Neither delusion, nor paranoid. If Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) were handed their wish list of “reasonable measures” on a silver platter next week, do you really believe they would say “Our work here is done, let’s go home now.” Or would the conversation be more along the lines of “That was a good first step, what limitations can we push for next?”
Based on the actions of the group as a whole, and the individuals comprising it, a more accurate name would be Mayors Against Firearms In America.
Even in rabidly anti-gun Britain, you can still own a firearm, subject to limitations. Do you think Mayors Against Illegal Guns (whoever they are) looks at the UK and thinks, “now, those fellows are onto something, but they’re not quite there yet”?
Nothing more than by and large that category continues to be the statistically most significant. Best bang for your effort would be to concentrate efforts there rather than scatter gunning away at a bunch of issues that are statistically insignificant in comparison.
Seriously though, let me ask this. Is the intent of the Pediatrician’s questioning to inform parents on gun safety, or intended to result in the removal of firearms from the home and community?
Haven’t said it wasn’t.
First, I am not convinced that gun safety is their aim, when the stated goals of American Academy of Pediatrics is the removal of guns from the home and community. And no I really don’t care about the second amendment, but I would like an honest answer to the purpose.
Second, If they are truly interested only in gun safety in the home, then I question the approach on the grounds that as practiced they are failing to target some of the potentially highest risk households for gun accidents and violence. Those that lie and say no to the question.
In essence they are preaching to the honest and conscientious gun owners. Perhaps still of value, but probably doing far less good than preaching to the dishonest and antisocial. Those with illegal guns or that would use guns to solve problems.
You’re excluding a very large middle, that is, “honest and conscientious gun owners who are not aware of the rate of firearms accidents, and who would benefit from a little guidance on the intersection of guns and children.” Your statement assumes the dishonest and antisocial would actually act on any advice given, which is also slightly ridiculous.
Why would they do a stupid thing like that? My pediatrician doesn’t check my house to make sure I’ve put the little plastic jobbies in all the outlets and secured all the cabinet doors, either.
Seriously, what are some of you people picturing here? I’m picturing a brief speech from the pediatrician along the lines of “here’s a few things you can do now that they’re going to be moving more: Do you have guns? Check how you store them. Power tools? Check how you store them. Non-GFCI outlets? Cover 'em. Have you got a bigger car seat since you left the hospital? Did you have it’s installation checked by a pro? Do you want me to do that?”
But then again, I’m due for that exact speech in a month (last checkup, I got a “Next time, I’ll go over the babyproofing list with you guys.”), so I’ll let you know.
Okay, so what should they do instead? I mean, you can obviously read and write, and appear to be able to think logically, so I assume you’re not seriously arguing that they should be inspecting people’s homes.
Sorry, should have put in a paragraph break. I wasn’t meaning to target you, merely the general concept of ‘doctors and their agendas’. In the spirit of full disclosure, I should point out that I am a socialist, since I live and work in Soviet Canuckistan, a.k.a. Canada.
Mostly when someone says ‘I don’t smoke’, the doctors that I know say “Excellent, don’t start, nyuk nyuk nyuk.”
I can’t ask about gay sex, so here’s some information about gay sex. I can’t ask about smoking heroin, but here’s some information about smoking heroin. I can’t ask about sex in a squirrel costume, so here’s some infurmation…
Way to make me feel square, Doc.
No shit. We almost couldn’t get our kid out of the hospital due to the car seat de-installation/ look it’s a car seat / re-installation process.
Great, but we’re not talking harping.
We’re talking:
“Gotta gun?”
“Yup, keep 'em locked up in the vault, very safe”
“Cool, well done. What kind, I’ve been thinking of getting a Benelli for turkey, whaddaya think”
Is illegal
While:
“Smoke?”
“Yup, but outside, not around the little fella”
“Cool, well done. I’m trying to quit myself, and we probably both oughtta”
Is fine.
I’m just going along with what seems to be en vogue at the moment. Did you actually read the thread title? Aside from the typo it is also using the word fascist…
Already linked to evidence that such guidance and intersection is ineffective.
I assume no such thing. I guess that only some smallish percentage of any group would act on their advice, so why automatically limit the scope of delivery.
However, that doesn’t seem to be the case with firearms. Or rather, not how the American Academy of Pediatrics would like to see it played out as evidenced by their statements and suggestions.
All from the policy paper linked above. One can find much less dramatic statements (and downright sensible ones) in advocacy papers produced by this group. However, as is typical in this day and age, we latch onto the most extreme and confrontational statements presented. Which is how we end up at a place where legislation is trying to be passed to make the question off limits.
I’d actually be curious to see the number of practicing pediatricians who share those beliefs. And, for that matter, the percentage of kids who are seeing “pediatricians” vs. “family practitioners” who are in vogue right now at least in my area.
As for asking about things, my baby’s doc started lecturing us about not starting solid food until 6 months. When she was two days old. I bet he DOES bring up household safety items other than guns.
I’d be interested too. I don’t think it proves a whole lot though. This was a politically motivated bill to make a political statement. One association (NRA) taking a relatively extreme position contrary to an opposing association’s (APP) relatively extreme position.
Eliminate the rhetoric and posturing from both those groups and there just really isn’t anything for me to take issue with.
I like how you contrast the two positions as extreme and somehow equal.
One side want to push forward their political agenda in interest in preventing accident deaths of children and does so by encouraging their members to voice their concerns while allowing the other side to do the same.
The other side wants to push forward their agenda by voicing their concerns but finds that allowing the other side to voice their concerns should be criminalized.
One side seems to be encouraging Democratic process the other seems to favor a larger government enforcing fascist laws.
Strangely enough(well not really) the Republicans have decided larger government intrusion is necessary in this case, putting the government between doctors and patients to rather stomp out those with a dissenting opinion via legislative fiat.
Depending on the individual either the first alone, or, to their read of the evidence, both.
It is true that the AAP, our official body, like most of the medical groups, has come down on the side of saying that handguns in particular should be under much tighter controls, and the AAP does state that the ideal from the POV of child safety is to have no guns in the house. Individual doctors’ thoughts vary of course. Most who believe that no guns is the best circumstance are still however pragmatists. We may also believe that the only completely safe sex is abstinence but we don’t expect that message to be accepted all that completely either and are also eager to make sure that those who are having sex know how to decrease their risk of disease or unintended parenthood. I suspect for those docs it is like that.
I bet he DOES bring up household safety items other than guns.