Fukkin Facist Florida Firearm Fanatics

[Debaser]

@MaxTheVool

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.

Tell that to the people who had their guns taken away in exactly this manner during hurricane Katrina.

[Debaser]

@boytyperanma

While Debaser may belong to groups that often fall prey to conspiracy theories,

Humans?

and Debaser may promote conspiracy theories.

Cite of me ever doing this?

See how this works, his opinion is more important than the evidence.

My opinion in this case is that I don’t know what pediatricians, as a group, believe. That’s hardly controversial.

As to “evidence”, I’ve yet to see any presented. Do you have any?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Damuri_Ajashi

… considering that pools are much more dangerous to have than guns when it comes to accidental deaths.

As usual, it’s the denominator, stupid. How many fucking times until you get this?

Or would you assert that firearms are more dangerous than anthrax, because far fewer children died from anthrax than firearms?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@boytyperanma

Read the bill. Do you see an exception for life of the mother? Do I need to prove a negative for you?

Well, you have to prove that this bill says what you claim it says.

This bill just states that “the life of each human being begins with fertilization”

So tell me how you get from there to “No Abortions. No Exceptions, including rape, incest or life of the mother.”

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@boytyperanma

My attitude is fetal personhood bills are moronic.

So you decided to fight moronic fire with moronic fire.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@DSeid

Add in, if such refusal would result in the woman being unable to have the procedure, and you have a reasonable question IMHO. One that has nothing to do with the Florida censorship law.

Are you under the impression that pharmacies that will dispense these drugs are less accessible than doctors that will perform abortions?:rolleyes:

And this is the pit so we can go a little off topic and you’re the ones that are fighting the analogy.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@DSeid

Your first part is prohibited by the law.

And I agree that the law is off base. I thought the discussion had moved beyond that.

Does that mean you agree with the rest of my position?

Specifically that they should limit their discussion to safety precautions and risks. That they should devote a LOT more time to discussion about how to prevent drowning and motor vehicle accidents?

At what point can we tell doctors to “knock it off” with the anti-gun proslytizing?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

Wow. Well, since you used capital letters, I am certainly convinced.

Of course, “if it ever happened,” even asked in capital letters, seems like a bizarre question. It was well-publicized:

Well I only heard about it from you so maybe DSEID didn’t know about it either.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@DSeid

The AAP’s political arm is pro gun control. To some who call themselves “pro-gun rights” being for gun control in any form is “anti-gun” … an either-or tactic that distorts discussions in bipolar arguments despite the fact that being pro-gun control is completely consistent with being a gun owner. In fact I know of very few (and almost all of them in a virtual sense only as they are through posts on these boards) who are actually “anti-gun” or even “gun-grabber.” That distortive polarizing tactic is what you have been entrained to do.

I remember a while back we looked at the AAP’s political arm’s position on gun control and they supported an AWB among other things that made it obvious that they are anti-gun.

The position of AAP’s clinical guidance is not about gun control. It is not stating that guns should be illegal or about regulations. It is a clinical guidance and neither pro or anti gun. A gun-free house with children is, from a safety point of view, a safer house; if you have guns please be sure they are safely stored.

But that’s not what the guidelines say (at least in that pamphlet you linked to earlier). They say Don’t have a gun but if a gun is necessary THEN here are some precautions you should take.

As with all safety items (including pools) be aware of what the risks are when you send you kids outside the house (“ask about exposure to water and the ratio of adults to children.”) Some on the “anti-gun control” side (see how the choice of words works) believe that the risk presented by guns, and especially improperly secured guns, in a household with children is not great enough for the AAP to comment on and/or is not something that a body mechanic should be concerned about. They do not raise the same objection about the AAP’s trampoline safety guidelines (ownership strongly discouraged; if used supervision is a must) or ATV guidelines (actually does call for a ban on some sorts); or lawn mower safety. I am sure that there are some pediatricians somewhere who feel strongly enough about those subjects that they rotate in questions into their well care schtick. Such speech is not prohibited.

Notice how its doesn’t say “don’t have a pool but if having a pool is necessary THEN here are some precautions you should take” or “don’t have a trampoline but if a trampoline is necessary THEN …” or "“don’t have a lawn mower but is a lawn mower is necessary THEN…” etc. The treatment of guns is overblown despite the fact that the number of kids who die from accidental shooting is fairly low compared to kids who die from drowning.

