Doctor Turned Kids Away Over Gun Question

[The Annoyed Man]

I have no problem with anyone encouraging proper weapon storage in a home with small children. In fact, that is one area IMHO, the pro-gun lobby organizations (including, but not limited to) the NRA is not vocal enough.

I know this may not be a popular opinion here but I think that the NRA should go as far as to market and sell a low cost, quick access, handgun safe marketed to families with small children. And perhaps even, don't throw tomatoes at me, subsidize them for low income families. It would be the most expedient way to disarm the argument that the pro-gun crowd doesn't care that children are killed by guns in homes - and perhaps save a few lives in the process.

Terry, I've got to respectfully disagree. Here's why...

The NRA has actively sought for YEARS to promote the Eddie the Eagle program, for the express purpose of teaching children about gun safety. But gun safety isn't really the (typical) liberal's agenda. Gun banning is their agenda. Now, I know that some of our members call themselves liberals, and even wear the label proudly. But I am sure that even you guys know the type of person I mean. In any case, since gun safety is not their agenda, they won't allow it to be taught to children, at least not in venues in which the children are under their control. That is hardly the NRA's fault. But God bless the NRA; they keep trying to make headway in this area, and they haven't given up.

As to safe storage, the NRA has advocated for that. But, they can't really compete with big store chains like Cabelas, Bass Pro, and Academy - just to name the first three that come to mind - when it comes to offering cheap, affordable, effective gun storage. I have a gun lock box in my car right now that I bought from Cabela's for about $30. But beyond the idea of competing, the NRA's mission is gun rights advocacy, not retail sales. In fact, most of what they sell is over-priced for the quality, exactly because they are using those sales as a fund-raising tool.

Since they've already advocated for in-home gun safety (and continue to do so), I don't see it as their proper mission to provide inexpensive safe gun storage to people, most of whom are not even NRA members. Remember that the NRA is approximately 3 or 4 million people. Gun owners are probably something on the order of 80 or 90 million people. The NRA already advocates for the rights of those 80 or 90 million, who get a benefit from NRA's efforts, but who do not support the NRA financially. Why should the NRA lose money to sell them cheap gun storage, when the commercial sporting goods chains can do so even more efficiently and cheaply?

As for subsidizing the giving of those things to families who are poor, I sympathize with their plight, but I don't give money to the NRA for that purpose. I give money to the NRA to litigate where necessary, influence legislation wherever possible, and advocate always. Their job is advocacy, not charity — particularly not when the cost of a cheap lock box is about the same as a carton of cigarettes or a case of beer.

I laud your concern for the chirren, I really do. And I approve of your concern for those who struggle financially. Those are worthy emotions. But charity begins in the home, and it is not worth as much if the giving is not sacrificial. If you see someone struggling like that, go buy them the lock box and give it to them out of Christian love, and then remind them to join the NRA when they get back on their feet.

See? Not one tomato.

[baldeagle]

If I had young kids and their pediatrician asked me that question, this is how I would answer.

That's none of your business. I pay you to monitor my children's health and advise my wife and I about proper courses of care in the event of illness. I don't pay you for things you aren't trained to do, such as advising me on financial matters, discussing how I discipline my children or questioning whether or not I am a responsible parent. If you find it impossible to restrain yourself to your field of expertise, then I need to find a different pediatrician. Next question?

[Hoi Polloi]

Do you know how impossible it is to find a pediatrician who is decent? Then narrow it down to those who have decent hours, decent staff, and decent rules (instead of rules like cancel the well-child appt at least 5 days in advance or we charge you for the visit and insurance won't cover it since you didn't come, and you can't bring a sick child to a well-child visit so you'd better hope your well child doesn't get sick within 5 days of the appointment.) THEN you have to choose between the remaining few on which ones best share your values regarding health care. And if you have any non-mainstream opinions about that, you might not find a one.

