Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Paging Dr. NRA

I just love it when the pro gun guys on my blog rail against the government. They don't seem to like police officers or judges, for sure. They are ready to take up arms against their duly elected government. They tell me this every day. Basically, they don't want the government involved in much of anything. Just leave them alone with their guns. Oh, unless, of course, they want the government to interfere to make sure their "rights" are preserved. Take what is going on in Florida, for example. The legislature in that great state does not want doctors asking anyone about gun ownership. They could be fined up to $6 million if they do!! Seriously folks. Can't doctors practice medicine in a manner they have decided is in the best interests of their patients? Never mind safety of women, children and vulnerable adults who could be subject to violence in the home and may actually admit to such in the privacy of the doctor's office. What would the doctor do with that information anyway? Abused women are in danger. Children could be at risk. Their doctors should know about that. They are in the business of saving lives, everyone. I know this first hand.

Two members of my family are medical practitioners. They don't give a rip about taking guns from anyone. They are sworn in an oath to treat their patients to the best of their ability. So get the NRA out of the doctor's offices. This is actually outrageous and I hope doctors will rise up in opposition to this usurping of their rights to practice medicine. If it's happening in Florida, it will come to other states soon enough. That is the pattern of the NRA- make sure there are absolutely no gun laws except the ones they want. Make sure anyone can have a gun and do whatever they want with it.

Further, the NRA now demands to know when a study about firearms is coming from the Centers for Disease Control.  Are you kidding me? Who made the President of the NRA the Dean of the CDC? Or should I say, who gave the NRA all of that power? Why in the world should the NRA have anything to do with studies from the CDC? Read what Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke wrote to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sibelius. Also read the article in the New York Times that revealed this offensive and outrageous demand by the NRA. How did we get to a place like this in America?

Others who have a national voice, are speaking out about the measures, supported by the pro gun lobby, to interfere with the practices of physicians. Here is a great column by Gail Collins of the New York Times. " The nation’s state legislators seem to be troubled by a shortage of things they can do to make the National Rifle Association happy. Once you’ve voted to allow people to carry guns into bars (Georgia), eliminated the need for getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon (Arizona) and designated your own official state gun (Utah — awaiting the governor’s signature), it gets hard to come up with new ideas." I have just said the same in my last post.

I would love for my pro gun friends to explain this over reach and this outrageous interference with health care in America. They have no leg to stand on and I can't wait to hear them posture and give excuses for why these things are necessary. They absolutely do not represent the majority of Americans. And, in fact, they are getting in the way of health care decisions that are too important for the health and well being of the citizens of this country. When the NRA doesn't like the government involved in things, they make it clear. And then, suddenly, the government of Florida should tell doctors how to practice medicine? Shame. The NRA is a powerful interest group that does not have the best interests of the public in mind. It's all about them and their guns. Where is common sense when we need it?

75 comments:

  1. How much of your personal medical information do you consider private?
    Since doctors report their findings to the insurance companies and they are known for finding excuses to deny coverage. Also they are required report hazardous transmissible diseases and potential abuse cases. Personally I don't want a pap smear widely known or many other medical information. I've been denied insurance as a pilot (hazardous activity) even though driving is more dangerous.

    So the question is how much of your privacy are you willing to surrender and what is the stopping point for you?

    no not me

    ReplyDelete
  2. Joan,

    I do not think there should be legislation that punishes doctors for asking a question, even about guns in the home. Personally, if my doctor were to ask me or my children that question, I would politely tell him / her that it was none of their business. If they persisted, I would likely change physicians.

    If, however, my doctor refused urgent medical care to me or a family member solely because I either refused to answer the question, or they did not like my answer, I think there should be a legal recourse.

    I *would* like to see the NRA educate its members about the situation, and be a counselor about the issues so that NRA members can have a reasonable discussion with health-care professionals and explain their position on gun ownership.

    Regards

    ReplyDelete
  3. What if a doctor in Florida is treating someone for a slight gunshot would? Could he be prohibited from asking the question even then.

    The NRA butting into the CDC is typical. They are headed by a guy who says those with the guns make the rules. What do you expect from bullying idiots?

    ReplyDelete
  4. They are ready to take up arms against their duly elected government.

    I've been reading your blog for some time now, japete. And the statement above is simply false. NOT ONE pro-liberty poster has advocated taking up arms against gov't.

    Not. One.

    We HAVE pointed out that police are not always right, or fair. And we've pointed out examples. We have pointed out that prosecutors at times push ideological agendas rather than justice, and there's no doubt that's true. We have pointed out that judges are sometimes less than unbiased. Ask Brian Aiken in New Jersey about that one.

    And we have pointed out that the ultimate purpose of the 2nd Am. is to protect the right of the people to oppose a gov't that engages in tyranny. That's simply undisputable historical fact.

    It's also historical fact that gov't - all gov't, any gov't - left to its own devices will tend to trend toward tyranny. We're not simplistic enough to simply whistle away and assume it can't happen here. It can. I don't see it in the near future, and we all hope desperately it never comes to that. But the best way of making sure it never comes to that is to maintian that deterrent of an armed populace.

    But NO writer here has advocated taking up arms against the gov't. That's simply false.

    And it points what you regularly do here: labeling, fearmongering, misquoting (or selectively quoting, in effect the same thing).

    Personally, I'm not a fan of the new law. There's a simple fix to this problem - if your doctor pries into this part of your life, simply tell him it's none of his business. If he persists, find another doctor. Problem solved.

    The real dilemma you have, japete, is the fact of WHY the NRA is as influentual as it is. And it's not hard to figure out: They have the votes. Your side doesn't.

    Isn't democracy wonderful?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Personally, if my doctor were to ask me or my children that question, I would politely tell him / her that it was none of their business."