Perhaps you could impress upon your trade union how silly it is to focus so much on guns while they make pools seem so innocuous.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@elucidator

Hell, I *like *guns! You want to take a bunch of beer cans and a nice .22 long down to the arroyo and plink some cans, gimmee a call, I’m down for that. (Just never wanted to shoot anything that might prefer I didn’t.) And the history is damned interesting too, how many advances in metallurgy and chemistry came about from our pervasive desire to injure each other. (I will insist that the beer cans be pre-emptied, no emptying beer cans with live ammo in the vicinity. Crazy, maybe, stupid, no…)

Regard myself as a pretty reasonable sort of fellow, so the label of “virulently anti-gun”, or even just “mildly anti-gun” just don’t fit. You’re welcome to use it, of course, because really, who cares?

Ever met a “gun nut”, Debaser? You’re talking to some guy who seems to reflect your patriotic enthusiasm for the Sacred Second Amendment, and after a while, you start to get a little uncomfortable? Like maybe this guy is wound a bit too tight to be entrusted with lethal force?

Sure, like this guy Arizona News

Embattled CEO: 'I Will Shoot' Whoever Tries To Take My Guns

He says some crazy shit but in the end, he’s full of shit. I am much more concerned about all the assholes in BMWs (not juts any luxury car, BMWs in particular) who think they’re Mario Andretti than I am about some guy who shoots his mouth off about how he’s Batman with a gun.

Do they exist, have we good reason to be concerned? Haven’t been to a gun range in many a year, but sometimes you see them on TV. Ever noticed how prevalent human silhouette targets are? Extra points for heart and head shots? What, concentric circles like archery targets aren’t good enough? Why?

History might have something to do with it. Those silhouette targets have a point tally next to them. I think they are used to qualify for some marksmanship thing for police or the military.

BTW, the NRA range does not permit that sort of target. Almost eveeryone uses paper plates.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

Because home invaders with murderous or rapey intentions rarely wear convenient shirts with concentric circles on them.

The correct training for defensive use of a handgun is to aim at the center of body mass.

We should make it illegal to be murderous and rapey without those concentric circles and that would solve the problem.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Fear_Itself

Not if you live alone.

Did oyu know that your chances of being murdered are higher if you live alone than if you own a gun (according to kellerman study)

[Fear_Itself]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Did oyu know that your chances of being murdered are higher if you live alone than if you own a gun (according to kellerman study)

Still vanishingly small odds. I’m still better off investing in the stock market rather than guns.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Did oyu know that your chances of being murdered are higher if you live alone than if you own a gun (according to kellerman study)

You’re saying that Kellermann reported a significance test of the parameter value of having a gun in the home compared to living alone? Please provide the statistic associated with this test. I am familiar with the paper but recall no such comparison.

[DSeid]

@DSeid

Happy to respond. Indeed the pediatrican apparently did give adequate notice, and while I have in my over a dozen years on QA and over 25 years in practice never heard of anyone being dismissed for failing to answer a question, any question, telling a patient they will be dismissed in 30 days actually does not meet the standard of patient abandonment.

Now will you actually respond to my points that you have ignored? The standard for physicians includes providing care for a reasonable period of time. Dismissals are allowed only if ongoing patient care is realistically going to occur. The law does not address patient dismissals which can occur, with enough notice, for lots of reasons; it merely prohibits one particular subject of speech. If the law was to be “prophylactic” then all speech would have to be censored because any interaction could lead to a dismissal.

A pharmacist leaving a patient without an option for care is not analogous with a doctor discussing a particuar subject. The pharmacist is leaving the patient with no care and no reasonable choice. The physician is discussing something and the patient has a choice to walk or not. If the doctor chooses to terminate the relationship (which is alleged to have happened once) as the consequence of the response or the non-response then the law is written that care must be continued for a reasonable period of time. The doctor circumstance never leaves a patient without care; the pharmacist one does.

@Bricker

… In both cases, the question is what power does the legislature have to control the conduct of professionals. …

Bricker I made an errror and responded admitting my error. A physician apparently can dismiss a patient for even trivial reasons if sufficient notice is given. If that is the concern then perhaps some law should be passed addressing that. It is still only something alleged to have occurred and is something does not commonly occur.

You OTOH have this basic tactic of pretending that others statements do not exist, or that only one sentence of it does. It is very pathetic.

The question in the pharmacist case is if it acceptable for a pharmacist to leave a patient without an option to have the care that her doctor ordered because they disagree with the care choice out of their own personal beliefs. For physicians such patient abandonment is not acceptable.

The question in the doctor case is if the legislature has the power to arbitrairly forbid specific speech by physicians, speech that the doctor and the doctors’ expert panels believe is an appropriate part of their job.