Most mothers understand that their pediatricians will give them little lectures about things they disagree on and they will nod their heads and smile and thank the good doc for her advice then move on. Most I know have a lot of non-mainstream opinions on things like chiropractic care, homeopathy, immunizations, weaning, contraceptives, antibiotics, sleeping arrangements, discipline, and much more. They have to choose the battles they really care about if they are going to see an MD at all (and a few I know can't even find an MD they can tolerate). Asking if you have guns in the home is just such a non-issue. What's the doc going to do about it? Nothing. Much better to fight the battle over not putting your breastfed baby on formula because she's a little jaundiced because the doc will effect change there if you give in. If she asks if you have guns, much easier to say no or to ask why and let her give the speech or to say that the only guns you have are under lock and key to keep them away from the kids to cut her off at the pass. Everyone is happy and you move on.

And about this article: the woman refused to tell the doc but now she has her name plastered all over the international media. Smart. The doc sounds like a jerk based on the comments. He apparently gives pink slips to lots of patients. It sounds like he runs a Medicaid clinic--taking all the low-cost insurance and then packing the patients in and giving them inadequate care because he has a low but steady return and they have little recourse to do anything about it.

[terryg]

See? Not one tomato.

I appreciate that!

Terry, I've got to respectfully disagree. Here's why...

The NRA has actively sought for YEARS to promote the Eddie the Eagle program, for the express purpose of teaching children about gun safety. But gun safety isn't really the (typical) liberal's agenda. Gun banning is their agenda. Now, I know that some of our members call themselves liberals, and even wear the label proudly. But I am sure that even you guys know the type of person I mean. In any case, since gun safety is not their agenda, they won't allow it to be taught to children, at least not in venues in which the children are under their control. That is hardly the NRA's fault. But God bless the NRA; they keep trying to make headway in this area, and they haven't given up.

As to safe storage, the NRA has advocated for that. But, they can't really compete with big store chains like Cabelas, Bass Pro, and Academy - just to name the first three that come to mind - when it comes to offering cheap, affordable, effective gun storage. I have a gun lock box in my car right now that I bought from Cabela's for about $30. But beyond the idea of competing, the NRA's mission is gun rights advocacy, not retail sales. In fact, most of what they sell is over-priced for the quality, exactly because they are using those sales as a fund-raising tool.

Since they've already advocated for in-home gun safety (and continue to do so), I don't see it as their proper mission to provide inexpensive safe gun storage to people, most of whom are not even NRA members. Remember that the NRA is approximately 3 or 4 million people. Gun owners are probably something on the order of 80 or 90 million people. The NRA already advocates for the rights of those 80 or 90 million, who get a benefit from NRA's efforts, but who do not support the NRA financially. Why should the NRA lose money to sell them cheap gun storage, when the commercial sporting goods chains can do so even more efficiently and cheaply?

As for subsidizing the giving of those things to families who are poor, I sympathize with their plight, but I don't give money to the NRA for that purpose. I give money to the NRA to litigate where necessary, influence legislation wherever possible, and advocate always. Their job is advocacy, not charity — particularly not when the cost of a cheap lock box is about the same as a carton of cigarettes or a case of beer.

I laud your concern for the chirren, I really do. And I approve of your concern for those who struggle financially. Those are worthy emotions. But charity begins in the home, and it is not worth as much if the giving is not sacrificial. If you see someone struggling like that, go buy them the lock box and give it to them out of Christian love, and then remind them to join the NRA when they get back on their feet.

I did say selling, but I the concept in my mind was more of 'endorsing'. Working with a manufacturer to develop a very low cost handgun safe and then stamping 'NRA approved' all over it. It would then be sold at Walmart, Academy, or wherever. But all perhaps that is a bit too far.

But the main idea is that I think the NRA brand should be as synonymous with gun safety and responsible gun ownership as it with lobbying, litigation, and advocacy in other areas.

You listed the Eddie for Eagle program and stated that the NRA does advocate for in-home gun safety - addressing the two most important aspects of preventing accidental injury to children. I applaud those actions, but think they should be *much* *much* more vocal. How can I say that? We all have a liberal friend or two. ;) Ask one of them if they are aware of any gun safety programs associated with the NRA ... <crickets chirping>

What I am talking about would be full scale PSA commercials, magazine advertising, etc. I agree with you that the far left wants to completely ban all firearms - no question. It is horribly tragic when children are killed or injured by unsecured handguns - and also entirely preventable. It is also the one of the last powerful arguments available to the anti-gun lobby. IMO all 2A organizations aught to be the poster children for responsible gun ownership in all of its forms. No one who hasn't been living behind a rock should be unaware that the NRA fiercely advocates and educates for firearm safety in the home.

