Fukkin Facist Florida Firearm Fanatics

[Una_Persson]

@DSeid

Una your snark is one thing. It is the Pit. Your calling me a liar is another. Interesting that that insult, which I find very offensive, is permitted speech in the Pit apparently, while the to me much more innocuous telling someone to “fuck off” is not.

Your disingenuous hurt is annoying. Did you or did you not write the following?

(despite Una’s cawing of “current”, now officially expired)

In my post I made it VERY CLEAR that I was referring to the current position, not the expired position, by use of the word “current”, several times. Your words above deliberately falsely make it look like I was confusing CURRENT polity with the past policy. That was what I called a lie on your part. Why do you not get this?

Further I admitted that their past policy was obsolete and that they had clearly changed for the better. The fact you skipped over that is suspicious to say the least. How would I know they had changed unless I saw their CURRENT policy? Which YOU posted? You’re just not getting this, are you?

If you made a mistake then I expect you to have the decency to admit it. Since I saw no admission in your follow-up, then the only other possibility is you lied about my position.

Do you realize how offensive that is?

Their CURRENT position which YOU linked to in Post #193 contains a recommendation for a complete ban on firearms for any house which has a "
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/119/1/202.full

Firearm safety: In-home firearms are particularly dangerous during adolescence because of the potential for impulsive, unplanned use by teens resulting in suicide, homicide, or serious unintentional injuries. Firearms, and especially handguns, should be kept out of the home. If parents choose to keep a firearm in the home, the unloaded gun and ammunition must be kept in separate locked cabinets. Parents should ask whether there is a gun in any home that teenagers visit.

(emphasis added)

You’ve said you weren’t in favor of complete bans on guns from the home, right? The AAP says differently, right? The link is one YOU gave, right? You claimed it was their current policy, right? It says “PEDIATRICS Vol. 119 No. 1 January 1, 2007” at the top, right?

What are you not getting with this?

I have stated quite clearly that I disagree some with the guideline but that I do not find it egregious or offensive and have no interest in writing about an item eleven years old and not a current priority of the group - other than in response to a new move by the NRA that eliminates our freedom of speech to even discuss the subject with patient.

Look:

1. Are you reversing yourself and saying you agree that for any house with an adolescent that guns should be completely banned from the home? I could at least respect a clear position from you, if I could ever get one out of you…

2. Will you finally at long last have the decency to admit that the link YOU gave, in Post 193, right here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13780866&postcount=193) is the one we’re talking about? The one YOU said:

[QUOTE=DSeid]
The recent one that includes firearm safety is this more general guideline which limits itself to this:

it is important for parents to ask whether there is a gun in any home that their child visits. If parents choose to keep a firearm in the home, the unloaded gun and ammunition must be kept in separate locked cabinets

[/QUOTE]

…and that’s not a true statement either, is it? Following YOUR link in Post #193 comes to the statement calling for a ban on firearms in the home for any home with an adolescent.

Why did you omit that? You clearly said that their statement “limits itself to” what you posted, but it didn’t limit itself, did it?

I mean, did you just not read your own citation? Did you stop at the first mention of firearms and decide you didn’t need to read any further? Is that the problem?

You’re guilty of doing this before, in the Comments forum. When you couldn’t win a debate, you twisted my words to say what you wanted me to have said, and when I called you on it there, if I recall correctly, you said words to the effect of you just don’t acknowledge people who claim you’ve done that, so you refused to own up to your bad behavior there too. You also claimed Cecil was badly-served by having me as his assistant, which was deliberately incredibly insulting, and you God damned well knew it, too. So excuse me if I don’t take your wounded innocence routine at face value. You know how to be a vicious, snarky, asshole when you want to be.

So yes you did AGAIN misrepresent what I posted, and the reason you AGAIN did that appears to be that you’re so caught up in the 11 year-old statement that you didn’t even bother to fully read the 2007-published statement YOU posted in Post #193 and which appears to be current. Being negligent in reading your own citation fully before posting about it is sort of how your OP, which started this whole thread, was negligent, and referred to out-of-date information, right?

So spare me your long-winded posts about how abused you are and think about how you set this chain of events in motion by apparently not reading your own citation fully. Stop falsely claiming I’m referring to the old position, rather than the new one YOU posted in Post #193.

Edited: combined two sentences.

