«

"Whisky-dave" <> wrote in message
news:8006749c-088f-4188-b367-...
On Apr 19, 1:26 pm, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>
> news:201104182346538930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>
>
>
> > On 2011-04-18 22:41:33 -0700, John A. <j...@nowhere.invalid> said:
>
> >> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:15:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> >> <jclarkeuse...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>> In article <2011041821462316807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> >>> savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
>
> >>>> On 2011-04-18 20:35:06 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> said:
>
> >>>>> John A. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:09:16 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> John A. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:44:00 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> tony cooper wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 13:26:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
> >>>>>>>>>> <n...@home.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> But in any case I don't see how it's the business of
> >>>>>>>>>>> pediatricians to "discuss gun safety" with anyone, particularly
> >>>>>>>>>>> if such "discussion" is really just a guise for anti-gun
> >>>>>>>>>>> propaganda.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Some agree with you, but many feel that part of a pediatrician's
> >>>>>>>>>> responsibility is to ensure a safe environment for the child.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The NRA has gun safety programs designed for children, such as
> >>>>>>>>>>> the "Eddie Eagle GunSafe" program. I would say the NRA is far
> >>>>>>>>>>> better equipped to do that sort of thing than pediatricians are.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/
>
> >>>>>>>>>> You don't want gun safety mentioned in doctor's offices, but it's
> >>>>>>>>>> OK to make it a school subject? Why is it OK to allow a teacher
> >>>>>>>>>> to present the program to your kids, but not a doctor?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Because gun safety is not something reasonably associated with
> >>>>>>>>> medical expertise. More than 50 times as many people are killed in
> >>>>>>>>> automobile accidents than in gun accidents, but you don't see
> >>>>>>>>> doctors teaching anyone about driving safety, do you?
>
> >>>>>>>> They do teach parents about general child safety in the home and in
> >>>>>>>> the car. Why would they teach parents about covering outlets and
> >>>>>>>> locking cabinets and anchoring bookcases, but not mention keeping
> >>>>>>>> the gun away from the kid and keeping the bullets away from it in
> >>>>>>>> case the kid does get to the thing?
>
> >>>>>>> Because the liberals don't want to even admit that keeping a gun
> >>>>>>> handy is an option. So to legitimize it by talking about its safety
> >>>>>>> would not be an option either.
>
> >>>>>> Wow. You're so focused on your phantom conspiracies you didn't even
> >>>>>> notice it's the conservatives that don't want doctors talking to
> >>>>>> patients about home gun safety.
>
> >>>>> Get out! Doctors talking about gun safety has to be a liberal thing.
> >>>>> How many doctors know anything at all about gun safety? Its the
> >>>>> liberals who think they know everything, and are right up front when it
> >>>>> comes to making laws about it, too.
>
> >>>> I know of at least three doctors and two dentists who are perfectly
> >>>> capable of dealing with all aspects of firearms education. From the art
> >>>> of shooting to the discipline of safety.
>
> >>> My high school chemistry teacher was qualified to teach someone to fly a
> >>> B-24 bomber, and my high school English teacher was qualified to teach
> >>> Marines how to fight.
>
> >>> So on that basis, by your reasoning, you should be able to stick any
> >>> random high school chemistry teacher in a four engine bomber and expect
> >>> her to be able to fly it, or stick any random high school English
> >>> teacher in front of a bunch of Marine recruits and expect them to end up
> >>> combat ready.
>
> >>> Yes, there are physicians who are qualified firearms instructors. But
> >>> is that the normal situation for physicians? If not then what
> >>> relevance do a few special cases have?
>
> >>>> Of the five, three of these men hold decidedly conservative political
> >>>> views. The other two are best described as open minded progressives
> >>>> with a fondness and appreciation of firearms.
> >>>> If any of them believed a child was in jeopardy due to an irresponsible
> >>>> gun owning parent, I have no doubt they would do what ever they could
> >>>> to ensure that child's safety. That concern for the child's safety has
> >>>> nothing to do with "Liberalism" as you would have it Bill.
>
> >>> And how about a physician who has never seen a firearm? Should he also
> >>> be giving such advice?
>
> >> This is absolutely ridiculous.
>
> >> You don't have to be a licensed electrician to tell people to put
> >> covers on outlets, you don't have to be a professional driver to tell
> >> people to use a car seat and follow the instructions, and you don't
> >> have to be a gun safety expert to tell people to keep their guns away
> >> from their little kids and to make sure they're not loaded if the kid
> >> does get his hands on it.
>
> > The other thing many forget, is in most states there is a legal requirement
> > to
> > have firearms stored in a locked condition, either in a gun safe, or with
> > disabling locks in a residence where children are present.
>
> And that totally negates the use of a handgun for home protection. My handgun
> is locked unloaded in a safe with a a lock on the gun itself. When I'm home at
> night, it's loaded and unlocked in a safe place just in case I might need it.

