP guidelines. This one does not strike me as so off the reasonable range as to warrant that, even if I do not agree with all of its conclusions or recommendations. It is also an old statement and not something that they are are actively prioritizing at this time. If the statement had come out now, rather than 11 years ago, I might actually write a letter about it. My position has changed over that time, mostly as a result of discussion with the less snarky of this board.
Their points:
“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” True that and anything that causes that amount of morbidity and disability is fair game for an organization concerned with childhood wellness to take a stance on.
“The United States has the highest rates of firearm-related deaths (including homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths) among industrialized countries.17” Okay.
So having established that they come up with the following:
Do I agree with all of that? No. I think they should instead focus on the following:
-
Legal guns, including handguns, owned by those properly trained in their use and care, and stored unloaded and securely, represent a non-zero but very small public health risk; guns however misdirected to the illegal market, and those stored insecurely, significantly contribute to an excess amount of death and disability in the United States, with disproportionate impact on our younger cohorts.
-
Current laws that are designed to limit the misdirection need to be more fully enforced. Additional regulation to close loopholes that facilitate misdirection of legal guns to the illegal market should be considered.
-
Safe storage of guns must be mandated.
-
Pediatricians can serve as a vehicle of informing families that decide to own guns on how to minimize the risk. It is our position that the risk is lowest if their is no gun in the household but those who do decide to own guns must have the knowledge to do so with as little risk as possible.
My Floridian counterpart doing point 4 will be illegal in Florida soon. I can do it in Illinois, even if I do not choose to.
BTW, officially that is an “expired” policy guideline.
The recent one that includes firearm safety is this more general guideline which limits itself to this:
So over time the AAP has moderated some too.
I don’t think when large, official bodies representing tens of thousands of very high-paid professionals make official statements, that it’s that “ineffectual.”
While you obviously consider yourself to be a polymath, you fail at mind reading. No, I wasn’t being snarky. Yes, the sentence two prior to this one is. I wanted to know if you were willing to at least fire off an e-mail saying you disagreed with their policy. I see you wrote a lot of text justifying why you didn’t feel like it was important enough to do, ironically probably more than the e-mail would have taken. But in short, your answer is “no,” you are unwilling to do what you called for other SDMB Members to do. I also saw nothing about the swimming pools, so I’m assuming the answer is “don’t know” to that question.
Sort of problematic with the details in the majority opinion of Heller, wouldn’t you think?
It’s amazing in this economy they can’t find anyone to update their web page. Oh who am I to talk; I have web pages at work that are 8 or more years out of date… :smack:
That might make sense! We can’t have that! 
Not too familiar with the AAP I see. Leave at that before they let this one expire the AAP policy stance of Pro-gun control had been extant since 1992. (Well officially not from 1997 to 2000, since they were a few years behind on their review cycle.) Not a record of great efficacy. The AAP has influence on establishing some professional guidelines, but as influencers of public policy? Uh, no. Ineffectual is generous. Oh okay, some success on car safety laws and required immunizations for school entry, but even then only because the weight of the CDC was behind those too.
If you say so.
You really meant that as a serious question? Okay, here in context from the link in my last post - the current guidelines in the preschool age range:
Currently both handled in similar ways. If you want more details on pool safety see here.
Can’t say that I know. It is however what I believe would make sense. And it is the law in many states including Florida, where leaving a loaded weapon accessible to a child is a felony.
Actually the AAP is pretty underfunded and mostly run by unpaid pediatricians with a fairly small staff. But there is nothing that needs to be updated here. You do not expunge the record of statements you allow to expire. That statement is a matter of history. Any statement that is not reaffirmed by five years is supposed to be considered expired - as noted. Subjects that are of ongoing interest as policy initiatives get revisited and reaffirmed. Sometimes they are slow and do not hit a five year cycle, but if it goes eleven you can conclude it is no longer a priority of the organization. When subsequent statements address the same subject and fail to reaffirm the past statement that confirms the policy goal has expired.
You really want me to post an e-mail to an organization about an eleven year old expired guideline, one that had no effect on law? And you really want to make an equivalency between that and asking those for those who believe in free speech and in the doctor patient relationship to speak up at a time during which their voices and only their voices may make a difference?
Seriously?
It is NOT your fucking job, asshole. Stay the fuck away from a Constitutional right.
You’ve manufactured your “right” out of thin air. There is NO RIGHT for you to ask about this. Get that through your fucking thick skull. Fuck you, you tyrant wannabe. Burn in fucking hell.
I forget who said this: “The desire to help humanity is often a false front for the desire to control it.” That’s you IN SPADES, asshole.
You are an arrogant, power-hungry piece of crap.
Didn’t I say it was? Or is this “keep questioning with feigned disbelief” night? Are you arching one eyebrow the whole time you type? If I knew you were male, I might also assume you’re twirling a waxed mustachio too.
The majority in Heller found that the DC restrictions on storage were un-Constitutional because they rendered the use of the weapons for self defense impossible, right? So if Florida’s law does the same, then I’ll assume it will be found un-Constitutional as well before long.
