Well, maybe this isn’t that much of a setback, there are other ways to get the needed information for the confiscation database.
Or, you could get one of those humongous syringes with the harpoon-like needle on it and go, like, “OK, Timmy, now this won’t hurt a bit, unless I use this needle, and I won’t have to do that if you tell me the truth! Now, does your Mommy and Daddy have any guns?..”
I mean, we might have to be a bit more creative, but heck…
Yeah, you guys are killing me here. What with Bricker’s rock solid citations, and your keen analytical skills, I feel kinda like Magic Johnson being double-teamed by Prof Hawking and Stevie Wonder…
It amazes me how if you don’t like your pharmacist for *not *doing his job, you can just suck it up and go find yourself another pharmacist, but if you don’t like your doctor for *doing *his job, there’s got to be a fucking law crafted to make him do what you want.
About that. How do you figure that happened? I know a couple pharmacists, its a long slog through lots and lots of schooling, so its definitely not a matter of a lack of education. Bound to have a smattering of understanding statistics, stuff like that.
And yet, there they are, at odds with your brilliant and cogent position! So, assuming that they are totally off-base and you are totally right…how’d that happen? Did they get ruthlessly indoctrinated in pharmacy school, or did it happen earlier than that?
There they are, relatively smart and educated, and yet somehow they seem to think you are full of beans. How did such a perverse situation come about?
Tell me you wouldn’t be tempted to pop a couple in your mouth when nobody was looking, once in a while…
By which I mean pills, of course. Not children.
The AAP aren’t pharmacists.
It refers to the American Academy of Pediatrics. It’s doctors who treat children. You know, the group that we’ve been talking about for many pages? The group who’s web page we’ve been citing multiple times?
I thought you read cites? I mean, you told us so yourself.
I’m curious. Who is this directed towards?
These days, pretty much pot, chamomile tea and the occasional St. John’s Wort. Anything more pharmaceutical, interferes with X-Box. So, nah.
So, if I rephrase, put in “pediatricians” rather than “pharmacists”, you’ll have an answer? I’m guessing not, but you are welcome to astonish me…
I donate it to the world for everyone’s personal enjoyment. You’re welcome.
Selection bias. Doctors treat gun shot victims. They don’t get to eat the tasty venison that comes from a successful hunt. They don’t experience the enjoyment others get at the range.
So you know a couple of Pharmacists and a couple of Pediatricians?
No. I don’t need to answer when the question remains so flawed.
Now that you’ve at least got the group of people we’re talking about right we can move on to the premise of your question. The appeal to authority in your question assumes that all or most Pediatricians are anti-gun, thus that’s the intelligent position. This hasn’t been shown. What’s true is that the AAP, which is the organization of Pediatricians at the national level, is anti-gun.
We don’t have any evidence that most pediatricians are. They might be, but who knows. Do you have a cite for this premise that your question is based on?
Boy, you got me there! No reason to believe that a group comprised of pediatricians reflects the views of pediatricians. Should have known better than to mess with a smart cookie like you!
Are you trying to suggest that an elite cabal of anti-gun fanatics seized control and imposed their will on the rest of the pediatricians?
Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying.
:rolleyes:
I’ve asked you not to do this. Twice.
If you don’t have anything substantive to add just try not responding. It would be better than making up something silly and attributing it to me.
You really should stick to the sidelines, tossing out your occasional snarky reply, safe in the knowledge that most people here agree with you. That way you can’t get in much trouble.
When you actually get engaged in a debate on anything it quickly becomes obvious that you can’t even follow along with the discussion, much less add any meaningful content to it.
Oh, OK, that isn’t what you are saying? Fair enough! What is?
You said this, right? This was you, yes?
Followed by this:
So, the leadership of the group is anti-gun, but that doesn’t mean the rank and file is? Or does it mean something else? Is there another option?
But what’s the take-away from that…
(1) The most horrifying school shooting in history (because of the age of the kids) happened, while there was a democratic president, and a democratic senate, and STILL nothing ended up happening, proving how unlikely it is that anything will ever happen
or
(2) A bunch of people talked REALLY SERIOUSLY about gun control for a while before giving up, so that means we must NEVER RELAX OUR VIGILANCE!!!
I mean, obviously, if gun rights are important to you, you should continue to vote for legislators who support gun rights. But I think you’re smart enough to realize that an “OMG our gun rights are UNDER ASSAULT at EVERY TURN and we are mere MOMENTS from the time when JACK BOOTED FEDERAL THUGS come BURSTING IN and TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS” (and the equivalent) is pure hysterical BS.
You are certainly right about that. At the same time, I’m not 100% convinced that your initial claim, which is that owning a gun makes you, overall, safer, is one that can be statistically supported.
There would have to be some AWFULLY specific statistics to show that for people with your level of gun care and safety precautions, with family members in the age range of your family members, living in a neighborhood as dangerous as your neighborhood, etc., etc., owning a gun increases their odds of preventing a violent crime more than it either increases the odds of a non-violent crime turning violent, or increases the odds of a tragic accident.
If you have actual statistics backing up your claim, I’d like to see them.
Hey quit it you’re making him look like a conspiracy theory nut job. While Debaser may belong to groups that often fall prey to conspiracy theories, and Debaser may promote conspiracy theories. He doesn’t want to be known as a conspiracy theory nut, so you are wrong to imply he is. See how this works, his opinion is more important than the evidence.
I guess a bit of both. I think that if their approach to pools is not to say “get rid of your pool but if you MUST have a pool then…” but to merely provide information about risks and precautions, then I think they are letting something other than clinical criteria drive their policy when they say “get rid of your guns but if you must have guns them…” considering that pools are much more dangerous to have than guns when it comes to accidental deaths.
I’m just going by what some other poster said about a court case that precipitated this law.
There are plenty of options. You are the one who seems to assume that all or most pediatricians are anti-gun. I’m questioning that assumption.
You’re the one claiming to know what they all think. It’s now up to you to prove it.
I’ve admitted that I don’t know. That’s the great thing about saying “I don’t know.” I can’t be wrong.
Even if your assumption that your question was based on is correct, it’s still by definition an appeal to authority which is a logical fallacy. So it’s admittedly a waste of time for you to even bother proving your assumption is true.