How likely are you to need it, do you have a way of evaluating the
need or the risk ?

I'm asking because lots of people are at home at night including me
and I'm sure we all evaluate risks
and what can be done, for me it's locked windows and doors.

///////////////////////////////////

I lock the windows and doors, like most people do. That won't stop someone who
is intent on getting in my house. We live in a nice neighborhood that is fairly
secluded from other housing developments. There are 271 homes in the
development. There are quite a lot of cops living here. Directly across the
street from me live two cops. Another lives three houses to the left. Another
lives four house to the right of the two across the street from me. One of them
had his house broken into when he and his family were asleep. He heard the
noise and pulled out his gun and was able to hold the thief at bay. It can
happen anytime. That's why I keep a handgun in the house. It's foolish to
assume that a thief will not attempt to hurt you or your family. You have to
err on the side of safety and keeping my family and myself safe is fisrt
priority.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:29:30 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
<> wrote:

>"Whisky-dave" <> wrote in message
>news:8006749c-088f-4188-b367-...
>On Apr 19, 1:26 pm, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:201104182346538930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 2011-04-18 22:41:33 -0700, John A. <j...@nowhere.invalid> said:
>>
>> >> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:15:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> >> <jclarkeuse...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>> In article <2011041821462316807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>> >>> savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
>>
>> >>>> On 2011-04-18 20:35:06 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> said:
>>
>> >>>>> John A. wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:09:16 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>> John A. wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:44:00 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net>
>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 13:26:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>> >>>>>>>>>> <n...@home.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> But in any case I don't see how it's the business of
>> >>>>>>>>>>> pediatricians to "discuss gun safety" with anyone, particularly
>> >>>>>>>>>>> if such "discussion" is really just a guise for anti-gun
>> >>>>>>>>>>> propaganda.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Some agree with you, but many feel that part of a pediatrician's
>> >>>>>>>>>> responsibility is to ensure a safe environment for the child.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> The NRA has gun safety programs designed for children, such as
>> >>>>>>>>>>> the "Eddie Eagle GunSafe" program. I would say the NRA is far
>> >>>>>>>>>>> better equipped to do that sort of thing than pediatricians are.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> You don't want gun safety mentioned in doctor's offices, but it's
>> >>>>>>>>>> OK to make it a school subject? Why is it OK to allow a teacher
>> >>>>>>>>>> to present the program to your kids, but not a doctor?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Because gun safety is not something reasonably associated with
>> >>>>>>>>> medical expertise. More than 50 times as many people are killed in
>> >>>>>>>>> automobile accidents than in gun accidents, but you don't see
>> >>>>>>>>> doctors teaching anyone about driving safety, do you?
>>
>> >>>>>>>> They do teach parents about general child safety in the home and in
>> >>>>>>>> the car. Why would they teach parents about covering outlets and
>> >>>>>>>> locking cabinets and anchoring bookcases, but not mention keeping
>> >>>>>>>> the gun away from the kid and keeping the bullets away from it in
>> >>>>>>>> case the kid does get to the thing?
>>
>> >>>>>>> Because the liberals don't want to even admit that keeping a gun
>> >>>>>>> handy is an option. So to legitimize it by talking about its safety
>> >>>>>>> would not be an option either.
>>
>> >>>>>> Wow. You're so focused on your phantom conspiracies you didn't even
>> >>>>>> notice it's the conservatives that don't want doctors talking to
>> >>>>>> patients about home gun safety.
>>
>> >>>>> Get out! Doctors talking about gun safety has to be a liberal thing.
>> >>>>> How many doctors know anything at all about gun safety? Its the
>> >>>>> liberals who think they know everything, and are right up front when it
>> >>>>> comes to making laws about it, too.
>>
>> >>>> I know of at least three doctors and two dentists who are perfectly
>> >>>> capable of dealing with all aspects of firearms education. From the art
>> >>>> of shooting to the discipline of safety.
>>
>> >>> My high school chemistry teacher was qualified to teach someone to fly a