Holy inflated sense of importance, Batman, their words are not meant to be preserved for the ages for ever and ever. “A matter of history” indeed. Even the CFR removes obsolete laws. They’re just doctors. Seriously.
YOU are the one who made a “call for action” here for random strangers who may or may not even be NRA members IRL to compose letters to the NRA over a pending law in Florida which recall, didn’t even do what you claimed it was going to do in your OP. You sort of handwavingly admitted you were wrong there, but only after others had to point it out for you. And again, it would have taken you LESS effort, LESS typing, and LESS time than your continued waffling on here to send a quick e-mail to the AAP objecting to any of their policies you don’t agree with. You’re saying in effect “oh, that initial policy was old so I don’t need to do anything” but then you went and posted their current position, and noted you yourself don’t agree with all of it. So…are you going to send that mail stating your objections to their policy, or are you going to spend MORE time, MORE words, and MORE effort telling me new reasons why you shouldn’t?
In other words, don’t try to hold people’s feet to the fire on this message board over “are you willing to write a letter” when you don’t have the will to reciprocate. You say yourself that their intellectual dishonesty with respect to “assault weapons” is no longer their position. In the absence of any other evidence, I’ll cheerfully accept that they smartened up and that that specific issue is a moot point. accept that. Apparently the bearded sages of the AAP found Wikipedia and made a major policy change, or something. You also said you don’t agree with their current positions in whole. And so you’re going to do…what, exactly? Post on a message board? Dig in your heels further and find argue about why you shouldn’t do anything else?
Look, no more wasting time typing more equivocations and excuses, cease the waffling, no more asking with feigned disbelief “do you want me to do this.” Just say yes you will, or no you will not, and leave it at that simple of a statement so we know where you stand.
Dude, lay off the caffeine.
Curious though how you think double checking with a parent about their little kids on pool safety, car seats and storing firearms in a safe manner consistent with NRA teachings is about equal to someone worse than Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot rolled into one tyrant? I’m just not getting some key point you’re trying to make here.
I have an honest question: What specific training do you have that makes you an expert on the relative safety of guns, or the advisability of having them around children? For that matter, how about backyard swimming pools, trampolines, baseball bats, bicycles, etc ad nauseum?
I’ve probably got far more training in safety analysis than your average doctor, but if someone hired me to design some product for them, I would find it highly unprofessional to lecture that person about unrelated safety issues, such as whether their car had good rollover protection or whether the person’s shoes might snap an ankle were they to play tennis in them. It’s simply outside of my scope of business contact with that customer.
And I would not consider simply reading statistical data to be adequate training, since these are complex behavioral issues and raw safety statistics are just one part of the deal. Playing football is more dangerous than not playing football, but the decision to allow your child to play football is much more complex than simply looking up the injury data.
If a doctor has no specific training in the various non-medical child-rearing issues that involve tradeoffs between safety and responsibility, protection and coddling, reasonable risk vs unreasonable risk and all the rest, then the doctor is simply trading on his stature and position of power and influence over a family to push his or her own agenda - even if he thinks he’s doing the right thing. It’s simply outside of the scope of his training.
These are not simple matters of safety and statistics. Child-rearing is a complex process of selectively and progressively giving your child more and more responsibility and allowing the child to be exposed to more and more danger in exchange for freedom, so that one day when they leave the nest they’re well-rounded people who can deal with a difficult world. It’s not a purely medical issue.
I was given my first .22 rifle when I was 12 years old. And I think the person who gave it to me did me a big favor, taught me lessons in responsibility, and helped me grow up. How would you as my pediatrician know whether or not this was a responsible thing to do? Based on what objective analysis and education you hold as part of your job training and licensure? Hell, you’re not even a social worker or a psychiatrist who has worked with the family in a therapeutic setting - so I’d think you’d have some humility when giving them advice regarding safety matters. And maybe you do.
There’s a big difference between saying, “If you have electrical outlets, you can buy these little plugs which will make them safer” and saying “Do you have your electrical outlets plugged? No? Then I won’t treat your kid any more until you do.” Or even, “You’re being irresponsible if you don’t put little plugs in your electrical outlets.” The first case is fine, as it’s just a transfer of information that may or may not be useful. The second two examples involve judgment calls and moral evaluations of the parent’s specific behavior. I would consider those out of line.
So I’m certainly not against a doctor handing out unbiased information about safety, so long as it’s not political, it doesn’t advocate a specific outcome (Don’t own a pool, don’t own a gun). A pamphlet that says, “if you own a gun, here are some simple things you can do to help prevent its misuse by your children” would be fine. A doctor that says, “Guns are dangerous. If you have kids, you must get rid of them or take these extreme safety measures or I wion’t treat you”, accompanied by a stern glare or a sad shake of the head, is quite another.
I don’t want the government involved one way or another, and the Florida law is stupid. However, if you were my kid’s pediatrician and you tried to lecture me on gun ownership, that would be the last session with you I’d ever pay for.