Kids and Guns: Why Doctors Have a Right to Know

[mvccd1000]

Take a look at this hysterical article on the Florida Doctor case ruling from Adam Cohen, who is not only a lawyer but also teaches law at Yale. I hope his students do a better job of researching facts than he does.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2093725,00.html

Residents of Florida have nearly unrestricted freedom to bear arms. They can have them at home, and they can carry them in public. They can brandish their guns openly or conceal them (except in a few places, such as federal buildings or polling places).

Oh? I didn't realize open carry had passed in Florida. Even if it had, though, open carry is a far cry from "brandishing." You'd think a law professor might understand the difference, would you not?

Under the 1994 federal assault-weapons ban, it was illegal to sell high-capacity clips, but that law lapsed in 2004.

No, sales of high-capacity "clips" were in no way restricted. Manufacturing or import of hi-cap mags for other than LEO use was prohibited. Never let facts get in the way of your spin, though.

Gun-rights advocates steadfastly defend the so-called gun-show loophole, which allows people to buy firearms at gun shows without the federal background checks that are required for purchases in stores. As a result of the loophole, criminals and terrorists have a place they can go to buy weapons, no questions asked.

This one has been so thoroughly debunked it's probably not even worth mentioning, but there is no "gun-show loophole," Mr. Cohen. Instead, there is the inability for ANY private citizen to conduct a background check when selling a weapon to another private citizen, regardless of the location. Why don't you try going to a gun show and see how much luck you have purchasing a weapon with "no questions asked?"

A bill introduced in the House of Representatives earlier this year would have blocked gun purchases by people on the FBI's terrorist watch list. It should have passed unanimously: Really, who wants to see suspected terrorists loading up on assault weapons?

I hope he doesn't teach Constitutional Law... isn't there something about due process mentioned in that document? Yet he's screaming to take away protected rights through the use of a list that bypasses due process altogether.



All in all, a stunning amount of ignorance on display in Time Magazine from a law professor at Yale. With people like that leading the way, it's no wonder lawyer jokes are so popular! :)

[Remmah2]

1. I pay the medical insurance, I pay the co-pays.

I pick and choose my doctors, I make the rules. Like a contractor doing work at my house, the doctor works for me.

[unclebob]

83. Yes I agree

Agreed, and if they think they have the right to know about my guns, I also have the right to stare them right in the eye, and say "Nope.. no guns in my home"

There is a great power in lying when people ask sensitive questions.

[SlimJimmy]

2. Assault weapons? Not without a federal permit.

A bill introduced in the House of Representatives earlier this year would have blocked gun purchases by people on the FBI's terrorist watch list. It should have passed unanimously: Really, who wants to see suspected terrorists loading up on assault weapons?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. Huh? what permit? n/t

[ileus]

7. 200 dollar tax stamp, local LEO approval, FBI background check.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

14. "Assault Weapon" =/= "Assault Rifle" n/t

[slackmaster]

9. Present federal law doesn't even define the term "assault weapon"

There is, legally speaking, no such thing as an assault weapon under federal law.

[SlimJimmy]

12. Agreed. I should have said selective fire automatic or machine gun.

The problem is that many folks mistake what *looks* like an assault rifle, for what is in fact a semi-automatic weapon that is perfectly legal in all aspects.

[SteveM]

78. This is clearly unconstitutional: The Fifth Amendment...

The placement on a "terrorist watch list" is an unconstitutional, as you know, because it does not afford a citizen the Constitutional right to DUE PROCESS, under the 5th Amendment. Blocking anyone from purchasing a gun because they are on that "list" is compounding the violation of the 5th with violation of the Second, also done without due process.

BTW, "assault weapons" is a term of art, and not commonly used by the military nor armorers. It can mean (depending on the gun-controller on-hand) virtually any class of firearm, but not full auto. The term "assault rifle" denotes a firearm capable of full-auto or select fire. THIS type of firearm is heavily regulated, though not illegal to own.

[oneshooter]

3. This may answer some questions about him.

Cohen, a former TIME writer and former member of the New York Times editorial board, is a lawyer who teaches at Yale Law School.


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Remmah2]

5. What happens if a doctor is an FFL? nt

nt

[Hoyt]

6. Yes, attorney jokes are popular -- as should be jokes about people who carry in public and

amass more guns than anyone can truthfully rationalize needing.

[oneshooter]

8. Then why do you have them, rationalize your possesion of them.

You don't hunt, you don't shoot competion, you claim to use machetes for home defence, yet you own firearms.

By your own words, rationalize your possesion of firearms you don't "need".