But perhaps the "NRA approved Safe-Home Gun Safe" is a bit over the top - but I do feel they could - and should - being doing more. But that's just my thoughts on the subject - that and 3 quarters will get you a coke.

[terryg]

If I had young kids and their pediatrician asked me that question, this is how I would answer.

That's none of your business. I pay you to monitor my children's health and advise my wife and I about proper courses of care in the event of illness. I don't pay you for things you aren't trained to do, such as advising me on financial matters, discussing how I discipline my children or questioning whether or not I am a responsible parent. If you find it impossible to restrain yourself to your field of expertise, then I need to find a different pediatrician. Next question?

I don't agree. Is it improper for the pediatrician to ask and recommend that children wear bicycles helmets when riding? What about asking about seat belt use in the car? How many times have you passed a car and witnessed a young child climbing around without a seatbelt? I know we all did this when we were kids - but most of us now know that this is not a very wise practice.

If the purpose of asking is to open a door for education about safe behavior - I truly don't see a problem. Not everyone is as educated about potential risks.

It is when punitive actions are taken, such as in this case, that the line has been crossed. I'm all about parental soverginty. I madder than a three-legged cat trying to bury thugs on a frozen pond when Gov. Perry tried to force 12 year old girls to get the Gardasil Vaccine. I was ready to refuse it all the way to court, if required. So trust me, I do understand the limits.

[5thGenTexan]

Just answer no and go on down the road, yes and it goes on the forever electronic socialist med charts that's comming from with Obamacare.

It has no bearing on medical care or history.

[Oldgringo]

The medic asking the parents is one thing. When the medic asks the kids, that's a horse of another color. Can anyone say "1984"?

[terryg]

The medic asking the parents is one thing. When the medic asks the kids, that's a horse of another color. Can anyone say "1984"?

I do agree with that!

[baldeagle]

I don't agree. Is it improper for the pediatrician to ask and recommend that children wear bicycles helmets when riding?

Yes, I think it's entirely improper. It's none of the doctor's business. He's there to determine the health needs of my children, not check to see if I'm parenting properly.

What about asking about seat belt use in the car?

None of his business. The government is intrusive enough without allowing people you engage for services asking you those questions.

I'm a computer security expert. Would you appreciate me asking you if you lock your guns? Wear your seatbelt? Make your children wear safety helmets? How is that relevant to my job? And no, it's not relevant to the pediatrician's job either, unless you think somehow that knowing you wear seat belts and insist that your children do as well impacts their diagnosis somehow.

How many times have you passed a car and witnessed a young child climbing around without a seatbelt? I know we all did this when we were kids - but most of us now know that this is not a very wise practice.

I see all sorts of things that parents do that I disagree with. But I tell my wife, not them, because I'm not responsible for them nor would they appreciate me lecturing them. That's what's wrong with America today. Everybody thinks they need to be up in everybody else's business. Go live your own life and leave me alone. You will have more than enough of your own problems that you'll never need to take the time to solve mine.

[Oldgringo]

I don't agree. Is it improper for the pediatrician to ask and recommend that children wear bicycles helmets when riding?

Yes, I think it's entirely improper. It's none of the doctor's business. He's there to determine the health needs of my children, not check to see if I'm parenting properly.

What about asking about seat belt use in the car?

None of his business. The government is intrusive enough without allowing people you engage for services asking you those questions.

I'm a computer security expert. Would you appreciate me asking you if you lock your guns? Wear your seatbelt? Make your children wear safety helmets? How is that relevant to my job? And no, it's not relevant to the pediatrician's job either, unless you think somehow that knowing you wear seat belts and insist that your children do as well impacts their diagnosis somehow.

