Re: Sometimes stupid loses

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by John A., Apr 18, 2011.

  1. John A.

    John A. Guest

    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?
    John A., Apr 18, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. John A.

    John A. Guest

    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.
    John A., Apr 19, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John A.

    John A. Guest

    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?
    >
    >> 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.
    John A., Apr 19, 2011
    #3
  4. John A.

    tony cooper Guest

    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".





    >
    >> 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?
    >
    >
    >


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Apr 19, 2011
    #4
  5. John A.

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Apr 19, 4:35 am, "Bill Graham" <> wrote:
    > 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?


    I wouldn't know that, but I hope anyone that is allowed to carry a gun
    does know about gun safety, I'm assuming that doctors are allowed to
    carry guns under
    the american constition just like others are .

    I'd like to think doctors have the same rights as any other citizen to
    protect themselves.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...mself-and-relative-after-wounding-doctor.html



    > Its the liberals who
    > think they know everything, and are right up front when it comes to making
    > laws about it, too.
    Whisky-dave, Apr 19, 2011
    #5
  6. "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.
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Apr 19, 2011
    #6
  7. John A.

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Apr 19, 9:17 am, "Bill Graham" <> wrote:
    > Savageduck wrote:
    > > On 2011-04-18 22:41:33 -0700, John A. <> said:

    >
    > >> 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. Butis
    > >>> 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.

    >
    > Yes, but you can't legislate intelligence or common sense. If I had to lock
    > my gun in a safe, then it would be useless when I most needed it. On the
    > other hand, if there are children runn8ng around the house, then I have to
    > make it unfireable. How any loaw can tell me how to do this, is beyond me..
    > Every case is different, and it depends on the gun. In my case, I padlock
    > the gunj behind the trigger, and it can't be fired when the padlock is in
    > place because its double action only. But I keep a key on my keyring to the
    > padlock, and those keys rest by my nightstand just over the drawer
    > containing the gun at night. During the day, those keys are always in my
    > pocket and there is only one key to that lock. It would still be possible
    > for a kid to sneak into my bedroom at night while I sleep, steal my keys,
    > find the gun in the drawer beneath the keys, unlock it, and fire it whileI
    > sleep. Highly unlikely, perhapsw, but still possible. If I put it in a safe,
    > then it would be unuseable, so I might as well not hae it at all.
    > So you have to balance the probability that an intruder might enter the
    > house and do damage, against the possibility that a kid might do damage. No
    > law can do this.


    Well they can obviously, whether they get it right or not is another
    matter.
    As in the UK you wouldn't be allowed a gun in the house generally
    speaking.
    Here the law weighs up the pros and cons of whether an individual
    needs to have a gun.


    > It is a decision that depends on the particular
    > circumstances and the common sense of the gun owner.


    Common sense isn't that common.
    Whisky-dave, Apr 19, 2011
    #7
  8. John A.

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Apr 19, 1:26 pm, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote:
    > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >
    > news:201104182346538930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 2011-04-18 22:41:33 -0700, John A. <> said:

    >
    > >> 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" <n...@home..net>
    > >>>>>>>> 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 killedin
    > >>>>>>>>> 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 andin
    > >>>>>>>> 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 endup
    > >>> 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'mhome at
    > night, it's loaded and unlocked in a safe place just in case I might needit.


    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.
    Whisky-dave, Apr 19, 2011
    #8
  9. John A.

    John A. Guest

    On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:16:44 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"John A." <> 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...
    >>>>

    >
    >
    >>>>
    >>>> 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.

    >
    >Then what specifically qualifies *physicians* to do that?
    >
    >The whole point of this is that *physicians* would be doing it, isn't that
    >so?


    They talk to parents early on and talk about other child development &
    safety issues. They know kids and their development paths and how they
    like to explore and play with what they find. I'm sure they deal with
    the results of kids playing with any number of things, and so
    naturally warn parents about keeping hazardous things where kids can
    get at them.

    Why would they *not* talk to them about it?

    It's obvious you haven't read the post above with any comprehension.
    Either that or you're being willfully obtuse.
    John A., Apr 19, 2011
    #9
  10. "Whisky-dave" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Apr 19, 4:35 am, "Bill Graham" <> wrote:
    > 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?


    I wouldn't know that, but I hope anyone that is allowed to carry a gun
    does know about gun safety, I'm assuming that doctors are allowed to
    carry guns under
    the american constition just like others are .

    I'd like to think doctors have the same rights as any other citizen to
    protect themselves.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...mself-and-relative-after-wounding-doctor.html

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

    Carrying guns doesn't seem to be a protected right under the Constitution.
    Carrying a gn is severley restricted, particularly where I live. This is my pet
    peeve. The Constitution doesn't indicate that I have to prove the need for
    carrying one but I must do exactly that in oder to have a carry permit.
    Basically, if you are not a law enforcement officer, an ex-law enforcement
    officer, or do not carry large amounts of cash or valuables in the course of
    your work, then you can't get a carry permit. An ordinary working guy who works
    in a factory or office can't get one here.
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Apr 19, 2011
    #10
  11. "Whisky-dave" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Apr 19, 1:26 pm, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote:
    > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >
    > news:201104182346538930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 2011-04-18 22:41:33 -0700, John A. <> said:

    >
    > >> 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?

    >
    > >>>> 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.
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Apr 19, 2011
    #11
  12. John A.

    John A. Guest

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

    >"Whisky-dave" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >On Apr 19, 1:26 pm, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote:
    >> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:201104182346538930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > On 2011-04-18 22:41:33 -0700, John A. <> said:

    >>
    >> >> 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?

    >>
    >> >>>> 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.
    John A., Apr 19, 2011
    #12
  13. John A.

    Walter Banks Guest

    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..
    Walter Banks, Apr 19, 2011
    #13
  14. John A.

    John A. Guest

    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.
    John A., Apr 19, 2011
    #14
  15. John A.

    tony cooper Guest

    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
    tony cooper, Apr 19, 2011
    #15
  16. John A.

    John A. Guest

    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:...
    >>> On Apr 19, 1:26 pm, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote:
    >>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >>>>
    >>>> news:201104182346538930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2011-04-18 22:41:33 -0700, John A. <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> 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?
    >>>>
    >>>>>>>> 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.
    John A., Apr 19, 2011
    #16
  17. John A.

    tony cooper Guest

    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/round-2-florida-medical-association-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
    tony cooper, Apr 20, 2011
    #17
  18. John A.

    tony cooper Guest

    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
    tony cooper, Apr 20, 2011
    #18
  19. John A.

    tony cooper Guest

    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
    tony cooper, Apr 20, 2011
    #19
  20. John A.

    tony cooper Guest

    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
    tony cooper, Apr 20, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. tony cooper

    Re: Sometimes stupid loses

    tony cooper, Mar 24, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    176
  2. charles

    Re: Sometimes stupid loses

    charles, Mar 24, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    197
    Pete Stavrakoglou
    Mar 24, 2011
  3. PeterN

    Re: Sometimes stupid loses

    PeterN, Mar 26, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    112
    Views:
    1,581
    John Turco
    May 12, 2011
  4. tony cooper

    Re: Sometimes stupid loses

    tony cooper, Mar 27, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    614
    Views:
    6,868
    John Turco
    May 12, 2011
  5. PeterN

    Re: Sometimes stupid loses

    PeterN, Mar 27, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    386
    John Turco
    Apr 28, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page