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[We_Have_A_Problem]

11. I dont get it...

Why should someone have to justify anything they choose to own based on some arbitrary definition of "need"?

Did you somehow think you lived in a nation where the people needed permission?

[Hoyt]

16. What is "lega" is not always right or moral, nor is it necessarily good for society. Carry on.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

17. That is correct.

And it is in no way right or moral for a doctor to let his personal opinions on firearms ownership to influence his professional actions.

Thank you for understanding why it is wrong for a doctor to even ask.

It is also neither right nor moral to expect others to justify their individual choices to you based upon your arbitrary definition of "need".

[Hoyt]

22. Sorry. It's called "anticipatory guidance" and pediatricians save lives doing it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

26. Its called bullshit

and no they do not.

[Hoyt]

33. Yes, they do. Believe it or not, many people with kids are unsafe with their guns.

You might not be, but lots of others are.

I'm glad pediatricians stood up for this.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

34. Whether they are or not...

...is not a physician's place to ascertain. They are not firearms experts. They are not childcare experts. They have no legitimate reason to ask from a medical perspective, and absolutely no reason whatsoever to have it affect their professional treatment of a patient.

Perhaps you could explain for all of us exactly why a physician has a right to ask ANYTHING of a non-medical nature? Do try to remember the doctor is in the employ of the patient.

[Hoyt]

38. Many have seen kids with holes in their head. They might not know a clip from mag, but they know

what happens when one of the many irresponsible gun owners don't practice safety, or teach their kids to be members of the gun culture.

You guys think that someone has to know how to field strip a 1911 to have a say in gun politics. Well, you are wrong.

The American Academy of Pediatrics encourages members to instruct patients and parents on gun safety. They should be commended rather than criticized by folks who practice questionable gun habits.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

40. Does. Not. Fucking. Matter.

So what if they've seen one? That's really not a big surprise since they're doctors and all.

Owning a gun is LEGAL. Being part of the "gun culture" is legal.

No, I dont think one must know how to field strip a 1911 to have a say in gun politics, but I do believe before someone has the authority to make decisions based upon their subjective opinions that they should actually have a fucking clue.

A doctor is NOT a firearms expert. He is not a safety expert. He is not a child care expert. Most importantly, he is not the parent his patients. The moment he asks questions about household firearms ownership with an intent to alter his professional behavior based upon the answers, he has crossed a serious ethical, professional and moral line.

[Hoyt]

42. So a pediatrician "is not a child care expert." That's laughable. I hope they continue asking and

lecturing about guns. Maybe one or two kids won't follow dad's example and start packing guns with their school lunch.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

43. No they arent.

They are experts in medical care of children, but not in child care or rearing.

Hate to break the news to you, but that is a fact.

MANY doctors have the same character flaw of believing that because they made it through med school, they know everything and are omnipotent and omniscient. Fact is, the bulk of them are very VERY good at their jobs, yes, but they are utterly retarded in so many other areas of life.

Sadly, there are also many people like yourself who seem to believe, as they do, that because they made it through med school that they must know everything.

Doctors are doctors, that's it. They are no more qualified to offer firearms advice by virtue of their profession than a race car driver can give medical advice.

[Hoyt]

45. And many gunners think they know all about guns and impact on society -- hence, many issues.

So who do you want talking to parents about guns, some guy who can't walk out of his house without one or two strapped to their body? Give society a break.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

47. That is your claim

Not theirs.

I don't know ANY one who owns a gun who claims to know all about them or their impact on society. What most of us do know is our ownership does not in any way affect you, and you have no right whatsoever to question.

[Hoyt]

48. That's your opinion, not mine or that of many others who see the problems guns pose.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

49. Of course not...

People like yourself seem to believe you have a right to know what choices others make and why. That is the primary reason why your side is losing more and more ground every day.

Perhaps, if you worried less about what others do and worried more about what YOU do, you would discover much of this doesn't bother you anymore.

Oh yeah - still waiting for you to explain exactly how the choice to carry a gun is any different than the choice to practice a religion, from a legal and personal rights perspective of course...

[Hoyt]

50. Believe it or not, guns are not like religion. Well, I take that back- to some guns are omnipotent

and allow the carrier to play jesus, judge, jury and executioner. And, yes, some gunners worship their weapons. Like President Obama said about clinging to guns . . . . . . .

If you have trouble seeing why guns are bad for society, start by reading about the Loughners of the world. Then, do a little math and calculate the cost of gun injuries, murders, etc. More lessons later.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

51. Never said they were.

What they are though, is something we as Americans have a right to own and carry.

So, I'm still waiting for you to explain why one right, the freedom of religious expression, is acceptable to be practiced in an unfettered manner, yet another right, the right to be armed, is somehow not worthy of the same protection.