[DSeid]

Listen you twit. Advising that no guns in the house is safer than guns in the house is not pushing for a ban. If you are too stupid or whatever the heck you are to understand the difference then you do belong with the likes of rowr…. I have no problem with a pediatrician advising that no guns in a house is safer than guns with. I just do not think that the magnitude is so huge. Long winding arguments about defensive gun use allegedly preventing deaths vs accidental deaths and increased risks of suicides don’t interest me. Both seem exaggerated in most gun threads. Stored safely the risk of guns in the house is small. No gun would be safer yet.

When you get outside of discussions about energy, which you actually do know something about, you are among the most offensive dirtbags I have the misfortune to come across. Your poor me everybody always twist my words around and “you always do this crap” is very tiresome, and frankly not worth dealing with. Get what ever bit of hardware you have up there out of your ass. It makes shit back up out of your mouth.

[Una_Persson]

@DSeid

Listen you twit. Advising that no guns in the house is safer than guns in the house is not pushing for a ban. If you are too stupid or whatever the heck you are to understand the difference then you do belong with the likes of rowr…. I have no problem with a pediatrician advising that no guns in a house is safer than guns with. I just do not think that the magnitude is so huge. Long winding arguments about defensive gun use allegedly preventing deaths vs accidental deaths and increased risks of suicides don’t interest me. Both seem exaggerated in most gun threads. Stored safely the risk of guns in the house is small. No gun would be safer yet.

When you get outside of discussions about energy, which you actually do know something about, you are among the most offensive dirtbags I have the misfortune to come across. Your poor me everybody always twist my words around and “you always do this crap” is very tiresome, and frankly not worth dealing with. Get what ever bit of hardware you have up there out of your ass. It makes shit back up out of your mouth.

Translation: “Stop confusing the issue with facts. I’m never wrong. You suck.”

Even to my worst enemy on this message board I’ll at least have the morals to admit I got my facts wrong (assuming they’re not on Ignore). Why can’t you rise to the occasion?

My post stands for itself. It shows with details and links how you screwed up by not reading what people were posting here, and what your own citations said. I’ve pointed out with links where you mis-represented the facts. You’ve refused to admit you were wrong, and resorted to some really nasty insults instead - the same thing you did outside this forum, the last time.

You can point the finger of blame when you show such shoddy scholarship you don’t read people’s posts, don’t read your own Googled citations, nor know all the facts about something you start a Pit thread over (I mean really, your OP must be fairly embarrassing for you) - but remember, there are three fingers pointing right back at you. And a thumb pointing up at God, I guess.

[China_Guy]

@Una_Persson

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or…119/1/202.full

Quote:
Firearm safety: In-home firearms are particularly dangerous during adolescence because of the potential for impulsive, unplanned use by teens resulting in suicide, homicide, or serious unintentional injuries. Firearms, and ***especially ***handguns, ***should ***be kept out of the home. ***If ***parents choose to keep a firearm in the home, the unloaded gun and ammunition must be kept in separate locked cabinets. Parents should ask whether there is a gun in any home that teenagers visit.

Emphasis amended.

1. Can you help explain how this is a call for ban on all firearms?
2. can you demonstrate how having a gun in the house is the same or safer than not with kids around? Throw in the qualifier of ignoring the defensive arguement. Just purely having a gun in the home is the same or safer risk profile?

I am not trying to pick nits here, but I’m perplexed on how the quoted statement is calling for a “ban” on firearms, and the implication that having a gun in the house is the same in terms of risk profile as not having one? I don’t see how you parse it that way.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Sam_Stone

I’ll ask this again - how many of those ‘children’ are actually teenagers involved in gun crimes?

This is a very important distinction, because I’ve seen stats like this used to scare parents in the 'burbs from having guns in the home where little Timmy can get at them, when in fact what the stats are really showing is the amount of gang-related gun violence that’s going on.

If you’re trying to give parents good information about the risks of unsecured gun storage and all that, don’t you think it’s important to know exactly what those statistics represent?

So.. Do you have those numbers broken out? What percentage of child-related gun accidents and fatalities are actually occurring outside the home in criminal settings, in which case they have nothing at all to do with adults owning a gun in a home with children?

And I ask you, how many gang-bangers are killed on ATVs? In swimming accidents? By getting their head stuck in a bucket?