>> >>> B-24 bomber, and my high school English teacher was qualified to teach
>> >>> Marines how to fight.
>>
>> >>> So on that basis, by your reasoning, you should be able to stick any
>> >>> random high school chemistry teacher in a four engine bomber and expect
>> >>> her to be able to fly it, or stick any random high school English
>> >>> teacher in front of a bunch of Marine recruits and expect them to end up
>> >>> combat ready.
>>
>> >>> Yes, there are physicians who are qualified firearms instructors. But
>> >>> is that the normal situation for physicians? If not then what
>> >>> relevance do a few special cases have?
>>
>> >>>> Of the five, three of these men hold decidedly conservative political
>> >>>> views. The other two are best described as open minded progressives
>> >>>> with a fondness and appreciation of firearms.
>> >>>> If any of them believed a child was in jeopardy due to an irresponsible
>> >>>> gun owning parent, I have no doubt they would do what ever they could
>> >>>> to ensure that child's safety. That concern for the child's safety has
>> >>>> nothing to do with "Liberalism" as you would have it Bill.
>>
>> >>> And how about a physician who has never seen a firearm? Should he also
>> >>> be giving such advice?
>>
>> >> This is absolutely ridiculous.
>>
>> >> You don't have to be a licensed electrician to tell people to put
>> >> covers on outlets, you don't have to be a professional driver to tell
>> >> people to use a car seat and follow the instructions, and you don't
>> >> have to be a gun safety expert to tell people to keep their guns away
>> >> from their little kids and to make sure they're not loaded if the kid
>> >> does get his hands on it.
>>
>> > The other thing many forget, is in most states there is a legal requirement
>> > to
>> > have firearms stored in a locked condition, either in a gun safe, or with
>> > disabling locks in a residence where children are present.
>>
>> And that totally negates the use of a handgun for home protection. My handgun
>> is locked unloaded in a safe with a a lock on the gun itself. When I'm home at
>> night, it's loaded and unlocked in a safe place just in case I might need it.
>
>How likely are you to need it, do you have a way of evaluating the
>need or the risk ?
>
>I'm asking because lots of people are at home at night including me
>and I'm sure we all evaluate risks
>and what can be done, for me it's locked windows and doors.
>
>///////////////////////////////////
>
>I lock the windows and doors, like most people do. That won't stop someone who
>is intent on getting in my house. We live in a nice neighborhood that is fairly
>secluded from other housing developments. There are 271 homes in the
>development. There are quite a lot of cops living here. Directly across the
>street from me live two cops. Another lives three houses to the left. Another
>lives four house to the right of the two across the street from me. One of them
>had his house broken into when he and his family were asleep. He heard the
>noise and pulled out his gun and was able to hold the thief at bay. It can
>happen anytime. That's why I keep a handgun in the house. It's foolish to
>assume that a thief will not attempt to hurt you or your family. You have to
>err on the side of safety and keeping my family and myself safe is fisrt
>priority.

Yes, but the handgun itself poses a non-zero risk. The question is how
much risk, and how much risk is there from the things you are keeping
it around to defend yourself from, and how much can you reduce that
risk without taking on the risks of keeping a gun around. Specifically
you want to calculate the total risk of being harmed in a break-in
(including the chances that one will occur at all) if you have no gun,
vs the chances of either being harmed in a break in despite the
presence of a gun (again, including the chances that one will occur at
all, as well as the chance of mistakenly shooting a loved-one either
by mistaking them for an intruder or crossfire or what have you) OR
having an accident with the gun.

The most common fallacy, I think, in assessing the relative risks of
gun-ownership vs gun-non-ownership is to compare your risk of harm IF
YOU DO HAVE A BREAK-IN, with your total risk of accidental injury just
from having the gun.

So what are the numbers? What are the rates of occurrence of gun
accidents in gun-owners' homes? What is the break-in rate in your
neighborhood? (Anecdotes aren't the whole story; how often have they
occurred on a per-household basis over the last decade?) And what are
your chances of injury during such a break-in, with a gun in the home
and without? (I'm guessing there's not enough data at the neighborhood
level to get useful break-in rates broken down by houses with and
without guns, so we'll just use the overall rate for both. Thieves who
don't know if there are guns there won't be affected, and the few who
do will either stay away because of it or target the house to get the
gun(s) so I figure it may be a wash.)

