Oh. The 2010 AAP policy statement on guidance regarding helping prevent drowning. (I think it is accessible to all, not sure. Also a pdf.) 'Tis a valid critique that we should do a better job implementing that one and promoting the items mentioned in that statement than many of us do in our actual practices … not only do more kids actually die from unintentional injuries of drowning each year than unintentional firearm related deaths; it is second only to motor vehicle acidents, above poisoning … and we’re all very good about advising how to keep cabinets locked up and to have the number for poison control handy.
Some other fun factoids from my October '11 Peds in Review (been studying for my board recertifiation test coming up):
Number one cause of accidental death under age 1 year? Suffocation/choking. Coins, food, toys, dangling cords.
As for guns: kids, including those taught to never touch a gun and to find an adult if they find one, when placed in a room with a gun, pick it up and play with it 75% of the time and pull the trigger with enough force to make it go off if it was loaded 50% of time. OTOH 90% of parents believe that their kids would know better.
Project ChildSafe is a recommended resource.
It’s pretty good stuff.
Damned interesting! Where was this done, and by whom?
Interesting cognitive blind spot. I say don’t touch that, he does, and he wishes he hadn’t. I say don’t do this, he does it, and we both wish he hadn’t. Then I tell him don’t ever ever touch that, and figure that settles it.
All boys. Swell. Just what we need, more bad press. The results should have been suppressed. Way to backstab the bros, guys.
And the “Kellermann” listed as an author? Same guy herein identified as half Baron Munchausen and half AntiChrist?
Of course there are always incidents like this:
I think there is a lot of daylight between Kable and me. We both oppose retarded legislation like an AWB. I actively support licensing and registration, Kable could be brought to support it if it came with national carry priveleges and a repeal the ban on some NFA weapons (lets say everything except the machine gun and explosives). I think it is the people who would undercut one of the fundamental rights protected in the bill of rights who must explain why their restrictions are ok.
We dont hold the same position but we both feel that there is an effort to demonize guns beyond their danger to society. I think we both feel that there are positive aspects to guns that are almost entirely ignored by the other side of the argument. I think we both feel that people are treating the second amendment as the red headed step-child of the bill of rights.
I didnt really grow up around guns. I grew up in NYC where only cops and robbers had guns. I learned to shoot in the boy scouts at 10 or 12. I didnt touch another gun until the LA riots. I saw cops driving away from rioters coming to burn down my neighborhood. They burned down half the neighborhood before some guy showed up with a pickup truck full of guns and then the looting stopped.
I dont live in a neighborhood where I can justify owning a gun purely based on self defense and I didnt try to overthrow the government under Bush idont think I ever will. But I am not going to tell the next group of riot victims that they have to watch from afar as rioting armed criminals destroy their lives. The guns that protectedy neighbirhood werent nightstand revolvers, there were some pistols along with shotguns and hunting rifles but there were mostly what California called assault weapons. California eventually confiscated these weapons. I thought that was bullshit and only diaarmed law abiding citizens without doing anything to reduce gun violence.
I dont think so. I support licensing and registration. I oppose bans.
I havent seen very much suppprt for gun bans being good for anything. You want to talk about whether guns in society are good or bad, then fine but when dealing with the real world, one with 350 milllion guns in this country, a gun ban serves lttle to no purpose other than to make current gun owners rich.
Thats not what you link seems to be saying.
I wonder how much of that has to do with my liberal positilns on almost every other issue.
I consider anyone who supports an AWB either ignorant, unreasonable or more interested in making a point than making a difference. I support meaningful gun regulation that gets guns out of the hands of criminals. I consider the medical.profession generally hostile to firearms due to the lethality of firearms.
It seems to be saying:
which I find hard to interpret as anything other than saying that physicians who own guns are more likely to ask about gun ownership and promote gun safety.
What do you think that sentence means?
Lot of folks think that’s a pretty good reason. Kinda lean that way myself.
Gun grabber!
From what I can tell Damuri Ajashi doesn’t want to grab guns. We just disagree on some stuff. See how that works.
As for the rest of you gun grabbers, you’re not fooling anybody.
Fierra and I fence with historical weapons. These are real swords which are blunted, which means they are stiff and heavy, and they hurt and leave bruises. Furthermore, we do women’s self-defense training, full-strength, which leaves bruises on our wrists, arms, and neck sometimes.
Fierra was ALWAYS asked by nurses and doctors if she felt “safe” around me, safe at home, or “wanted to talk about she got the bruises.” Sometimes they wouldn’t believe her until she pulled our her phone and showed them video of her fighting.
But when I presented male, not one fucking person ever cared about the bruises that peppered my body. No one ever asked about the finger marks on my neck, or the big yellow-purple marks which look like punches on my arms.
But when I transitioned to female (and yes, I pass 110%) all of a sudden people were veeeeeeeery interested in my bruises and other injuries. I pointed this out during one appointment, and the nurse airily said “well come on…women don’t beat up men!”
It really is taking longer than we thought.
I remember that thread. I remember I treated you like shit in there, and even seeing the thread still fills me with shame. In my defense I was in full-blown depression then which led to my near suicide last July, so I wasn’t too rational at times. I think I apologized to you via PM a few months ago, but in case I was remiss, I unconditionally apologize to you now for my shitty, bitchy, and irrational behavior.
Well, I learned a lot about Una in this thread. That’s a plus.
As I said …
I live to please.
Una you had indeed already apologized and doing so here is completely unnecessary. I am glad you are better and hope that the medical issues you had been dealing with have also completely resolved. And that you are still enjoying dancing now! You are a class act.
You’re reading from the abstract.
gun ownership doesn’t seem to have a bearing on whether the physician thinks that safety counseling is appropriate (its seems to be generally popular among all physicians).
Physicians who own guns (and’or are members of gun clubs) are less likely to support physician involvement in a lot of safety and violence issues.
Despite all that, they also tend to do more firearms injury prevention counseling than average.
So, physicians that own guns are more likely to ask about guns but they are also less likely to believe that its any of their business.
So I guess you are correct but your statement from the abstract is not the entire story.
It’s the part of the story relevant to the question of which physicians are more likely to ask about gun ownership and to promote safe storage.
You are correct that there is some irony there: the docs most likely to engage in that counselling behavior are the same docs who feel that docs shouldn’t be engaging in that counselling behavior.
But what they do is what they do. I can’t explain the disconnect (although I have some speculations) but again, the docs most likely to aks about guns and counsel about firearm safety are those who own firearms themselves. A pretty straightforward statement.