The fact that some are irresponsible does not mean all are. After all, we do not blame ALL Muslims for 9/11 do we? Of course not. That would be barbaric and frankly, retarded. So why do you insist upon holding all gun owners responsible for the actions of criminals?

Rights are not subject to a balance sheet hoyt.

[Hoyt]

52. But people abuse so-called "rights." If they can ban cigarettes in public, why not guns?

Shoot, in most states you can't carry a sword -- why guns?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

53. And when they abuse them...

...we punish those specific people, not everyone else. Simple as that.

As far as your cigarette example, its a pretty good one. While some localities ban cigarette SMOKING in certain public areas, I am aware of precisely none which ban ownership and transport of a cigarette. So, to extend the analogy to your example, you're suggesting that because someone might light up, everyone should be forbidden to carry a pack of smokes?

You see, carrying a gun is no different than carrying a pack of cigarettes. Utterly and completely harmless to anyone. Actually using that gun in public is a different story - and yes, it could well put others at risk...just like the act of smoking a cigarette.

With your example in mind, do you now perhaps start to see the massive flaw in your entire position?

[Hoyt]

62. Almost every advance country has severe restrictions on guns -- they recognize the harm to society.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

68. So what?

We are not every other country. How about you actually address the questions posed to you rather than constantly moving the goalpost? Its getting a little old.

[Hoyt]

69. Do I really need to respond to your question? Of course guns are different from cigarettes.

And no, I don't think some guy walking around with a gun, sword, hand grenade, club, cross bow, etc., in public is quite the same as someone with a pack of cigarettes in case they get to duck out the back door and have a smoke.

Enjoy your guns.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

70. Do you need to?

No, of course not. However, out of sheer courtesy, and since this is a discussion forum, it is usually a good idea to respond to direct questions from others when you throw out so many of your own.

What you're essentially saying Hoyt, is you know you don't really have a leg to stand on other than your own ignorance, fears and prejudices. Your arguments are crap. Your facts non-existent. Even your own analogies are so easily turned against you that it must by now be utterly humiliating to realize you are so wrong, yet so insistent upon remaining wrong.

I do enjoy my guns. Enjoy being disarmed. Feel free to leave the United States if you are bothered so much by people having them, and move to a nation which more closely meets your ideal.

[PavePusher]

80. No, they recognise them as...

a possible harm to authoritarian politicians and dictatorial governments.

Read some damn history for the love of fuck....

[PavePusher]

79. Oh, you advocate 'prior restraint'....

Yeah, that'll work out well....

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

55. re: I hope they...

For the record, I also hope they continue asking and lecturing about guns, AND I HOPE FOLKS QUIT PAYING THEM TO BE PHYSICIANS, since their politics are overshadowing their medical practice.

[Straw Man]

84. The AAP.

The American Academy of Pediatrics encourages members to instruct patients and parents on gun safety. They should be commended rather than criticized by folks who practice questionable gun habits.

Are you aware of the nature of the AAP's gun safety instruction?

http://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/all-around/pages/Gun-Safety-Keeping-Children-Safe.aspx

Yes, folks, it's abstinence. Just say "no" to guns. Get rid of those nasty things. It's for the children. Their three bullet points on actual gun safety refer only to storage. Nothing about handling. You shouldn't ever actually handle the nasty things anyway. Nothing about teaching your children what they should do if they find a gun. AAP has critized the NRA's "Eddie the Eagle" program as insufficient. In its place, they offer ... nothing.

"Folks who practice questionable gun habits"? Apparently the AAP believes that even owning a gun is a questionable habit. Theirs is a prohibitionist agenda, masquerading as safety advice. It's condescending elitist horseshit.

I'm a certified Home Firearm Safety instructor. I think I'm qualified to criticize this garbage.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

54. Pardon me...

...for intruding here. Service providers such as doctors, police personnel, cable installers, pizza delivery folk, congressmen and a host of others should be and, in fact, are UNINVOLVED with their clients personal business.

I know of at least a few doctors who act like they are society's privileged in some special way. They aren't; we don't do that here. If you need that sort of thing, acquire a title and move to a monarchy.

[Hoyt]

57. If it were anything but guns, we wouldn't be having this debate. Well, if one is an alcoholic, they

will resent a physician encouraging them to quit, or at least change habits. Same for sex questions, even though those questions and concern might help avoid a health issue. Exercise, seat belts, living situation, diet, driving situation for elderly, etc.

But, if it's a "gun," the gun culture goes berserk because it might ultimately cause them to change their life style.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. Without your opinion...