The injury rate with guns present would be...
rate-of-break-ins X chance-of-injury-during-break-in-with-gun-in-home
+ rate-of-gun-accidents

The injury rate with no guns in the house would be...
rate-of-break-ins X chance-of-injury-during-break-in-with-no-gun

Plug in the numbers for your neighborhood and compare the risks.

Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:

> I lock the windows and doors, like most people do. That won't stop someone who
> is intent on getting in my house. We live in a nice neighborhood that is fairly
> secluded from other housing developments. There are 271 homes in the
> development. There are quite a lot of cops living here. Directly across the
> street from me live two cops. Another lives three houses to the left. Another
> lives four house to the right of the two across the street from me. One of them
> had his house broken into when he and his family were asleep. He heard the
> noise and pulled out his gun and was able to hold the thief at bay. It can
> happen anytime. That's why I keep a handgun in the house. It's foolish to
> assume that a thief will not attempt to hurt you or your family. You have to
> err on the side of safety and keeping my family and myself safe is fisrt
> priority.

I lock the windows and ...

The American Declaration of independence outlines a simple goal,
" Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is among the unalienable
rights of man. I am always shocked when I hear otherwise rational
people willing to live in the conditions described in Pete's paragraph.
My windows don't have locks, my front door is unlocked as I type
this and my car keys are in the cup holder in my car because
someone wrote security code that makes it beep if I leave the keys
in the ignition the way my father did.

Much of my view of freedom is " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness". The Declaration of Independence predates the US
Constitution by more than a decade. Why is the constitutional
second amendment receive more attention that the failure of the
goal outlined in the Declaration of Independence? Given a choice,
" Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" probably allows
me to carry a gun as well as being able to live without being
molested by the neighbourhood. The simple goal fits closer to
Bill's liberation philosophy.

w..

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:26:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" <>
wrote:

>Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
>> "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:15:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <2011041821462316807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>>>> savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2011-04-18 20:35:06 -0700, "Bill Graham" <>
>>>>> said:
>>>>>> John A. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:09:16 -0700, "Bill Graham"
>>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John A. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:44:00 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 13:26:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case I don't see how it's the business of
>>>>>>>>>>>> pediatricians to "discuss gun safety" with anyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>> particularly if such "discussion" is really just a guise
>>>>>>>>>>>> for anti-gun propaganda.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Some agree with you, but many feel that part of a
>>>>>>>>>>> pediatrician's responsibility is to ensure a safe
>>>>>>>>>>> environment for the child.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The NRA has gun safety programs designed for children, such
>>>>>>>>>>>> as the "Eddie Eagle GunSafe" program. I would say the NRA
>>>>>>>>>>>> is far better equipped to do that sort of thing than
>>>>>>>>>>>> pediatricians are. http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You don't want gun safety mentioned in doctor's offices, but
>>>>>>>>>>> it's OK to make it a school subject? Why is it OK to allow
>>>>>>>>>>> a teacher to present the program to your kids, but not a
>>>>>>>>>>> doctor?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because gun safety is not something reasonably associated with
>>>>>>>>>> medical expertise. More than 50 times as many people are
>>>>>>>>>> killed in automobile accidents than in gun accidents, but you
>>>>>>>>>> don't see doctors teaching anyone about driving safety, do
>>>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They do teach parents about general child safety in the home
>>>>>>>>> and in the car. Why would they teach parents about covering
>>>>>>>>> outlets and locking cabinets and anchoring bookcases, but not
>>>>>>>>> mention keeping the gun away from the kid and keeping the
>>>>>>>>> bullets away from it in case the kid does get to the thing?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because the liberals don't want to even admit that keeping a gun
>>>>>>>> handy is an option. So to legitimize it by talking about its
>>>>>>>> safety would not be an option either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wow. You're so focused on your phantom conspiracies you didn't
>>>>>>> even notice it's the conservatives that don't want doctors
>>>>>>> talking to patients about home gun safety.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Get out! Doctors talking about gun safety has to be a liberal
>>>>>> thing. How many doctors know anything at all about gun safety?
>>>>>> Its the liberals who think they know everything, and are right up
>>>>>> front when it comes to making laws about it, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know of at least three doctors and two dentists who are perfectly
>>>>> capable of dealing with all aspects of firearms education. From
>>>>> the art of shooting to the discipline of safety.
>>>>
>>>> My high school chemistry teacher was qualified to teach someone to
>>>> fly a B-24 bomber, and my high school English teacher was qualified
>>>> to teach Marines how to fight.
>>>>
>>>> So on that basis, by your reasoning, you should be able to stick any
>>>> random high school chemistry teacher in a four engine bomber and
>>>> expect her to be able to fly it, or stick any random high school
>>>> English teacher in front of a bunch of Marine recruits and expect
>>>> them to end up combat ready.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there are physicians who are qualified firearms instructors. But is
>>>> that the normal situation for physicians? If not then what
>>>> relevance do a few special cases have?
>>>
>>> I've followed the Florida controversy over this since the beginning.
>>> There has *never* been any suggestion by either side that
>>> pediatricians are or should be providing gun safety training.
>>>
>>> What some pediatricians have done, and what the NRA objects to, is
>>> ask the parents if there is a gun in the house and if they are
>>> following good gun safety procedures. The pediatricians are merely
>>> trying to make the parent more aware of the need to protect the
>>> child from harm. What is being objected to is no more than a verbal
>>> reminder that the
>>> guns that adults own can be a danger to children if proper procedures
>>> are not followed. The NRA takes the position that the pediatrician
>>> can ask if there are electrical outlets in the house, and if the
>>> parents are using the proper covers, but the pediatrician can't
>>> mention the word "gun".
>>
>> It's none of the doctor's business. Are they as concerned if there
>> are proper precautions taken in case of a fire? Do they ask if there
>> are escape ladders and an evacuation plan and have they had a fire
>> drill? It's more likely that they are injured from a fire than any
>> firearms accident but the doctors don't seem to be concerned with
>> that.
>
>Well, so far the doctors only have the power of the pen. they are only able
>to withold or missprescribe the wrong medications. But it wouldn't surprise
>me if the liberals gave them the power of life and death over us as a matter
>of active practice.