How many times have you passed a car and witnessed a young child climbing around without a seatbelt? I know we all did this when we were kids - but most of us now know that this is not a very wise practice.

I see all sorts of things that parents do that I disagree with. But I tell my wife, not them, because I'm not responsible for them nor would they appreciate me lecturing them. That's what's wrong with America today. Everybody thinks they need to be up in everybody else's business. Go live your own life and leave me alone. You will have more than enough of your own problems that you'll never need to take the time to solve mine.

An all around good response.

[The Annoyed Man]

You listed the Eddie for Eagle program and stated that the NRA does advocate for in-home gun safety - addressing the two most important aspects of preventing accidental injury to children. I applaud those actions, but think they should be *much* *much* more vocal. How can I say that? We all have a liberal friend or two. ;) Ask one of them if they are aware of any gun safety programs associated with the NRA ... <crickets chirping>

But you see, I would submit that your friends are unaware of these things because the only thing they know about the NRA is whatever Keith Olberman and liberal politicians them. That's on your friends, not on the NRA, because the NRA is already publishing ads, putting up billboards, and buying TV time ("Hi, I'm [substitute name of celebrity NRA member], and I'm the NRA"), not to mention publishing a magazine with a circulation of 2 or 3 million.

A lot of liberals are shockingly intellectually incurious. They are comfortable in their cliched trope, and they are unwilling to consider anything that requires them to stretch themselves a bit. That's not the NRA's fault, nor can the NRA cure it. One has to have enough brain cells to rub together to actually investigate the world one lives in. If one is not that intellectually rigorous, then if would be a feckless use of the money for the NRA to spend $20 billion a year on advertising which promotes safety, because the message just isn't going to get through. The information is already there. It's very public. Nobody is hiding it. But liberals, for the most part, aren't curious enough to read it and give consideration to its implications.

As far as the NRA endorsing a safety product by licensing its logo for use in moving that product, that would probably be OK, as long as there was a material benefit to the NRA in terms of royalties to compensate the organization for the dilution of its brand.

[terryg]

I don't agree. Is it improper for the pediatrician to ask and recommend that children wear bicycles helmets when riding?

Yes, I think it's entirely improper. It's none of the doctor's business. He's there to determine the health needs of my children, not check to see if I'm parenting properly.

It has nothing to do with verifying whether or not you are parenting properly and everything to do with make sure you have the information you need to make correct decisions. That's the line of parental sovereignty. You then take that information and decide what is best for your family. This doctor in FL crossed that line.

What about asking about seat belt use in the car?

None of his business. The government is intrusive enough without allowing people you engage for services asking you those questions.

I am engaging their service because they are a trusted partner. They have education and experience that i don't, and can not possibly, have. Does that mean I take everything thing they say and every opinion offered as gospel? No. But do I appreciate and value their services and opinions? You betcha! I wouldn't waste my time or money if that were not true. Have they first hand seen young children's lives ruined in ways that I can not possibly imagine? I know in fact that they have. Helping equip me with information that can prevent accidental harm to my child absolutely has a bearing on the health of my child. So I value their input.

I'm a computer security expert. Would you appreciate me asking you if you lock your guns? Wear your seatbelt? Make your children wear safety helmets? How is that relevant to my job?

It's not - not at all. However, if I was contracting your services regularly to check-up on the overall health of my computer and you, being aware of a recent threat, decided to ask and advise me not to respond to email correspondence from others seeking assistance in transferring a great deal of wealth from an oppressive European regime, I wouldn't think it was so horribly out of place. It would seem right in line with the shared goal of keeping my computer safe and running well. Does that mean I will not still fall victim to a similar scam. No - of course not. But knowledge is seldom a bad thing.

How many times have you passed a car and witnessed a young child climbing around without a seatbelt? I know we all did this when we were kids - but most of us now know that this is not a very wise practice.

I see all sorts of things that parents do that I disagree with. But I tell my wife, not them, because I'm not responsible for them nor would they appreciate me lecturing them.

I agree completely. I didn't say that we should intervene - we are not partnered with strangers for that task. Like you I also share with my wife and pray for their safety.

Do I think it could be a good thing if at the next ped visit, the doctor ask the parent if they always have their children buckled in? If it prompts the parent to consider the decisions more carefully - it could very well save a life.

[terryg]

But you see, I would submit that your friends are unaware of these things because the only thing they know about the NRA is whatever Keith Olberman and liberal politicians them. That's on your friends, not on the NRA, because the NRA is already publishing ads, putting up billboards, and buying TV time ("Hi, I'm [substitute name of celebrity NRA member], and I'm the NRA"), not to mention publishing a magazine with a circulation of 2 or 3 million.

A lot of liberals are shockingly intellectually incurious. They are comfortable in their cliched trope, and they are unwilling to consider anything that requires them to stretch themselves a bit. That's not the NRA's fault, nor can the NRA cure it. One has to have enough brain cells to rub together to actually investigate the world one lives in. If one is not that intellectually rigorous, then if would be a feckless use of the money for the NRA to spend $20 billion a year on advertising which promotes safety, because the message just isn't going to get through. The information is already there. It's very public. Nobody is hiding it. But liberals, for the most part, aren't curious enough to read it and give consideration to its implications.

As far as the NRA endorsing a safety product by licensing its logo for use in moving that product, that would probably be OK, as long as there was a material benefit to the NRA in terms of royalties to compensate the organization for the dilution of its brand.

TAM - I really do understand that point of view and I think there is truth to it. Some liberals are so Utopian that will never change their stance. They cling to the ridiculous concept that the world can be total free of weapons if we eliminate them one at a time.

(And BTW, I really appreciate your reasoned responses.)

And perhaps the scope of what I suggesting is simply too large. But you mention the existing I'm the NRA ads. Those are designed to promote the NRA brand itself with recognizable faces. What I'm talking about are public services type ads that stress the importance of gun safety. The bottom would say Paid for by the NRA. The ad would be simply to increase awareness and educate. Promotion of the NRA would be secondary and it would be in such a way as to strengthen the image of the NRA as supporting responsible gun ownership.

The goal (besides potentially saving lives) is not to convince the Utopian liberals - they are too far gone. But to remove one of the last best arguments used to sway those that are a bit closer to the fence.

[Ok, the following statements are admittedly Utopian as well] The NRA would be as linked to safety as GEICO is to the GECKO. Your typical confused citizen would not be able to ignore it. [/EXIT UTOPIA MODE]

But seriously any dilution of the NRA brand would be for the benefit of the NRA by strengthening the concept that the NRA is serious about gun safety, not to promote a product for the products sake.

But then I am one of the 90 million currently benefiting from the NRA's actions without contributing. I have and will continue to consider this decision. My opinions in this area continue to shift and change - and one day I may decide to join. But the lack of a full steam safety awareness campaign is one of the reasons I haven't yet.

[Warning - another unpopular opinion coming up ...]
While I appreciate the work done on my behalf. Part of me feels that it is somewhat irresponsible to work for a goal that will increase the penetration of guns in homes across our country without working just as hard to educate about their proper usage - especially when children are involved. How many people purchase their first weapon at a gun show? Why not provide brochures with basic gun safety/storage guidelines? Reducing accidental injuries and deaths from firearms can only help the cause.

Utopian? I know. Unrealistic? Probably. But is there more room for the NRA to both increase safety awareness and at the same time link safety to their image? I think so.

[Oldgringo]

terryg wrote:

But then I am one of the 90 million currently benefiting from the NRA's actions without contributing.

I reckon that pretty much sums it up.

[terryg]

I reckon that pretty much sums it up.

Oh, I see -that just sums it up. No point in continuing a reasoned discussion with someone who disagrees with you on a certain issue? I shared exactly why I have made this decision which is that I personally don't think they have gone far enough in the "promote safe, responsible, and competent use of firearms" portion of the mission. I also shared that I am continually re-evaluating that position and acknowledge that I may even change my mind about in the future.

I knew it wouldn't be popular here - but I thought that this group would at least be open minded enough to conduct a healthy dialog about it. I am VERY appreciative of individuals such as The Annoyed Man - who are.