...we wouldn't be having a discussion. I respect your right to have and voice it.

Questions from health service professionals should be restricted to health problems... that are extant at the time of service.

If you present with a gunshot wound then those questions a relevant.

[Hoyt]

61. Guns are a health problem -- for those obsessed with them, and those who might be shot.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

63. re: Guns are a health problem.

Stop spreading lies. Gunshot wounds are a health problem. The cigarette analogy works only to the point that folks have a right to own and carry both (guns and cigarettes) but not a right to injure others in the use of them.

Guns are not a health problem. There is no pill or injection that will "cure" a gun. While surgery may be needed to separate some guns from some owners, I think the only surgery that would satisfy you may be along the lines of a national lobotomy.

Have a nice night. :)

[Hoyt]

64. Obsession with guns is a health problem.

[rl6214]

67. The only one here with an obssesion is YOU

How was it worded a couple days ago:

Anal retentive obssession?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

72. As rl6214 has highlighted...

...you seem to be the one with the obsession.

Please explain how the pediatrician is qualified to diagnose/treat mental/emotional disorders such as obsessive or compulsive behavior and how this may be facilitated by dismissing the patient from care.

[SteveM]

82. Doctors do NOT "have a right to know," per the TIME editorial. nt

[Jenoch]

85. The Florida doctors asking the questions

are only asking in a way to persuade their patients to get rid of their firearms. If the doctors were really interested in the safety of the children in the home they would also ask about swimming pools, smoke detectors, CO detectors, seat belt usage, and alcohol consumption by family members (and anything else they could dream up to justify nosing into the lives of their patients).

[MicaelS]

18. You sound just like an Alcohol Prohibtionist, and we all know

How well that worked. Drug Prohibition has worked equally well, hasn't it? :sarcasm:

[Hoyt]

23. So, you going to allow folks to carry guns because they can't break their bad habit, or imagine

life without a gun or two strapped to their bodies when going to Chuck E Cheeze or a city park?

[MicaelS]

27. Yes, because I'm not going to let Zealots like YOU

Determine policy in this country. I'm not going to let YOU, and people with your mindset determine for other adults in this country what is a good or bad "habit".

We jump from one Moral Panic to another in this country, and Gun Prohibition (especially the way you couch it) is just another Moral Panic in a long line of them.

And here's another point.. If the guns are concealed, just how do you know who is carrying? You don't and you can't.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

28. It isnt a case of allowing...

..it is a case of people having the right to do so.

The government is allowed to restrain that right under certain clearly defined circumstances.

You would do well to learn those important distinctions hoyt. An American citizen does not need permission to exercise his rights.

[Hoyt]

32. The 96% that don't tote need to pressure their reps to stop allowing proliferation of guns in public

unless the person applying is in a militia, which most are not. Although there are some here who play like they are.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

35. The 96% who do not carry...

ARE pressuring their reps...and it is to allow further public carry. There's no way 4% of the population could have the effect we have seen.

As far as your militia crap, that's been addressed and put to bed by the Supreme Court. You're wrong. End of discussion.

[iverglas]

58. snork

Jonesing for a fresh gun?

:rofl:

[spin]

21. There is absolutely nothing immoral about my legally carrying a concealed weapon ...

Who appointed you God?

Even Jesus did not disapprove of carry concealed weapons.

Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)

And Simon Peter, one of the disciples of Christ, used a sword when Jesus was being arrested.

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)
John 18:10 NIV

[Hoyt]

24. That's your opinion. I think it is immoral and the Bible thumping is no rationale.

Besides, in most places you can't even carry a sword in public -- but you guys think you should be able to strap guns all over you body. That makes a lot of sense.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

37. I don't know why you think it is immoral.

The world's largest religions all support self defense with and without arms.

[spin]

46. You know that you often tend to exaggerate ...

For example, I don't personally know anyone who carries more than one handgun except for a couple of police officers who do carry a BUG (backup gun).

I carry one snub nosed .38 caliber revolver. It holds five rounds. My son in law carries a .380 semi-auto pistol which holds 7 rounds counting one in the chamber. Both are less lethal than the sword that Peter carried.

Your posts are becoming more and more hilarious.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoyt]

25. Civil Right? Not again, guns aren't like discrimination because of ethnicity, s orientation, religi

on, etc. Your poor, pitiful gun plight doesn't phase me.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

29. Really?

So the decision to carry a firearm is somehow different than the decision to practice a certain religion?

Pray tell, how? (pun intended)

[Hoyt]

30. Shoot, do you really need to be "told how?"

[We_Have_A_Problem]

36. I want to see how you can explain the difference.

Please. Tell us ALL. What is the difference between a choice to practice a particular religion and a choice to be armed?