The insurance companies will never relinquish that power without a
fight.

>Why not let them force us to eat what they want us to eat, and live the way
>they want us to live? After all, once you have chosen a God, you should live
>by His rules......

Yeah, you lost me on that one.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:29:45 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
<> wrote:

>>
>> What is being objected to is no more than a verbal reminder that the
>> guns that adults own can be a danger to children if proper procedures
>> are not followed. The NRA takes the position that the pediatrician
>> can ask if there are electrical outlets in the house, and if the
>> parents are using the proper covers, but the pediatrician can't
>> mention the word "gun".
>
>It's none of the doctor's business. Are they as concerned if there are proper
>precautions taken in case of a fire? Do they ask if there are escape ladders
>and an evacuation plan and have they had a fire drill? It's more likely that
>they are injured from a fire than any firearms accident but the doctors don't
>seem to be concerned with that.

I'd have to go back to the office of the pediatrician who cares for my
grandchildren (I've been there several times) to find out the specific
subject matter, but there are posters/signs up in the waiting room and
halls on various safety subjects like home safety, car seat and
restraint safety, smoke detector battery changing, container safety,
etc. Probably stuff the office receives from organizations like the
National Safety Council.

You evidently have different standards of what kind of care you
want/expect from a pediatrician than I do. Anything my
grandchildren's pediatrician does that is intended to promote the
overall welfare of my grandchildren is fine with me.

The problem that many people have with doctors today is that they care
too little for their patients beyond the immediate reason for the
visit. The better doctors provide advice and brochures on general
health issues. In the case of a pediatrician, I see it as only
beneficial that they include safety.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:28:11 -0700, "Bill Graham" <>
wrote:

