I'm pro-Second Amendment, but

You don't have kids (iirc). This is aimed at pediatricians. I have 3 kids and my pediatrician did asked about things like chemicals, if there's a pool, etc... In fact, they were a very good source on car seats. If the auto industry had the same irrational fear (or rather the need to foster such fear) they maybe they wouldn't have been able to share that info. At least not in forward thinking places like Rick Scott's Florida.

The AAP huh. I'd have to see the information on firearm safety that they distribute to their doctors.

You know to see whether it's actual firearm safety or just more ridiculous political "you're x times more likely to kill a family member / guns will magically animate themselves and murder you in your sleep" type stuff.

It's my understanding that their position is if you have kids you should not own guns and no kids should ever be exposed to firearms under no circumstances, which is firearm abstinence and not really firearm safety.

If that's the case then they're not helping anyone. They're just lecturing to people who have already made up their minds and not really educating them.
 
Excessive gun collections are a little silly though, I just stopped at 5 guns, 2 pistols, 1 hunting rifle, 1 assault rifle, and 1 shotgun, and I don't see a reason to get more unless you hunt a lot and need different types of hunting rifles.

Yeah I mean any more than that and you'd have to be gun-crazy or something :mischief:
 
... is it just me who finds the gun nut culture to be profoundly disturbing? ...

From your profile I assume you're a young person, so you may just not be aware that we are in the later stages of societal conflict over gun ownership. The 1970's were the peak period, when "gun control" meant eliminating gun ownership altogether. It was during those years when many cities and some states enacted legislation banning or restricting possession of firearms. Since the 80's there has been a long, slow recovery of gun owner's rights.

So gun collectors are not entirely like collectors of cars, insects, coins, stamps, etc.
They are collectors who have been the victims of smear campaigns, ridicule ("gun nut") and denial of rights. So unlike a stamp collector, a gun collector is a bit defensive and somewhat bitter, and perhaps a little celebratory over recent court rulings and state laws that have finally gone his way.
 
It's apparent gun culture is one of the worst things about American society in my opinion. There is simply no need for everyone to own multiple weapons as if they need to fend off some kind of domestic invasion. It's completely unneccessary, and as a Brit really quite disturbing. I don't like the idea that if I pissed off the wrong guy I could have an impromtu smalltown militia chasing me down the street, and of course there is always the very real risk that a mentally unstable individual could get their hands on a weapon which ultimately is designed for no other purpose then to kill. Hence the seemingly far, far greater proportions of university/school massacres in the U.S then in Europe or probably anywhere else in the world. I think people who have such a burning desire to own a weapon are probably on average more likely to have some kind of psychological flaw as it is, either some kind of paranoia, or poor self-esteem that requires some level of compensation.

Allowing people to easily own these objects of murder is simply encouraging justice to be brought into the hands of the individual, and socially probably contributes towards the whole extreme individualistic, far-right, anti-government attitude displayed in much of rural America.

And as for the whole ''I have a right to a gun and you can't take that away from me'' argument, I think that's absurd. It's designed to kill, they get into the hands of criminals and psychopaths, and ultimately the average person has no need for them. People are safer and better off without such a proliferation of guns. Yes people have a right to freedom, but freedom can be taken too far, and has to be balanced against the equally or more important rights of life and security.
 
I think both the Far Right and the Far Left do a great job of alienating the majority and keeping most people centrist
 
And of course, we never trust doctors with any private information. We never share our most intimate information with, LOL, a Doctor

We share intimate and private information it when it's pertinent to a specific issue. For instance only medical doctors can diagnose prostate cancer so we allow them to finger rape us. That doesn't mean he needs to know I have an AK in the trunk or that I go the BDSM club every weekend.

Ummm... Medical professionals are usually required by law to report injuries that are evidence of domestic violence. Thus, if you are going to the BDSM club every weekend (as a bottom, anyway) it may well be in your best interest to inform your regular doctor of this prior to their seeing marks/bruises/etc that they would otherwise interpret as domestic violence (of the non-consensual variety) and get your significant other arrested. So, not really a good analogy on the face of it. :(

But the larger point is that medical professionals (and their organizational mouthpiece the AMA) tend to view "the gun issue" as a public health issue rather than a civil rights issue. If the individual pediatrician is going over child-proofing the home and securing of firearms is just one component of that, then excellent and well done. However if the individual pediatrician is boring in on the dangers of unsecured firearms without mentioning the dangers of swimming pools, under-sink chemicals, etc, then I for one wouldn't mention guns to him in the first place. Unfortunately, like the reporting of consensual sadomasochism, you only really find out if you've made the wrong call (to a doctor who thinks any bruising = criminal abuse) after you've made that call.
 
It's apparent gun culture is one of the worst things about American society in my opinion. There is simply no need for everyone to own multiple weapons as if they need to fend off some kind of domestic invasion. It's completely unneccessary, and as a Brit really quite disturbing. I don't like the idea that if I pissed off the wrong guy I could have an impromtu smalltown militia chasing me down the street, and of course there is always the very real risk that a mentally unstable individual could get their hands on a weapon which ultimately is designed for no other purpose then to kill. Hence the far, far greater proportions of university/school massacres in the U.S then in Europe or probably anywhere else in the world. I think people who have such a burning desire to own a weapon are probably on average more likely to have some kind of psychological flaw as it is, either some kind of paranoia, or poor self-esteem that requires some level of compensation.

Allowing people to easily own these objects of murder is simply encouraging justice to be brought into the hands of the individual, and socially probably contributes towards the whole extreme individualistic, far-right, anti-government attitude displayed in much of rural America.

And as for the whole ''I have a right to a gun and you can't take that away from me'' argument, I think that's absurd. It's designed to kill, they get into the hands of criminals and psychopaths, and ultimately the average person has no need for them. People are safer and better off without such a proliferation of guns. Yes people have a right to freedom, but freedom can be taken too far, and has to be balanced against the equally or more important rights of life and security.

Could you please cite your source for this information.
 
... is it just me who finds the gun nut culture to be profoundly disturbing? Like, that one time on TV, this old dude led an entire convention of gun owners, then he produced his gun and began hugging it, saying things like "I love my gun. They won't take it away from me," clinging tight to it in reaction to a gun control measure being enacted somewhere else.

Then you have the guys who have piles of guns in their cars, at home, etc. And let's not get started on gun conventions.

I guess the discussion that I want to foster is, is it alright for me to completely back the freedom of these guys to buy as many guns as they want but to feel a bit of disgust and revulsion as to how gun-centric their lives have become? Honestly, it feels like a sexual attraction to guns for me.

Yes, the knuckle-dragging redneck "mah guns are mah freedom" types that people love to mock are up there with the religious and atheistic extremists, bullhorn-wielding or quasi-ranty-newspaper-writing free speech/press extremists, and others that support and advocate their constitutional rights, but usually with a facepalm-worthy lack of nuanced understanding of the right that they're trumpeting. Such is life. There's plenty of people out there for whom I steadfastly advocate a right to free speech while simultaneously hoping that they'll just shut up.
 
Could you please cite your source for this information.

If you disagree with my post why don't you give a counter argument instead of the passive-aggressive demand for ''citations''? This is an internet forum, not a scientific journal.

My assumption was based on annecdotal evidence such as news stories. I've editted the post to indicate that.
 
I disagree with your post yes, but I can't provide counter arguments because you haven't actually made any arguments to counter. You posted an opinion with no facts to back it up, so I naturally seized upon the one part of your post that seemed to imply some knowledge of numbers or evidence. Now you say that that part was just based on anecdote instead of actual fact, which is fine, but which points exactly would you like me to make counter-arguments about? From my perspective your post appears to be completely emotionally driven opinion, I can't argue against that, you're entitled to it.
 
Well opinions you can argue against, facts are facts. This is a conversation; if we were sitting in a pub I wouldn't be sitting there quoting facts at you, if I was chances are you'd be pretty bored.
 
Actually the opposite, I like debating numbers and evidence, just talking about each other's baseless opinions is what's boring to me. Neither side is going to change their mind based on the opinions of the other unless one side can show evidence. I've been down this conversational road with friends from other countries before (France, but their opinions seem basically identical to common British opinion on this matter), I'm really not interested in retreading that road.
 
Actually the opposite, I like debating numbers and evidence, just talking about each other's baseless opinions is what's boring to me. Neither side is going to change their mind based on the opinions of the other unless one side can show evidence. I've been down this conversational road with friends from other countries before (France, but their opinions seem basically identical to common British opinion on this matter), I'm really not interested in retreading that road.

Indeed. No one looks at their existing perceptions and changes their opinion. Adjusting one's perceptions via new facts or viewpoints is necessary. Which is why I take people who have not shot a gun before to the range - their realization that much of what they've learned about guns from the media is just wrong tends to really get the gears turning and opinions re-evaluated.
 
Indeed. No one looks at their existing perceptions and changes their opinion. Adjusting one's perceptions via new facts or viewpoints is necessary. Which is why I take people who have not shot a gun before to the range - their realization that much of what they've learned about guns from the media is just wrong tends to really get the gears turning and opinions re-evaluated.
Yes, but how would I similarly deprogram someone from the NRA?

;)
 
But the larger point is that medical professionals (and their organizational mouthpiece the AMA) tend to view "the gun issue" as a public health issue rather than a civil rights issue. If the individual pediatrician is going over child-proofing the home and securing of firearms is just one component of that, then excellent and well done. However if the individual pediatrician is boring in on the dangers of unsecured firearms without mentioning the dangers of swimming pools, under-sink chemicals, etc, then I for one wouldn't mention guns to him in the first place. Unfortunately, like the reporting of consensual sadomasochism, you only really find out if you've made the wrong call (to a doctor who thinks any bruising = criminal abuse) after you've made that call.
Well, then that's evidence of them being a bad doctor, which has nothing to do w/ the idea that this should be something that a doctor could bring up w/ a patient.

So, bottom line question, Igloo, is the proposed Florida law an overstep to you?
 
Yes, but how would I similarly deprogram someone from the NRA?

;)

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. :mischief:


Kidding aside... I don't know. That's a really interesting question that deserves some mulling; I'll have to get back to you.
 
Well, then that's evidence of them being a bad doctor, which has nothing to do w/ the idea that this should be something that a doctor could bring up w/ a patient.

So, bottom line question, Igloo, is the proposed Florida law an overstep to you?

I had to go look up the proposed Florida law.
bill as proposed said:
Privacy of Firearm Owners: Provides that licensed practitioner or facility may not record firearm ownership information in patient's medical record; provides exception; provides that unless information is relevant to patient's medical care or safety or safety of others, inquiries regarding firearm ownership or possession should not be made; provides exception for EMTS & paramedics; provides that patient may decline to provide information regarding ownership or possession of firearms; clarifies that physician's authority to choose patients is not altered; prohibits discrimination by licensed practitioners or facilities based solely on patient's firearm ownership or possession; prohibits harassment of patient regarding firearm ownership during examination; prohibits denial of insurance coverage, increased premiums, or other discrimination by insurance companies issuing policies on basis of insured's or applicant's ownership, possession, or storage of firearms or ammunition; clarifies that insurer is not prohibited from considering value of firearms or ammunition in setting personal property premiums; provides for disciplinary action.

As in most modern laws, there's some good and some bad in it. I've highlighted in blue the parts I agree, the parts in red that I oppose, and the part in purple that I'd really have to do some soul-searching on. As to the primary thrust of the law (can doctors ask you if you have guns at home), I would oppose it because there is no legal requirement to respond to them so one's privacy is not impacted (insofar as it is doctor-patient privileged information). However, that tidbit of information making it into your medical record where commercial decisions on your medical care can be made is what gets me leery.
 
So um, y'all gonna think a gun collector is nuts after they need all those guns to defend against a home invasion?

There's a broad lesson there. Against wildly unknown threats, Hollywood teaches us that the shotgun is the best weapon.

We see this in Terminator, Terminator 2, and Tremors. Of all the weapons used, the shotgun is the one that most commonly is of use. Grenade launchers ain't bad.

That said, in Predator and Predators, the 7.62x51mm is the only round to do any real damage (the M60, opening up in the forest on the first Predator; the sniper rifle used to shoot the last Predator). Billy's shotgun attachment is never properly used, but the AA12 in Predators is never any use, either.

The 7.62x51mm is insufficient in Tremors, though. Only the shotgun is enough.

A shotgun does the only real damage in Deep Rising

For final evidence, in Split Second the movie that created the term "BFG", Durkin chose some type of shotgun as his weapon of choice. It was an automatic shotgun, but a shotgun nonetheless
 
Hollywood likes shotguns because they are cool looking and sound awesome when they fire. For actual general purpose monster defense though I'll take a large caliber rifle please ;). Only possible exception: zombies. I think a flamethrower would be pretty swell for that.
 
Flamethrowers wouldn't work well. Zombies don't feel pain so they just keep walking around setting things on fire which wouldn't bode well.
 
Top Bottom