The distinction that one eliminates the ability of a patient to have a prescribed treatment course and that the other involves the ongoing provision of care is meaningful difference.

That the legislature has power to regulate professional conduct is not in question. Protecting a patient’s ability to obtain care is within that purview. Arbitrarily declaring that addressing one particular safety issue subject out of a political agenda, declaring that one particular subject of speech that is declared professionally appropriate by expert physician bodies is inappropriate out of that political agenda, should not be in that purview.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@elucidator

You don’t want to play dueling cites with me, because you will lose and you know it. You’re bluffing.

And weak too, you have to embellish, your second story says nothing at all about the intruder attacking anybody. (I *read *cites, you haven’t figured that out yet?)

Your third cite, the upstanding homeowner who shot the intruder? Mr. Johnathon Haith? This fellow?

http://homeinhenderson.com/2010/03/08/news/drug-charges-dropped-against-jonathan-haith/

Dropped drug charges of intent to manufacture and distribute, etc., you know the drill.

So, somehow this intruder arrived at the opinion that some valuable property was available there. Easily transportable, one assumes, since TVs and stereos, even family silver, hard to offload. “Fence”, i’ve heard they call it. Why, whatever could it have been?

Which leaves us with your first story…
They were using the girl as a shield and he opens fire anyway!? Shitting me? Man must have a mighty high opinion of his accuracy with a handgun. Which, apparently, he had right close to hand, seeing as how he retrieved it in the time it takes two men in a hurry to get up his driveway! Good thing the wife had one equally handy, but she wasn’t quite as good a shot.

You have some experience with the criminal element, we are given to understand. Anything about this story smell a bit…off!…to you? The thugs just picked a house at random, did they? Hoping to make off with…what?

In a nation of 360 million people, and going back to May, this is what you got? Why, odds like that, could be me next, any minute! Gasp! Hell, bought a lottery ticket, better go get me a gun right quick, in case I won!

I won’t lie to you, tell you I have no experience of fear. But I damned sure ain’t about to invite it into my home. And double sure as hell not going to shoot a burglar. Wouldn’t kill somebody to take what’s theirs, not going to do it to keep what’s mine. There’s lots more stuff, but I only have the one soul.

What if they want your life?

Do you have kids?

[Fear_Itself]

@Damuri_Ajashi

What if they want your life?

In that case, they have the advantage of surprise. They know when they are going to hit me; I don’t. So basically, it comes down to how fast I can get to my heater before they blow me away.

How fast are you, Butch?

[boytyperanma]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Well, you have to prove that this bill says what you claim it says.

This bill just states that “the life of each human being begins with fertilization”

So tell me how you get from there to “No Abortions. No Exceptions, including rape, incest or life of the mother.”

It is against the law for doctors to take action that will result in a persons death. It’s been proven in the courts doctors can’t even help people who want to die die.

If you change the law to make fetuses people, doctors can not take action that would harm/or kill a fetus, ie abortion. They left no method in which the doctor could take action with the intended result of a fetuses death. Thus the law is very straightforward no abortions, no exceptions.

Can you explain your logic to me? If a fetus is a person, how can a doctor perform a procedure in which the intended result is the fetuses death and not be committing a crime? Self defense? That fetus was coming right at me and I feared for my life?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

So, anyway, you are still wrong about saying you are safer because you have a gun. Statistically, you are at a higher risk for being injured or killed owning a gun than I am not owning one.

Isn’t that statistic a little bit misleading?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@DSeid

This thread OTOH shows the disgusting side of so called gun rights folks. These are people who believe that the only right that matters is theirs and that they have a right to not be offended by simple questions. They believe that they should be able to enforce their view of what pediatric practice should be (the doctor as a body mechanic, dealing withmaking sick kids better, addressing nothing that is not brought up by the parent) upon the profession and upon everyone else.

They believe in free speech which to them means they are free to say what they want and to hear what they want to hear and only what they want to hear and anything that threatens that must be outlawed. A doctor might present a POV they disagree with? Take away his license! (Or hers.)

I don’t see where you’re getting that. By my count there are far more gun rights folks that think this law is a bad idea. We may agree that pediatricians are anti-gun and we’ve laid out reasons why we think they are anti-gun and I don’t recall anyone ever addressing those reasons beyond saying “well the folks who make up the guidelines for pools are probably a different committee than the people who make up guidelines for guns so the two guidelines don’t really have to make sense with respect to each other” (or something along those lines).