>John A. wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:29:30 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> "Whisky-dave" <> wrote in message
>>> news:8006749c-088f-4188-b367-...
>>> On Apr 19, 1:26 pm, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:201104182346538930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 2011-04-18 22:41:33 -0700, John A. <j...@nowhere.invalid> said:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:15:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>>>>>> <jclarkeuse...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <2011041821462316807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>>>>>>> savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2011-04-18 20:35:06 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
>>>>>>>> said:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John A. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:09:16 -0700, "Bill Graham"
>>>>>>>>>> <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> John A. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:44:00 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <n...@home.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 13:26:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <n...@home.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case I don't see how it's the business of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pediatricians to "discuss gun safety" with anyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particularly if such "discussion" is really just a guise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for anti-gun propaganda.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some agree with you, but many feel that part of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pediatrician's responsibility is to ensure a safe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment for the child.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The NRA has gun safety programs designed for children,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as the "Eddie Eagle GunSafe" program. I would say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the NRA is far better equipped to do that sort of thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than pediatricians are.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't want gun safety mentioned in doctor's offices,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it's OK to make it a school subject? Why is it OK to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow a teacher to present the program to your kids, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a doctor?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because gun safety is not something reasonably associated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with medical expertise. More than 50 times as many people
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are killed in automobile accidents than in gun accidents,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but you don't see doctors teaching anyone about driving
>>>>>>>>>>>>> safety, do you?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They do teach parents about general child safety in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> home and in the car. Why would they teach parents about
>>>>>>>>>>>> covering outlets and locking cabinets and anchoring
>>>>>>>>>>>> bookcases, but not mention keeping the gun away from the
>>>>>>>>>>>> kid and keeping the bullets away from it in case the kid
>>>>>>>>>>>> does get to the thing?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because the liberals don't want to even admit that keeping a
>>>>>>>>>>> gun handy is an option. So to legitimize it by talking about
>>>>>>>>>>> its safety would not be an option either.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wow. You're so focused on your phantom conspiracies you
>>>>>>>>>> didn't even notice it's the conservatives that don't want
>>>>>>>>>> doctors talking to patients about home gun safety.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Get out! Doctors talking about gun safety has to be a liberal
>>>>>>>>> thing. How many doctors know anything at all about gun safety?
>>>>>>>>> Its the liberals who think they know everything, and are right
>>>>>>>>> up front when it comes to making laws about it, too.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know of at least three doctors and two dentists who are
>>>>>>>> perfectly capable of dealing with all aspects of firearms
>>>>>>>> education. From the art of shooting to the discipline of safety.
>>>>
>>>>>>> My high school chemistry teacher was qualified to teach someone
>>>>>>> to fly a B-24 bomber, and my high school English teacher was
>>>>>>> qualified to teach Marines how to fight.
>>>>
>>>>>>> So on that basis, by your reasoning, you should be able to stick
>>>>>>> any random high school chemistry teacher in a four engine bomber
>>>>>>> and expect her to be able to fly it, or stick any random high
>>>>>>> school English teacher in front of a bunch of Marine recruits
>>>>>>> and expect them to end up combat ready.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, there are physicians who are qualified firearms
>>>>>>> instructors. But is that the normal situation for physicians? If
>>>>>>> not then what
>>>>>>> relevance do a few special cases have?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of the five, three of these men hold decidedly conservative
>>>>>>>> political views. The other two are best described as open
>>>>>>>> minded progressives with a fondness and appreciation of
>>>>>>>> firearms.
>>>>>>>> If any of them believed a child was in jeopardy due to an
>>>>>>>> irresponsible gun owning parent, I have no doubt they would do
>>>>>>>> what ever they could to ensure that child's safety. That
>>>>>>>> concern for the child's safety has nothing to do with
>>>>>>>> "Liberalism" as you would have it Bill.
>>>>
>>>>>>> And how about a physician who has never seen a firearm? Should
>>>>>>> he also be giving such advice?
>>>>
>>>>>> This is absolutely ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>>>> You don't have to be a licensed electrician to tell people to put
>>>>>> covers on outlets, you don't have to be a professional driver to
>>>>>> tell people to use a car seat and follow the instructions, and
>>>>>> you don't have to be a gun safety expert to tell people to keep
>>>>>> their guns away from their little kids and to make sure they're
>>>>>> not loaded if the kid does get his hands on it.
>>>>
>>>>> The other thing many forget, is in most states there is a legal
>>>>> requirement to
>>>>> have firearms stored in a locked condition, either in a gun safe,
>>>>> or with disabling locks in a residence where children are present.
>>>>
>>>> And that totally negates the use of a handgun for home protection.
>>>> My handgun is locked unloaded in a safe with a a lock on the gun
>>>> itself. When I'm home at night, it's loaded and unlocked in a safe
>>>> place just in case I might need it.
>>>
>>> How likely are you to need it, do you have a way of evaluating the
>>> need or the risk ?
>>>
>>> I'm asking because lots of people are at home at night including me
>>> and I'm sure we all evaluate risks
>>> and what can be done, for me it's locked windows and doors.
>>>
>>> ///////////////////////////////////
>>>
>>> I lock the windows and doors, like most people do. That won't stop
>>> someone who is intent on getting in my house. We live in a nice
>>> neighborhood that is fairly secluded from other housing
>>> developments. There are 271 homes in the development. There are
>>> quite a lot of cops living here. Directly across the street from me
>>> live two cops. Another lives three houses to the left. Another
>>> lives four house to the right of the two across the street from me.
>>> One of them had his house broken into when he and his family were
>>> asleep. He heard the noise and pulled out his gun and was able to
>>> hold the thief at bay. It can happen anytime. That's why I keep a
>>> handgun in the house. It's foolish to assume that a thief will not
>>> attempt to hurt you or your family. You have to err on the side of
>>> safety and keeping my family and myself safe is fisrt priority.
>>
>> Yes, but the handgun itself poses a non-zero risk. The question is how
>> much risk, and how much risk is there from the things you are keeping
>> it around to defend yourself from, and how much can you reduce that
>> risk without taking on the risks of keeping a gun around. Specifically
>> you want to calculate the total risk of being harmed in a break-in
>> (including the chances that one will occur at all) if you have no gun,
>> vs the chances of either being harmed in a break in despite the
>> presence of a gun (again, including the chances that one will occur at
>> all, as well as the chance of mistakenly shooting a loved-one either
>> by mistaking them for an intruder or crossfire or what have you) OR
>> having an accident with the gun.
>>
>> The most common fallacy, I think, in assessing the relative risks of
>> gun-ownership vs gun-non-ownership is to compare your risk of harm IF
>> YOU DO HAVE A BREAK-IN, with your total risk of accidental injury just
>> from having the gun.
>>
>> So what are the numbers? What are the rates of occurrence of gun
>> accidents in gun-owners' homes? What is the break-in rate in your
>> neighborhood? (Anecdotes aren't the whole story; how often have they
>> occurred on a per-household basis over the last decade?) And what are
>> your chances of injury during such a break-in, with a gun in the home
>> and without? (I'm guessing there's not enough data at the neighborhood
>> level to get useful break-in rates broken down by houses with and
>> without guns, so we'll just use the overall rate for both. Thieves who
>> don't know if there are guns there won't be affected, and the few who
>> do will either stay away because of it or target the house to get the
>> gun(s) so I figure it may be a wash.)
>>
>> The injury rate with guns present would be...
>> rate-of-break-ins X chance-of-injury-during-break-in-with-gun-in-home
>> + rate-of-gun-accidents
>>
>> The injury rate with no guns in the house would be...
>> rate-of-break-ins X chance-of-injury-during-break-in-with-no-gun
>>
>> Plug in the numbers for your neighborhood and compare the risks.
>
>I don't have to, "plug in the numbers." I am not a statistic. I am an
>individual, and I think and act my way. I don't care if every other person
>on earth shoots himself in the foot with his own gun. I know that I am not
>going to do that, and I insist on keeping a gun in my home to protect myself
>and my family. Also, I know that my founding fathers also believed that, and
>their second amendment proves it. I can read. Not only what they put in the
>constitution, but what they wrote in their private papers and letters. And I
>agree with them.