[Bricker]

@boytyperanma

It may or not be the doctors job. If they work for someone else they might be told to ask or told not to, If they work for themselves they can decide to ask or not. it’s their choice. You don’t get to decide what other peoples jobs are, you only get to decide what you are willing to pay them for. If you think they are doing something you’d rather not pay for, you are welcome to hire someone else. Doctors aren’t some type of slave labor that has to bend to your every whim they are allowed to do as they wish.

Absolutely correct. Well said.

[Una_Persson]

@China_Guy

Emphasis amended.

1. Can you help explain how this is a call for ban on all firearms?

No, I can’t, because I never claimed it was a “ban on all firearms.” I said it was a call for a “complete bans on guns from the home.” Above that I have a broken sentence which says “a complete ban on firearms for any house which has a” which was intended to say “adolescents” on the end of it. Mea culpa, it was a bad typo.

Now with respect to the quote from the current position (not the 11 year old one which folks keep being distracted with), we obviously apply different weighting to the word “should.” With respect to the remainder of the quote, they obviously knew that the vast majority of Americans were not likely to run out and turn their guns in for free shoes or whatever as soon as they got an adolescent in the house, so they added a fallback position.

2. can you demonstrate how having a gun in the house is the same or safer than not with kids around? Throw in the qualifier of ignoring the defensive arguement. Just purely having a gun in the home is the same or safer risk profile?

No, because I haven’t been making that claim. Where was I addressing the risk in this thread? The only point I addressed risk was with the ignorant statements on “assault weapons.” Handguns are far and above all the greatest risk factor with respect to accidents to children. Further, I freely admit and have admitted that as long as there are firearms there is a greater potential for accidents involving said firearms. Setting aside the very open question of whether parenting skills and control over children’s bad behavior has declined in the New Agey “world of the Indigo/Avatar/Empowered Child”, even under the best of times in the Glory Days of Leave-it-to-Beaver Land, there is a risk of children being injured or killed in firearms accidents. Accidents will happen, and obviously firearms accidents are more likely to happen in homes with firearms. Parents should be exercising rigid control over the access to the firearms, and the training of the children on how to not use - and use - the firearms, depending on the situation.

[Hbns]

@DSeid

To put this into perspective - in actuality, even in LA county, where gun injuries are the number one cause of death in children over age ten, few pediatricians actually ask about guns very much.So less than 8% of pediatricians in LA county asked about guns in more than 10% of their patient families. And that was in 1998, at the peak of interest in gun violence and reducing it.

They probably recognize that the guns aren’t the root of the youth violence problem in that county.

[DSeid]

@Una_Persson

…we obviously apply different weighting to the word “should.” …

You are entitled to have your own crazy interpretation of “should” to mean “must”; you are entitled to think that a pediatrician saying that, from a pediatric POV, the safest option is no guns in the house and we would say that is what you should do, is “calling for a ban” - you are insane for thinking that, but fine, you can be crazy. You are not entitled to call me a liar for believing that giving advice on what we think should be is not the same as calling for a ban. Doing that is being a dirtbag.

Let us review.

In this post you, without any snark, assumed that I object to the AAP position and would have no problem writing about that. Specifically you pointed out the AAP call to ban assault weapons.

My response was that I do not find the 2000 AAP statement (which I quoted and linked to) egregious and specifically stated this:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Safe storage of guns must be mandated.

4. 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 area of disagreement with the AAP was clearly not over the advice to say that no guns is the safest option, but on its public policy section which called for a ban of certain ill-defined classes of weapons. My emphasis is on the diversion of legal weapons, not on the legal weapons themselves.

I later pointed out that the 2000 statement has actually expired. The public policy portion is not included in the current statement. What is included is exactly what I have said all along I agree with, to the degree that my opinions matter. No guns is the safest option, but if the decision is made to have guns in a house with children safe storage is essential.

I have zero problem with anything in the current guideline, and never said I did. And given that you state

… obviously firearms accidents are more likely to happen in homes with firearms …

I would think that you could see a pediatrician stating that none would be preferred is not a crazy thought.

I have no interest in complaining about the current guideline that is not saying anything I disagree with.

And you are pond scum. In your representations of what I have said you are either a liar or too stupid to understand basic English or very psychiatrically ill. I hinestly am not sure which but outside of energy threads I will do my best to stay far away from you as you are twisted bad news.

Hbns, no actually in the study most felt they should do it but felt they were not well enough equipped to do it properly in their own professional judgement, and that maybe they would if they were supplied with better educational material to pass out.