    I'd ask how much training he had in firearms safety, whether he had any certification in the area, and whether his malpractice insurance would cover his liability if he provided incorrect advice.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I believe that things said here on this blog represent people ready to take up arms against their own government. I have not published all comments.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm wondering if you all have heard of HIPPA laws? Much information is private and cannot be revealed. I am also wondering if some of you realize that doctors are mandatory reporters if abuse is suspected?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I won't defend the Florida bill on banning doctors from talking with their patients about guns because I don't agree with it. It's an offense to the First Amendment, and I'm disappointed NRA is pushing it.

    That said, the medical community has inserted itself into the gun debate improperly. I have really no problem with pediatricians talking to parents about guns in the home within the context of other household dangers, like swimming pools, which kill more kids every year than guns do. But I do have a problem with them singling out guns as a specific danger to the exclusion of other dangers that are just as if not more severe. To do the former is just making sure parents have thought about it. To do the latter is a political act.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sebastian- they are not singling out guns. They are in the context of other dangers around the home. I know that for sure since that is what my daughter does. I also know that when I have my physical, the question is asked about whether I feel unsafe in my home or from anyone. It is not to get information about guns. It is to get information that could save my life if I say Yes. I have provided my local clinic with brochures for the Family Justice Center so doctors can refer patients to the facility for the help that could save their lives.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Joan.

    My private property is my business and it's not some clerk in a doctors office right to know how many guns I have in the house. They have my address and my info, linking a theft risk is quite easy.

    Second. When my kids were growing up, my wife took my kids in for a well check. She was asked about guns and my son quite proudly answered that he had gone with me when I went bird hunting. Suddenly he was being told that guns were very dangerous and liky to kill him or his mommy if left in the home. It was the American pediatrics policy to remove ALL guns from homes with kids as a public health issue.

    This is the bull crap this law is trying to prevent.

    My wife felt ridiculed and my kids came home shaken. All because someone forgot that Doctoring is not supposed to be a PAC.

    This is a good law. It would be better if the AMA and the rest quit trying to force their NYC/Boston sensibilities on the rest of the nation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "I just love it when the pro gun guys on my blog rail against the government. They don't seem to like police officers or judges, for sure. They are ready to take up arms against their duly elected government. They tell me this every day."

    Joan, this is inflammatory rhetoric and you know it. Many of us ARE police officers, judges, and military members. MANY of us. Perhaps it's seeing how the world really works day in and day out. Police officers will tell you that they almost ALWAYS get to the scene of a crime after the fact, and those that care more about the victims than they do for some misguided theory about safety fully condone well armed citizens.

    As for the Florida legislation, it is not in ANY way interference with health care. I have been a health care provider for 10 years and cannot think of a time when a simple "If you have guns in the house, lock them up" wouldn't suffice. There is certainly no reason for a health care provider to ask how many guns you have and then document the answer in medical records. It's none of anyone's business.

    But more than anything, it is the de-politicizing of health care. Since the AMA has seen fit to routinely inject itself into a non-medical issue, a law must be passed. Patients shouldn't be subjected to politically motivated lines of questioning any more than women getting abortions need to be interrogated in a dark room about their motives. It's their choice. A simple "abortions are not birth control" and "too many will sterilize you" will suffice.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's "HIPAA", not HIPPA.

    Health insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Know all about it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What legitimate use does a doctor have to ask about guns that is being curtailed? He is still allowed to ask if he believes the individual is a danger to himself or others.

    The problem is that the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics started pushing gun control. Then they started asking questions about guns in the homes and refusing service for those that refused to answer. Now they are paying the price. If they had kept politics out of the clinic they wouldn't be having politics in the clinic.

    ReplyDelete
  14. P- this is crazy talk and absolutely false- " t was the American pediatrics policy to remove ALL guns from homes with kids as a public health issue.
    " That is so untrue as to strain your integrity. There is no such policy in place coming from the American Pediatric society. If you can produce one, I would have to eat my words. Such lies are ridiculous and should not be repeated by your side but undoubtedly are to get you guys all in a tizzy over this stuff.As to your personal experience, pediatricians understand the risk of guns in the home. Stats show them to be right. I provide you guys with examples all the time of kids shooting each other and themselves. I have many more that I have not shared with you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The health care providers I know, and I know a lot of them, do not ask how many guns are in the home. That is not what this is about.

    ReplyDelete
  16. There are very few instances of a health care provider refusing services to patients with guns. I will tell you that health care providers are threatened occasionally. I know this from personal experience. So you can guess that some health care providers might even be concerned for their own lives.

    ReplyDelete
  17. BTW- this is another solution looking for a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "I will tell you that health care providers are threatened occasionally. I know this from personal experience. So you can guess that some health care providers might even be concerned for their own lives."

    You know the answer to this. That was one of my reasons for getting a carry permit to begin with.

    Concealed means concealed.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I had to smile when I read this post. So you're saying that you are against the govt telling doctors what they can't ask... but you seem to be elated that Obamacare just took over the healthcare industry. Interesting!

    "They are ready to take up arms against their duly elected government."

    Really? I haven't yet seen any readers say they were itching to go shoot up the govt. But, that is the reason the second amendment exists and pointing out an historical fact somehow makes you an extremist ready to take up arms against the government? I don't think so.

    "Oh, unless, of course, they want the government to interfere to make sure their "rights" are preserved."

    Well, let us remember that Article IV of the US constitution states "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government" Let us remember that a republican form of government means that we are bound by a certain series of laws, regardless of what the majority wishes. This is why a state may not ban, say, the Catholic religion, even if a majority of voters were in favor of such a proposal. Likewise, when something impinges on the second amendment, it is up to the govt to protect those rights. Thus is shown the dangers of the "we are a democracy" assertation which is so popular nowadays.

    (as an aside, you may wish to peruse the article " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution " for your reading pleasure. It contains an excellent explanation as to why the US is not a democracy. Perhaps it would give you a better understanding as to why I always bring this up.)

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Why in the world should the NRA have anything to do with studies from the CDC?"

    Because we trust an anti gun govt bureaucracy to be just about as unbiased as a MAIG poll. If Bloomberg wants to waste his money, thats fine, but lets keep the taxpayer dollars out of the equation, shall we? I certainly don't want my tax dollars going to fund a rigged "study" that tells us that guns are horrible and evil and if only we pass all these laws (with exemptions from the police and federal law enforcement groups, naturally) we will be safe and happy.

    "Once you’ve voted to allow people to carry guns into bars (Georgia)"

    Still illegal to drink while carrying a gun. And actually the bill wasn't focused on bars, it was focused on establishments that serve alcohol. Thus, you could not bring your concealed weapon into Olive Garden because they serve wine. The law does not give concealed carriers the right to drink while they are in said restaurants. Perhaps some will, that's true. And if they're caught: bye bye CC license.

    "eliminated the need for getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon (Arizona)"

    Yeah, it's that whole "keep and bear arms" business that shall not be infringed. It's seemed to work for Vermont for the past, oh, 200+ years.

    "and designated your own official state gun (Utah"

    I must say I don't get any of the "official state _____ " But John Browning was from Utah, and this is the 100 yr anniversary of the ubiquitous 1911.

    "I would love for my pro gun friends to explain this over reach and this outrageous interference with health care in America"

    Well you see the Democrats wanted universal healthcare, but they had to settle for the health care bill, and... Oh, wait... are we talking about the Florida thing or Obamacare? My bad!

    "I can't wait to hear them posture and give excuses for why these things are necessary."

    As someone who largely considers himself a Libertarian, I'm mostly opposed to govt telling private business what they can and cannot do (and a dr is essentially a private business). I felt that the Ocala, FL mom (who refused to answer a question regarding gun ownership) that was dismissed as a patient was quite frankly bullied by an anti gun dr. That being said, she can find a new dr who doesn't intrude into those affairs. I would consider a compromise: Doctor's may choose to ask about gun ownership, but they may not be compelled to do so at the bequest of a state board or medical academy.

    Thus, patients will vote with their dollars.

    Would you agree to such a proposal?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Joan, I would appreciate it if you would not post anything from mikeb302000 that contains abusive language, given the tone of politeness that you are trying to maintain. Calling the NRA a bunch of "bullying idiots" is not constructive.

    Regarding the proposed legislation to fine doctors, I'm against it. I do not believe it is right to punish doctors for asking questions regarding safety of children. I do think it's inappropriate for gun owners to be discriminated against by doctors, but I don't see that happening.

    I also think it's hypocritical for gun owners to rail against any limitation on second amendment rights, while supporting a limitation on first amendment rights.

    I hope this demonstrates to you that the NRA does not have gun owners in some kind of voodoo mind control trance. I think this issue is illustrative of how gun owners can disagree with a stance the NRA takes while still supporting the organization as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I believe that things said here on this blog represent people ready to take up arms against their own government.

    What you believe - or "feel" - is irrelevent. Posted comments simply do not sustain or support that belief. In the absence of evidence of same, your "belief" is without merit.

    I have not published all comments.

    Then there is no evidence. I should believe you, uh, why, exactly? You clearly have little regard for actual facts in other contexts (your "shoot first" position willfully ignores clearly established law to argue what is in fact simply not the case, for example); why would this one be any different?

    ReplyDelete
  23. "So you can guess that some health care providers might even be concerned for their own lives."

    Which is, of course, why so many of them get carry permits.

    ReplyDelete
  24. ...I will tell you that health care providers are threatened occasionally. I know this from personal experience. So you can guess that some health care providers might even be concerned for their own lives.

    That's why some health care providers are thankful that they have the freedom to conceal carry.

    As for your post, I don't like the idea of a law being passed to curb doctor's speech. I think I can use my first amendment right to either tell the doctor I will take his information under advisement, or to just argue with him until he shuts up. I like arguing.

    Interfering with CDC policy is different. I don't want my tax dollars being wasted on politics. Guns are man-made inanimate machines. They are not living, self-replicating diseases.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Huh? So now doctors should carry their weapons when they see their patients? That's the worst idea I've heard yet.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I just knew it would get around to "Obamacare". The health care bill is not telling doctors what they can tell their patients. Oh wait- remember the fuss about death panels? You guys didn't want doctors to be able to council patients about "end of life" decisions so you wanted to tell doctors they couldn't tell patients that. The law does not interfere with doctors' ability to talk to their patients about important decisions. Government is helping to provide a framework for our system to make sure people can't be denied because of pre-existing conditions and to make sure that people have health care. Did you know that a majority of doctors favor the plan? I am for the government staying out of the doctor's office but being there for the systemic operation of the care of American citizens so we can do what virtually all other countries in the civilized world do- provide health care to their citizens. Do you consider health care to be a right? As to the rest, I don't care to read the stuff about American not being a Democracy. I actually believe that we are moving backwards at the moment in that regard but in a way that's different than you see. But that is not the subject of this post so I will not get into that here.Provide me, please, with where the government has stepped on your rights.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I am not going to answer a question about a compromise in Florida law on this blog. But " Still illegal to drink while carrying a gun. " Yes, so it is. Do bartenders ask people if they are carrying before they serve them? No. So it's too late once a person is legally over the limit if they shoot their gun. That's the problem with guns in bars. They shouldn't be there.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Red rampage- what a name, by the way- do you think I should not publish anything offensive from those on your side? I might not have many comments.But thanks for your comments. Since I publish a lot of your comments and I ask for politeness but don't always get it, I will continue monitoring my blog comments and deciding what to publish or not. Just remember- most of the offensive comments are coming from your side. That is the reason reasonable people choose not to comment on blogs. They are insulted and worse by those on your side. Just so you know....

    ReplyDelete
  29. Oh yes- many of you have told me that you believe so much in your liberty and freedom that you would take up arms against the government. Isn't that why you need to have lots of guns and high capacity mags- just in case you need them? That has been quite clear from some on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Doctors do NOT carry their guns at work. They may have permits for their personal use but they simply do not carry at work. Do you know of a clinic or hospital that allows guns on the premises? Please share that information so I know not to go to that facility.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Joan,

    I hope you understand that HIPAA only sets out how the information is to be handled and not who may see it.

    What that means is your insurance company as your proxy and their contractors are also get to see your health data. It's part of your contract
    aka "insurance plan" with them. If you go to another company they get to see that data and your doctor can too though usually by the patients history and other doctors that recommend them. With electronic mail and imaging My mamo was seen by several doctors and even known to the insurance company that paid for it within 24 hours. Now if that mamo was suspect consider all that know likely before you!

    Privacy has been given up far too often for the appearance of security.

    If a doctor needs to know you own firearms, then what car you drive and its age is also relevant as in does it have side airbags? How about if you like to hike, climb or sports that you may get hurt like skydiving and who decides which of those are risks to you or your children?

    It's easy to ignore the camels nose peaking in the tent but often difficult to remove the beast once it fully in the room with you.

    What privacy will you give up and did you tell your doctor you have firearms in the house? Or would you even answer?

    no not me

    ReplyDelete
  32. I repeat- your doctor does NOT want to know whether you have firearms in order to take them from you. You guys are really getting this one wrong. Your doctor wants to keep you safe and provide for your health care. Now it sounds like you guys or girls don't trust doctors either. My gosh- I sure as heck want the radiologists to see my mammogram and if it is sent to another doctor, I want that doctor to see it as well. Before I leave my breast clinic, I know that things are normal or not. Then I get a formal report later. I am signed up for a system where my lab results are sent to me within 24 hours of the labs or test taken. It's a great system. You are wrong about HIPAA by the way. It is to prevent certain people from seeing your records. If you have an 18 year old child, you cannot see their records or get information. If you son has just attempted suicide as an adult, you cannot get the information from the doctors even if you are that person's mother. HIPAA sets up WHO may see the information. If you sign something allowing a certain person to see your health records or get information from physicians, you MAY be able to see the information. See http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/index.html

    " For your treatment and care coordination
    To pay doctors and hospitals for your health care and to help run their businesses
    With your family, relatives, friends, or others you identify who are involved with your health care or your health care bills, unless you object
    To make sure doctors give good care and nursing homes are clean and safe
    To protect the public's health, such as by reporting when the flu is in your area
    To make required reports to the police, such as reporting gunshot wounds
    Your health information cannot be used or shared without your written permission unless this law allows it. For example, without your authorization, your provider generally cannot:

    Give your information to your employer
    Use or share your information for marketing or advertising purposes
    Share private notes about your health care"

    Note that information about gunshot wounds can be reported to police. I wonder why?? I suppose you all don't like that provision. Maybe the NRA will work to stop that practice as well.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Actually, some health care providers do carry to work or have guns in their offices. I personally know one, and I've read many accounts from others. One of the people you banned from your forum is a nurse who carries often. This is especially true for those that provide women's health services or certain psychiatric services.

    ReplyDelete
  34. There are multiple clinics in Minnesota where you can carry a firearm as a patient. Mine is not signed, for example.

    Re: Drinking and Carrying. This is legal in MN. It is not legal, however, to have a blood alcohol level over 0.04% while carrying on a "permit to carry a pistol" in Minnesota.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Re: Doctors asking about guns in the home

    It's none of my doctor's business if I own firearms. I don't mind the question, honestly, but it's not one that I'm going to answer.

    I highly doubt that my physician - or my child's physician - is going to possess the knowledge on how to properly secure a firearm in my home where it is both inaccessible to children (and a thief) yet available to the adult members of this household for personal defense.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Well Migo- I must say, that is the first I have heard of anything like that. What state are we talking about here? That would not be allowed in Minnesota. I believe almost all clinics and hospitals ban guns in their premises. I don't want my health care provider to be packing heat. That is ridiculous. For what? Doctors may be threatened by phone calls, etc, but certainly not in the exam room. That would be extremely rare. ERs have security folks to protect them there. Those providing women's health services such as abortions? What do you mean by that?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Tell me more Bryan. What clinic are you talking about? So you can carry? Do you think your doctor is carrying? Does your doctor know you are carrying if you are?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Doctors don't need to possess the knowledge of how to secure your firearms. They can, however, suggest to you that you should make sure your guns are safely stored if you have children.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I requested a comment from some doctor friends. Here is just one of them. " As you know my clinic has signs posted saying no guns allowed. I know plenty of gun enthusiasts on the medical staff, but I would be rendered stunned and senseless if I learned any of them wanted to carry a gun in the office. The idea of killing or wounding a patient is completely against the oath I took at the start of my work. If a patient wanted to do me harm or kill me, that would, by definition, indicate they are suffering from mental illness. I'm not prepared to kill or wound a sick person like that, even if they were a danger to me.

    Even if the NRA could dig up a case where a physician pulled a gun on a threatening patient, that kind of exception, by its rarity, would prove the rule: ("primum non nocere" to put it in a fancy way) above all, do no harm."

    ReplyDelete
  40. japete said...

    Even if the NRA could dig up a case where a physician pulled a gun on a threatening patient, that kind of exception, by its rarity, would prove the rule: ("primum non nocere" to put it in a fancy way) above all, do no harm."


    Nowhere in any of the many versions of the Hippocratic oath does it say "I won't defend myself". "Do no harm" pertains to medical care, and medical care alone. It does not prove that medical providers will never defend themselves, and it does not prove that they would never need to, by your own admission.

    The doctors and nurses I know who carry do so because they know that it won't be a hospital administrator that has to deal with rival gang members in the ER or a psychotic patient with a grudge. And sure, there are plenty of people that don't believe in defending themselves, in lots of different job fields. Despite what I've been hearing a lot lately from certain people, violent crime is so rare in this country that most people can get away with pretending it doesn't exist without regretting it later.

    ReplyDelete
  41. japete said...

    Doctors do NOT carry their guns at work. They may have permits for their personal use but they simply do not carry at work. Do you know of a clinic or hospital that allows guns on the premises? Please share that information so I know not to go to that facility.
    March 10, 2011 3:46 PM



    Joan-

    I see I was a little hasty in thanking you for posting all of my comments. Thanks for making me feel like a chump.

    I know doctors who carry guns at work. I know it offends your sensibilities, but not posting my comments doesn't make it less true.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anon- you certainly hang out with an entirely different crew of doctors and nurses than I and my friends.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Joan,

    My handle is Red R A M A G E. Not rampage. No p in there. As in Lawson P. "Red" Ramage, submarine skipper of some note from WWII. http://www.ussnautilus.org/undersea/ramage.html

    And I have no doubt that you get a lot of insulting comments from "my side". I'm just pointing out that what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Sorry Red, It might be easier if I call you that.

    ReplyDelete
  45. japete said...

    Anon- you certainly hang out with an entirely different crew of doctors and nurses than I and my friends.
    March 10, 2011 8:03 PM

    But that doesn't mean that we don't exist.
    Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Joan. I supplied the link. You said you would eat your words. Live up to your statement


    Hospitals that allow guns.

    Well the Mayo clinic does not have the signs.

    Southdale hospital does not have signs.

    I know seven doctors and two dentists as well as three pediatricians who carry.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "That would not be allowed in Minnesota. I believe almost all clinics and hospitals ban guns in their premises."

    We've explained this. It's not against the law. They can only ask you to leave, and why would they? They'll never know.

    "I don't want my health care provider to be packing heat."

    Well, YOU'LL never know unless you frisk him or her.

    "That is ridiculous. For what? Doctors may be threatened by phone calls, etc, but certainly not in the exam room."

    There is nothing magical about an exam room.

    Johns Hopkins Hospital: Gunman Shoots Doctor, Then Kills Self and Mother
    http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=11654462

    Gunman Kills 1 in Utah Hospital Siege : Standoff: He gives up after holding nine hostages, including three infants, in maternity wing for 17 hours. Explosives are found by police.
    http://articles.latimes.com/1991-0922/news/mn-4033_1_maternity-wing

    KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — A mentally ill convenience store operator took a revolver with him to look for the doctor he believed implanted a tracking device in his body during an appendectomy in 2001. Told the doctor wasn't at the hospital, he went to a nearby parking lot and opened fire on three hospital workers he apparently didn't know, killing one of them.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20100420/us-tennessee-hospital-shooting/

    Gunman Kills Doctor, Medical Aide in Tulare
    http://articles.latimes.com/1993-07-29/news/mn-18213_1_gunman-kills-doctor

    A patient at a Massachusetts General Hospital bipolar clinic stabbed his psychiatrist during a treatment session yesterday afternoon, and was then shot dead by an off-duty security guard
    http://mobile.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/10/28/doctor_stabbed_attacker_killed_at_massachusetts_general_hospital/

    Doctor Stabbed In ER; Patient Faces Battery Charge
    http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/oct/28/291626/patient-stabs-doctor-brandon-hospital/news-metro/

    "That would be extremely rare."

    About as rare as "concealed carry killers".

    "ERs have security folks to protect them there."

    The ER that I worked had unarmed security and they were outside the ER. It only takes a fraction of a second to get shot or stabbed.

    "Those providing women's health services such as abortions? What do you mean by that?"

    That's pretty clear- abortion doctors receive threats pretty frequently. There is a VERY high percentage of carry permits in that specialty.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "P- this is crazy talk and absolutely false- " t was the American pediatrics policy to remove ALL guns from homes with kids as a public health issue.
    " That is so untrue as to strain your integrity. There is no such policy in place coming from the American Pediatric society. If you can produce one, I would have to eat my words. Such lies are ridiculous and should not be repeated by your side but undoubtedly are to get you guys all in a tizzy over this stuff."

    Caring for your baby and young child: Birth to Age 5

    by the American Academy of Pediatrics, Steven P. Shelov

    Page 470

    The most effective way to prevent firearm-related injury to children is to keep guns out of homes and communities. The American Academy of Pediatriacs strongly supports gun-control legislation. We believe that handguns, deadly air guns, and assault weapons should be banned.

    Until handguns are banned, we recommend that handguns and handgun ammunition be regulated, that restrictions be placed on handgun ownership, and that the number of privately owned handguns be reduced. Firearms should be removed from the environments where children live and play.....


    Looks like maybe P was right.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Red Ramage, That goose and gander thing is silly. For you to be personally insulted to the point of asking the blog hostess to delete comments over my calling the NRA a bunch of bullying idiots stretches the imagination's ability to take you seriously. But, just in case you really were offended by that, I apologize and freely admit my point could have easily been made without the use of the word "idiots."

    The point remains about bully tactics. That's what they do and that's what you do by defending them.

    You didn't say anything about La Pierre's famous remarks, which by the way, many of us take offense at. Many of us consider what he says and the way he says it as bullying.

    You did say that you're against prohibiting the doctor in Florida treating a slight gun shot wound from asking questions. On that we agree.

    ReplyDelete
  50. P- though I am blown away by the fact that any doctor carries a weapon while providing medical services to patients and find that totally unncessary and disgusting, I realize that some hospitals have not posted signs. As to the Mayo Clinic, the one in Arizona has signs up. I have not looked into this one but will find out whether they actually allow guns in their facilities. I would be very surprised to find out that they allow guns or that their doctors and nurses are allowed to pack heat while on the job. The picture of a doctor, bending over to do a pap smear or examining a patient with a gun holsterd to their leg or elsewhere is so repugnant to me that I can hardly go there. I am quite sure that most agree with me. Perhaps this is worth some polling. I may work on that one. Do you want your medical provider to be carrying a loaded gun on their person during your annual physical? Do you want the nurse on the floor to be packing heat while injecting you with medication or turning you over in your bed after you have suffered an injury? Do you want your physician assistant to be packing heat while looking down your throat with their light? Do you want your child's pediatrician to have a concealed and loaded gun on their person while holding a stethoscope to your child's chest? Do you think it's a good idea for the surgeon taking out your appendix to have a loaded gun on their person? Do you think it's a good idea for your dentist to carry a loaded gun while drilling your teeth?

    ReplyDelete
  51. To think that doctors would carry guns to protect themselves from these incidents you provided links for is ridiculous. As we all know, people take others totally by surprise when attacks like these take place. There is rarely time to react in time to prevent the situation. To think a doctor would start shooting when something like this happens is anathema to what doctors believe. Do no harm. Imagine a scene where a shooter starts shooting up people in the hospital as at John Hopkins. The chances that more people would get shot when medical personnel take out their own guns is great. Panic ensues. Adrenaline takes over. Who knows who the actual shooter is when everyone on the floor has their guns out? It is preposterous to think that doctors and nurses should be carrying on the job.

    ReplyDelete
  52. from the American Academy of Pediatricians- " This statement reaffirms the 1992 position of the American Academy of Pediatrics that the absence of guns from children's homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents. A number of specific measures are supported to reduce the destructive effects of guns in the lives of children and adolescents, including the regulation of the manufacture, sale, purchase, ownership, and use of firearms; a ban on handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons; and expanded regulations of handguns for civilian use. In addition, this statement reviews recent data, trends, prevention, and intervention strategies of the past 5 years." Robin- I think you were citing an individual pediatrician's position from a book written by him.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "Robin- I think you were citing an individual pediatrician's position from a book written by him.
    "

    Nope! If you look at the book it says "by the American Academy of Pediatrics" so we can only assume it accurately shows their position.

    But even so, you just quoted at statement from the AAP website advocating the absense of guns from the the homes and communities. So how was P's statement "this is crazy talk and absolutely false" or "" That is so untrue as to strain your integrity?"

    You went off on P, I would like to understand how you are parsing this to say that "It was the American pediatrics policy to remove ALL guns from homes with kids as a public health issue" is not an accurate statement. Isn't that what "This statement reaffirms the 1992 position of the American Academy of Pediatrics that the absence of guns from children's homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure..." is saying?

    ReplyDelete
  54. MikeB:
    "You didn't say anything about La Pierre's famous remarks, which by the way, many of us take offense at. Many of us consider what he says and the way he says it as bullying."

    I'll address them, because I understood exactly what he meant. I try not to speak for other people, but since Mr. LaPierre isn't here to defend himself from misinterpretations of his statement, here goes.

    Didn't he say something to the effect of "Those with the guns make the rules?" That is my understanding, if I remember correctly.

    What you see as "We are the NRA and we have guns so we make the rules!"...

    I saw as him pointing out that if a citizenry keeps their right to bear arms then they continue to make the rules. A government with a monopoly on force has no reason to fear making any law it wants or abridging any freedom it so desires.

    Look at the Libyan president. You think will step down because of sharply worded editorials in his country's newspapers? You think he cares about the freedom of speech? No, it is because his oppressed people have taken up arms against a dictator that has him worried.

    LaPierre's comment was exactly the same. We (meaning private US citizens) have the guns, so we make the rules. Not some elite "ruling class" like in other countries who've had their right to keep and bear arms infringed.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Do you want your medical provider to be carrying a loaded gun on their person during your annual physical? Do you want the nurse on the floor to be packing heat while injecting you with medication or turning you over in your bed after you have suffered an injury? Do you want your physician assistant to be packing heat while looking down your throat with their light? Do you want your child's pediatrician to have a concealed and loaded gun on their person while holding a stethoscope to your child's chest? Do you think it's a good idea for the surgeon taking out your appendix to have a loaded gun on their person? Do you think it's a good idea for your dentist to carry a loaded gun while drilling your teeth?

    japete - it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket if he or she does. In what way am I possibly harmed? What business is it of mine? And how would I know?

    Unlike you, I have no disabling phobias in that area.


    It certainly doesn't harm my dental hygenist that I am packing (and yes, cocked and locked) as she cleans my teeth . . . .

    ReplyDelete
  56. "The point remains about bully tactics. That's what they do and that's what you do by defending them."

    That's what LOBBYISTS do. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

    "You didn't say anything about La Pierre's famous remarks, which by the way, many of us take offense at. Many of us consider what he says and the way he says it as bullying."

    Which famous remarks? That laws are enforced by people with guns? I fail to see the controversy, although I can see how that would be disconcerting to someone who thinks civilization "just happens".

    In a democracy, "THE PEOPLE" make the rules. And as long as we are armed, it'll stay that way.


    "You did say that you're against prohibiting the doctor in Florida treating a slight gun shot wound from asking questions. On that we agree."

    No he didn't. He said he was against the legislation in question.

    "Suspicious Wounds or Injuries. Physicians, including residents and interns, are required by law to report to the appropriate Medical Examiner injuries apparently made by a deadly weapon. ORS 146.750. In these circumstances state law requires disclosure, and therefore HIPAA permits it."

    As it should be. A lot of unsuccessful home invaders get caught that way.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "The picture of a doctor, bending over to do a pap smear or examining a patient with a gun holsterd to their leg or elsewhere is so repugnant to me that I can hardly go there. I am quite sure that most agree with me. Perhaps this is worth some polling. I may work on that one. Do you want your medical provider to be carrying a loaded gun on their person during your annual physical? Do you want the nurse on the floor to be packing heat while injecting you with medication or turning you over in your bed after you have suffered an injury? Do you want your physician assistant to be packing heat while looking down your throat with their light? Do you want your child's pediatrician to have a concealed and loaded gun on their person while holding a stethoscope to your child's chest? Do you think it's a good idea for the surgeon taking out your appendix to have a loaded gun on their person? Do you think it's a good idea for your dentist to carry a loaded gun while drilling your teeth?"


    None of this is the least bit alarming. It may have already happened and you didn't even know it.

    Sleep tight.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Oregon state law does not prohibit those with a concealed carry permit from carrying firearms in hospitals. The major hospitals here also do not have a firearms policy, instead deferring to state law. In Oregon a person with a concealed carry permit can carry anywhere a law enforcement officer can.

    In fact, I don't remember any barriers to firearms when I entered the locked psychiatric ward in one of our hospitals upon visiting a friend who had "cracked" under the stress of losing his wife to cancer. I wasn't armed at the time and I probably wouldn't be in that specific situation. I also don't remember any firearm restrictions when I accompanied a friend to an abortion (yes, women's health services) clinic that was located in a secure building with restricted access. Lee Ann Nichols and Shannon Lowney changed the way these clinics are operated today, and I believe abortion clinic attacks today are rare partly because of the legal concealed firearm.

    ERs might have armed security, but small clinics certainly don't.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Joan, I think your exaggerating. I seriously doubt physicians have guns on hand like a stethoscope. I've never heard of a physician carrying a gun during an examination. What I've heard is of doctors keeping a gun in their office or carrying one with them to and from work especially after they have received death threats. You are aware that there are some people out there that truly hate doctors who provide abortion services, even though many of those same doctors do much more than abortion. Right?

    ReplyDelete
  60. "I am quite sure that most agree with me. "

    Hardly. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

    Heck, I'd lay odds that someone in my dentist office is always carrying. I'd never know though, because concealed means concealed.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Do you want your $medical_professional to have a gun on their person while performing $medical_service ?

    What difference does it make? Is a nurse with a pistol somehow less capable than one without? Does it get in the way?

    I don't get it...

    ReplyDelete
  62. "Tell me more Bryan. What clinic are you talking about? So you can carry? Do you think your doctor is carrying? Does your doctor know you are carrying if you are? "

    From personal knowledge, Mayo Clinic is not signed in Rochester. Most Dr. offices in Woodbury aren't signed - Woodwinds Hospital in Woodbury isn't signed. I could go on and on.

    I have no idea if my personal physician carries, nor do I care. And if he did, it wouldn't bother me in the least.

    With more than 80,000 people carrying firearms legally in Minnesota, I imagine there are many around us that we'll never know about. And that's fine with me.
    b

    ReplyDelete
  63. "Doctors don't need to possess the knowledge of how to secure your firearms. They can, however, suggest to you that you should make sure your guns are safely stored if you have children. "

    If they don't know how to answer the question properly, they shouldn't be asking it.

    If they want to ask and then refer someone to competent instruction (like an NRA Certified Instructor who is certified in the Home Firearms Safety discipline), then I think that's that's acceptable.

    But personally, I prefer to work with Doctors who don't ask those sorts of questions. I don't want politics mixed in with my healthcare.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  64. alcade, La Pierre is a laughing stock to everyone except the biased gun owners. And since not all gun owners are biased, you're in a small minority, which, by the way, I agree with Heather, matters not. It's not a popularity contest.

    My point is what he says is wrong. The people who vote make the rules, supposedly. Even that's debatable, but it's a helluva lot more acceptable than the adolescent, school-yard, bullying, even threatening, remark he made.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "My point is what he says is wrong. The people who vote make the rules, supposedly. Even that's debatable, but it's a helluva lot more acceptable than the adolescent, school-yard, bullying, even threatening, remark he made."
    March 13, 2011 10:00 AM


    No, you're interpreting it wrong.

    Just like his statement that the lawlessness in Egypt showed that the 2nd Amendment is still relevant got somehow turned into "Egyptians should violently overthrow the government", once again your side hears what it wants to.

    ReplyDelete
  66. It's actually going the other way, Alcade. Wayne LaPierre is plain wrong and the whole world knows it- or most of them with the exception of the gun guys. You guys are really out of touch if you believe in what La Pierre said about Egypt. His statement was totally irrelevant and beside the point. The NRA is becoming a dinosaur.

    ReplyDelete
  67. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20031399-503544.html

    LaPierre said that the situation in Egypt shows that the Second Amendment remains necessary, as illustrated by the protests in Egypt. He said that "the presence of a firearm" in the hands of good people "makes us all safer."

    As was pointed out in the "Big Girl Panties" post, it was the military that secured Tahrir Square and made it safe for the anti-government protestors. It was not rainbows and unicorns that brought an end to the rock throwing, molotov cocktails, shooting, and beatings. It was men with guns.
    They made the rules, and so far Egypt is better for it.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I find it amusing that you guys just can't accept the non violent change of government in Egypt. The military was on the side of the protesters but didn't use their weapons to secure Tahrir Square. We have gone over this before and we disagree but the facts are on the side of what I have said. Rainbows and unicorns? Put downs- what you guys do so well.

    ReplyDelete
  69. This is part of an eyewitness account by an Egyptian academic. Read the whole thing for a good understanding of what happened. Just a few key points below.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/the_story_of_the_egyptian_revo.html
    ---------------------------------------
    ...First there was massive anger vented at symbols of state oppression such as the ruling party's headquarters. More drastically, in what can only be described as systematic targeting, police stations everywhere were attacked. Every police station in Cairo was looted, the weapons in them stolen and then burned. At the same time, massive looting was taking place. Even the Egyptian Museum, which hosts some of the world's greatest heritage, was not spared.

    Saturday was indescribable. Nothing that I write can describe the utter state of lawlessness that prevailed. Every Egyptian prison was attacked by organized groups trying to free the prisoners inside. In the case of the prisons holding regular criminals this was done by their families and friends. In the case of the prisons with the political prisoners this was done by the Islamists. Bulldozers were used in those attacks and the weapons available from the looting of police stations were available. Nearly all the prisons fell. The prison forces simply could not deal with such an onslaught and no reinforcements were available. Nearly every terrorist held in the Egyptian prisons from those that bombed the Alexandria Church less than a month ago to the Murderer of Anwar El Sadat was freed, the later reportedly being arrested again tonight.

    On the streets of Cairo it was the scene of a jungle. With no law enforcement in town and the army at a loss at how to deal with it, it was the golden opportunity for everyone. In a city that is surrounded with slums, thousands of thieves fell on their neighboring richer districts. People were robbed in broad daylight, houses were invaded, and stores looted and burned. Egypt had suddenly fallen back to the State of Nature. Panicking, people started grabbing whatever weapon they could find and forming groups to protect their houses. As the day progressed the street defense committees became more organized. Every building had its men standing in front of it with everything they could find from personal guns, knives to sticks. Women started preparing Molotov bombs using alcohol bottles. Street committees started coordinating themselves. Every major crossroad had now groups of citizens stopping all passing cars checking their ID cards and searching the cars for weapons. Machine guns were in high demand and were sold in the streets.

    A friend of mine was shot at by a gang of thieves and another actually killed one of them to defend his house and wife. Another friend's brother arrested 37 thieves that day. The army's only role in all of this was to pass by each area to pick up the arrested thieves. Army officers informed the street committees that anyone with an illegal weapon should not worry and should use it. Any death of one of the thieves would not be punished.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Anon- I am considering the source you cited above. About the editors: "A Democrat by birth, Thomas became more conservative in adulthood as reality taught him that dreams of perfecting human society always runs smack into human nature" Thomas Lifson. Rick Moran-" He also serves as the Chicago editor of Pajamas Media and is the proprietor of the website Right Wing Nuthouse." Marc Sheppard-" A healed former liberal, he swapped his subscription to Rolling Stone for National Review over twenty years ago. Now an unrepentant skeptic, Marc writes commentary on culture, media, education, and politics, with a watchful eye on ideological hijacking through the misrepresentation of science and technology." Richard Baehr-" He has been a guest on many talk radio programs, including those of Michael Medved, Dennis Miller, and Milt Rosenberg. " J.R. Dunn-"His first book on politics deals with the inexplicably overlooked fact that liberal policies (criminal justice "reform," the CAFE standards, the DDT ban, etc.) tend to kill Americans by the tens of thousands. Provisionally titled Death by Liberalism, the book will be appearing later this year."

    ReplyDelete
  71. This was published on multiple websites. The AUTHOR is who you should focus on.

    http://www1.georgetown.edu/departments/democracyandgovernance/81896.html

    DG Student, Union of the Egyptian Liberal Youth (EULY) receive Templeton Award

    Congratulations to the Union of the Egyptian Liberal Youth (EULY) and DG student and EULY senior partner Samuel Tadros!  EULY recently won an "Award for Special Achievement by a Young Institute" in the Atlas Economic Research Foundation's 2009 Templeton Freedom Awards for Excellence in Promoting Liberty.  The Templeton Freedom Awards are the largest international awards program for think tanks. Samuel will join EULY at Atlas's Freedom Dinner on November 9th, 2009 in Washington, D.C., when the organization will be recognized for its “Why Am I a Liberal?” essay competition, the first of its kind in the Arab world.

    ReplyDelete
  72. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Revolution_of_2011

    There have been at least 384 deaths reported, and over 6,000 have been injured. The capital city of Cairo was described as "a war zone,"[15] and the port city of Suez has been the scene of frequent violent clashes. The government imposed a curfew that protesters defied and that the police and military did not enforce. The presence of Egypt's Central Security Forces police, loyal to Mubarak, was gradually replaced by largely restrained military troops. In the absence of police, there was looting by gangs that opposition sources said were instigated by plainclothes police officers. In response, civilians self-organised watch groups to protect neighbourhoods.[16][17][18][19][20]


    Also, look at this diagram-

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/03/world/middleeast/20110203-tahrir-square-protest-diagram.html


    Pay particular attention to the enormous "Army controlled area" that "was the scene of fierce clashes between pro- and antigovernment demonstrators just a few days earlier."

    ReplyDelete
  73. Oh yes, Egypt's change in government was quite peaceful. Lara Logan was just exaggerating, right? I suppose American women who carry concealed guns for self-defense should just turn in their guns to the local police chief and use Lara as an example of how to behave when they are approached by "non-violent" men who will strip, punch, and slap them.

    What about Libya? That's another non-violent change in government, right?

    Setting all sarcasm aside, the view that the change in Egypt's government was non-violent is an extremely narrow one. I don't find what happened to Lara Logan amusing at all. Not one bit.

    ReplyDelete
  74. First of all, Migo, I am wondering how we got to discussing Egypt on this post at all? That's a good tactic for you all- go off topic and maybe I'll forget what I was originally writing about. I have not forgotten and I am not getting into further discussion about Egypt or Tunisia or Libya. That is for another blog unless I choose to write about it. But now that you said what you did, most agree that what happened in Egypt was a non-violent protest leading to a relatively peaceful change in government. There was some violence. I never said there wasn't any. But the whole world is holding up what happened in Egypt as a non violent overthrow of a government as opposed to, for example, Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I believe the Egypt discussion began with your article on February 17. Looking back on that article, I can see that you are just as disgusted over the reporter being hurt as I am, so I'm sorry this has come full circle. I hadn't made any comments on this subject until now, because I can't continue reading about the Egyptian situation being non-violent while remembering incidents like that of the reporter.

    Generally speaking, I think both of us are in agreement that non-violent change of power is the best solution. For me, non-violent solutions are always the best. I think where we differ is that I would prefer to be armed and never have to use my gun, then not be armed when I need it most.

    ReplyDelete