You're a data point.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:59:28 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
wrote:

>
>And you're prepared to certify, based on your own personal knowledge of any
>and all pediatricians who do this, that they absolutely have no other motive
>such as anti-gun activism? That they also "make the parent more aware of"
>other far more likely dangers to the child, such as falling, choking,
>drowning, etc., etc.?

Yes, my own personal knowledge of my grandchildren's pediatrician
includes being there when the doctor has covered subjects like safety
issues in the home. Not the gun issue, but other subjects.

Why is making a parent aware of gun safety procedures "anti-gun
activism"? Is the NRA's "Eddy Eagle" program "anti-gun activism"
because it covers safety precautions?

>> What is being objected to is no more than a verbal reminder that the
>> guns that adults own can be a danger to children if proper procedures
>> are not followed. The NRA takes the position that the pediatrician
>> can ask if there are electrical outlets in the house, and if the
>> parents are using the proper covers, but the pediatrician can't
>> mention the word "gun".
>
>Please provide a cite showing where "the NRA takes the position that" you
>claim it does. By a cite of course I mean something from the NRA themselves,
>not from some NRA-hating editorial writer.
>
How about a quote from Marion Hammer? You'll find some at:
http://saintpetersblog.com/2011/02/r...iation-vs-nra/

It doesn't say she is amenable to doctors asking questions about
electrical outlets, though. Maybe she's against that.