[China_Guy]

@Una_Persson

No, I can’t, because I never claimed it was a “ban on all firearms.” I said it was a call for a “complete bans on guns from the home.” Above that I have a broken sentence which says “a complete ban on firearms for any house which has a” which was intended to say “adolescents” on the end of it. Mea culpa, it was a bad typo.

No, because I haven’t been making that claim. Where was I addressing the risk in this thread? The only point I addressed risk was with the ignorant statements on “assault weapons.” Handguns are far and above all the greatest risk factor with respect to accidents to children. Further, I freely admit and have admitted that as long as there are firearms there is a greater potential for accidents involving said firearms. Setting aside the very open question of whether parenting skills and control over children’s bad behavior has declined in the New Agey “world of the Indigo/Avatar/Empowered Child”, even under the best of times in the Glory Days of Leave-it-to-Beaver Land, there is a risk of children being injured or killed in firearms accidents. Accidents will happen, and obviously firearms accidents are more likely to happen in homes with firearms. Parents should be exercising rigid control over the access to the firearms, and the training of the children on how to not use - and use - the firearms, depending on the situation.

Got it. Thanks for the reply. My own typo of meaning to say a “a complete ban on firearms for any house which has a minor/child/adolescent”

I’m still not reading how should and the follow on paragraph is a call for a qualified ban. Again, I’m trying to understand how the pro gun side makes this logical leap? I can see a potential slippery slope but would you agree the comments at face value don’t call for a ban. If not, why not?

Thanks for the clarification on guns in the home raises the risk factor by some extent. I’ve had discussions with some that argue it doesn’t and I *really *can’t wrap my head around that.

[Hbns]

@China_Guy

Emphasis amended.

1. Can you help explain how this is a call for ban on all firearms?

That link no.
This one however quite clearly calls for it. Now DSeid has been kind enough to point out that this policy statement is expired and no longer in effect, but this is not evident perusing the page. Furthermore the policy piece is shown to be cited often and as recently as 2010. So being 6 years expired according to DSeid, why hasn’t this policy paper been marked retired as so many others on their site have?
Easy to see why some none AAP members might think it is relevant. Especially considering it is the number one google result for:
pediatrics guns in home policy
And one of the first things after the Florida hubbub using virtually any other relevant terms.

Personally I agree that restricting Pediatricians speech is stupid. However, I am not at all surprised with position pieces such as linked floating around, that another group known to take somewhat extreme positions on the subject looked to clean up what they thought was a slippery slope.

Risk is a scary thing. It is all around us every day. You can not eliminate risk. Period. Best you can do is to mitigate it. DSeid from his own statements seems to understand this and has a position much tempered from AAP recommendations which seem to think removing the item somehow magically removes the lifestyle and education factors that are so important in the risk profile as well.

[Hbns]

And apparently the University of Michigan Health Service has no clue the AAP Policy statement is expired either, as inthis 2010 piece on guns and kidsas they suggest you see the AAP policy statement for more details (there link directs to the page that DSeid has repeatedly said is expired).

[DSeid]

@Hbns

And apparently the University of Michigan Health Service has no clue the AAP Policy statement is expired either, as inthis 2010 piece on guns and kidsas they suggest you see the AAP policy statement for more details (there link directs to the page that DSeid has repeatedly said is expired).

Well I had just vaguely remembered that being the rule myself and had to hunt to find it after I did. It is not well labelled as such and it is not too surprising that others are not aware of that rule. I would be happier to see it clearly marked as such and that all statements over 5 years old get that marked on their top. I would be happier yet to see the policy revisited. I might even be willing to write in and find out if it is up on the docket to be looked at again soon and in that case put my thoughts, for the little sway they have, into the mix.

But the points still remain even if it was not expired. It is an old policy and firearm issues have not been a priority item for the AAP since. It has had little impact even on pediatricians. My problem with that policy guideline has been clear throughout that I think the public policy advocating portion is misguided but otherwise do not see it as off and agree with the more recent statement completely.

[Una_Persson]

@China_Guy

Got it. Thanks for the reply. My own typo of meaning to say a “a complete ban on firearms for any house which has a minor/child/adolescent”

I’m still not reading how should and the follow on paragraph is a call for a qualified ban. Again, I’m trying to understand how the pro gun side makes this logical leap? I can see a potential slippery slope but would you agree the comments at face value don’t call for a ban. If not, why not?

If you’re thinking by “ban” I mean legislative, than no, they are not calling for that in that specific piece (in the earlier obsolete one they appear to be, however).

Thanks for the clarification on guns in the home raises the risk factor by some extent. I’ve had discussions with some that argue it doesn’t and I *really *can’t wrap my head around that.

Oh I’m sure it raises the risk factor for accidents. What is the overall risk factor, from all causes? I really don’t know. We looked at that a couple of years back and were unable to prove a definite risk increase, a risk decrease, or a wash.

[Una_Persson]

@DSeid

You are entitled to have your own crazy interpretation of “should” to mean “must”; you are entitled to think that a pediatrician saying that, from a pediatric POV, the safest option is no guns in the house and we would say that is what you should do, is “calling for a ban” - you are insane for thinking that, but fine, you can be crazy. You are not entitled to call me a liar for believing that giving advice on what we think should be is not the same as calling for a ban. Doing that is being a dirtbag.

No, sorry, you need to pay attention. You lied when you said I was “cawing” over an 11 year-old policy statement, when I was in fact calling you on the carpet over the current one which YOU YOURSELF POSTED and which has been linked up above. This has been explained to you now on multiple occasions. Since you’re obviously literate and are sidestepping and ducking those key facts, the most logical conclusion is that you’re flailing away with the shopworn SDMB “what’s that behind you? Don’t look at what I posted!” tactic.

All of this has been explained to you. With links. Such as post #193, where you said:

[QUOTE=DSeid]

The recent one that includes firearm safety is this more general guideline which limits itself to this:

…it is important for parents to ask whether there is a gun in any home that their child visits. If parents choose to keep a firearm in the home, the unloaded gun and ammunition must be kept in separate locked cabinets

[/QUOTE]

That wasn’t true, was it? It didn’t limit itself to that, did it? No, it didn’t. You either lied about that source as well, or else you’re sloppy and careless. Anyone here can follow the links and make their own judgement which one you are.

But even in the most charitable instance, pointing out your sloppy Googling and poor reading ability - sort of like your OP which kicked the DSeid Show here - hardly makes one mentally ill.

Let us review.

Start by reviewing the thread before you keep on making your slurs. If you think I’ll let you carry on sidestepping and pretending you didn’t post what’s right here in the thread for all to read, then you’ve got issues. And "dirtbag? “Pond scum?” What is this, Hill Street Blues? Hey, 1980 called, it wants its slurs back.

[Lobohan]

Hey Una, could I ask you to settle on a technique to emphasise your text? It looks like you’re sputtering in irrational rage if you decide to use italics, ALLCAPS and **bolding **all in one post.

I’m not saying I agree or disagree with what you’re writing, but your writing looks like it came from my insane aunt.

Thank you.

[Una_Persson]

@Lobohan

Hey Una, could I ask you to settle on a technique to emphasise your text? It looks like you’re sputtering in irrational rage if you decide to use italics, ALLCAPS and **bolding **all in one post.

I’m not saying I agree or disagree with what you’re writing, but your writing looks like it came from my insane aunt.

Thank you.

Well of course, if it bothers you. What would you suggest as other ways to emphasize the facts to DSeid who seems to be unable to understand what he himself posted yesterday? Smoke signals? Morse code? Candygrams? Dancing sandwich-board girls? Shockwave kittens singing it to him to the tune of Stairway to Heaven? Because doggone it, nothing seems to be working for him. Then again, he’s sort of given up having any real point in here, and is mainly using his posts as a vehicle to make more odd slurs about me. I’m sure his next post sniping at me will be a real howler.

[DSeid]

A related question to those who know the ways of the courts -

Assuming that this law gets challenged, what sort of time line does that process take?

If it is at a Federal Appellate court level during the GOP primary season, do you see it having any impact on how various potential candidates position themselves?

[suranyi]

@DSeid

A related question to those who know the ways of the courts -

Assuming that this law gets challenged, what sort of time line does that process take?

If it is at a Federal Appellate court level during the GOP primary season, do you see it having any impact on how various potential candidates position themselves?

It’s impossible to say. It could easily take years to wind its way to the Supreme Court, if it makes it that far. Many famous US Supreme Court cases did take years to reach that far.

[Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension]

It’s unfortunate that this thread kicked off in the pit. It would have been a more interesting thread in GD, as it might have briefly stayed on topic before degenerating. The issues at stake are quite important.