[tortoise1956]

65. I gotta know.

Do you really believe any of this "stuff" you post about guns?

The reason I ask is because if you do, it might indicate an unhealthy obsession with weapons...

[PavePusher]

66. He certainly has an unhealthy obsession....

with displaying pride in his own ignorance and predjudice.

It's really stunningly facsinating to watch.

[beevul]

86. Civil rights in America, hoyt.

Constitutionally protected civil rights.


Say that as many times as it takes to sink in.

Like it or not gun ownership is a constitutionally protected fundamental civil right in THIS country.


What THAT means, is that...LIKE religion or speech, the government is essentially forbidden from anything but the most necessary interference with it.

Now say that as many times as it takes to sink in.

You can talk all you want about how "guns arent like discrimination because of ethnicity, s orientation, religion" blah blah blabetty blah, but the fact of the matter and whats IMPORTANT, is that rights like religion and speech and gun ownership are EQUALLY PROTECTED from governmental interference.

The RIGHTS in question are VERY much alike, even though what the rights protect may not be.

SO go ahead, ramble on about how guns are different than X, while the adults laugh about how its the rights which are under discussion, not the guns.

[iverglas]

59. refresh my memory if you will

Is it actually permitted at this website to call another member a bigot?

Not that I don't think exposing this particular meme for what it is -- really really stupid and ugly -- is a bad thing. It just gets tiresome.

[spin]

20. Feel free to tell all the jokes you want about my legally carrying a handgun ...

and about the fact that I own a collection of firearms that you would consider more than I need.

It doesn't bother me in the least and I doubt if it bothers others who legally carry and/or have a firearm collection.

Despite any and all jokes you can tell, I have absolutely no intention of selling my firearms or leaving my snub nosed revolver behind in the safe when I leave the house.

Have fun.

[SlimJimmy]

39. +1

[slackmaster]

10. Doctors certainly have a right to ask about gun ownership, or anything else

They don't have a right to know anything; patients have a right to decline to answer.

[SlimJimmy]

13. Agreed. Docs can ask all they want. It is an individual's decision not to respond.

[X_Digger]

15. It's.. it's.. it's full of memes..

I think he hit about 75% of the current wharrgarble from the prohi side.

The only things obviously missing are 'cop-killah boolits' and 'omg 50 cal, take down an airplane!1!!1!1!!'

[gravity556]

41. JINX!

bwa hahahaha!

[X_Digger]

44. Hehe, the other one I thought of were 'heat seeking boolits'. n/t

[gravity556]

31. The ingnorance in that article is truly breathtaking.

I wonder if the author researched the issue and then just filled out his article with the opposite of the truth. It's like Hoyt or someone wrote it. This piece of drek should be enshrined by the author's editor as what NOT to do when trying to convey the news. Only thing missing is the claim that hollow points are "armor piercing" and that jets can be shot down with a bolt action .50 cal rifle.

[gejohnston]

56. and don't forget barrel shrouds and

heat seeking incendiary rounds that pre-cook the deer for you.

[Katya Mullethov]

71. It aint no jet

But , could a fella shoot one of the trim tabs off a P51 with a 50 ?

Seems like another crisis just goin' to waste .

.
This quite very well COULD HAVE been a suppressed sooper sniper terror rifle attack .

[oneshooter]

73. Perhaps a belt fed full auto SKS sniper rifle with a red dot sight.

Ask Hoyt, he is an expert on those items.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[friendly_iconoclast]

75. With dumbed-out bullets...... n/t

[oneshooter]

74. Double post, my apologies

[PavePusher]

77. Was the plane shot in the back? n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

76. I'm STILL waiting

for someone to explain why a doctor has a RIGHT to know.

Not a desire, but an absolute right which trumps my rights.

Please, explain for me and everyone else, why someone in my employ has a right to know a damn thing about me that I do not wish to tell him?

[SteveM]

81. No, doctors do NOT "have a right to know,"...

Further, "brandishing" a firearm (except in cases where the gun-owner is threatened by an attacker) is NOT allowed by law.

Where is it said that doctors "have a right to know" about guns in anyone's household, even those who are his/her patients?

Brandishing in a situation not involving a threat of bodily harm is NOT legal. What law says it is?

Remember, this is TIME, whose rigid, anti-2A doctrine is well-established:

"But the time for opinions on the dangers of gun availability is long since gone, replaced by overwhelming evidence that it represents a growing threat to public safety."

In other words, we ain't reporting nuthin' except OUR opinions about the dangers of gun availability.

And MSM wonders about its declining presence in modern society.