I didn't know, until I read this, that the NRA also objects to
Emergency Room physicians asking about guns. (The pediatrician part
dominated the news) That's bizarre.

A woman is brought into the hospital with a gunshot wound inflicted by
her partner. The NRA doesn't want the doctor treating her to ask if
the gun involved is still around because - according to Marion - it
would be “Pure, raw, anti-gun politics being imposed on patients when
they are most vulnerable, when they are sick or hurt and need help.”

The NRA also opposes psychiatrists asking a patient if they own a gun.
Guy walks into a psychiatrist's office and starts ranting that he
wants to kill somebody. The psychiatrist can ask him why, but not
what with. Do you think the psychiatrist's advice would be same if
the patient said "I've got a sharp stick" as it would if the patient
said "I've got a Glock-18"?

(Hammer is a former President of the NRA and now a lobbyist in Florida
for the NRA)

The NRA, in my opinion, is like the labor unions. At one time, labor
unions were needed in this country because factory owners were
exploiting their employees. The unions improved the worker's
conditions and compensation.

But, the unions could only stay powerful if they continued to make
demands. Eventually, the demands became so ridiculous that the
factories shut down or moved to areas where there were no unions. The
union members had gone from being exploited, to having a fair wage and
good working conditions, to being unemployed.

The NRA is now at the point where they are making ridiculous demands
because they fear that no one will need them if they aren't making
more demands.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 09:12:52 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<> wrote:

>
>"tony cooper" <> wrote:
>>
>> But, the unions could only stay powerful if they continued to make
>> demands. Eventually, the demands became so ridiculous that the
>> factories shut down or moved to areas where there were no unions. The
>> union members had gone from being exploited, to having a fair wage and
>> good working conditions, to being unemployed.
>
>That's a standard right-wing talking point. And like most of those, it's a
>lie. Over the last 25 years, labor productivity went up a lot more than
>compensation did. While the incomes of the very rich in the US have
>skyrocketed.

You need to check in with Neil and Bill. According to them, I'm a
left-wing liberal.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:49:14 -0700, "Bill Graham" <>
wrote:

>It only takes me less than one minute to take my locked gun out of its
>drawer and remove the padlock hasp from behind the trigger while lying down.
>But this discussion has given me an idea. I could interlock the drawer where
>I keep the gun, so it would sound an alarm if opened, and I could hide the
>switch for this interlock behind the cabinet that contains the drawer. Then,
>should I need the gun in the middle of the night, I could turn off the
>switch first, and then open the drawer and remove the gun. '
>That way, should a grandchild open the drawer in the middle of the night,
>the alarm would sound, and wake me up. This would add another level of
>safety between kid and gun that doesn't exist right now, but doesn't
>interfere with my access to the gun in the middle of the night.

Now that you've got that problem solved, how do you go about
protecting that grandchild from a ricochet from your gun if you fire
it, or from a wild shot from that intruder you've been expecting?

Have anything in the house that you'd rather not lose because it's
more valuable than the grandchild?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 19:15:15 -0400, tony cooper
<> wrote:

>Why is making a parent aware of gun safety procedures "anti-gun
>activism"? Is the NRA's "Eddy Eagle" program "anti-gun activism"
>because it covers safety precautions?

What is frustrating to me is that this problem had a simple win-win
solution. If the NRA doesn't want pediatricians involved in
discussion about gun safety with parents, and the doctors don't want
to lose their ability to consider the child's welfare in areas other
than the cause of the visit, then the NRA could furnish brochures on
the gun safety for distribution in the doctor's office. The doctor
could say "If you have a gun in the house, pick up this brochure" and
never be told whether or not the patient's parents have a gun.

Any of us who have been to a doctor have seen brochures set out like
this. It's not new ground.

BTW, I didn't state this because it should be an understood, but the
NRA did not introduce a bill in the Florida legislature to fine or
imprison doctors for bringing up guns. A member of the Florida
legislature - Republican Jason Brodeur - did that.

However, the NRA has publicly supported the bill and - no doubt -
Brodeur is now on the NRA list of good guys and may have postcards
sent out recommending him. His campaign warchest may have been
enhanced directly or indirectly.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida