Doctor Turned Kids Away Over Gun Question

[terryg]

I agree that gun ownership is a big responsibility and I think there are probably are lot of people with guns who aren't up to it.

The agenda issue is sort of a chicken and egg question. Gun ownership is generally stigmatized by the media, by politicians, and by other people in positions of authority --like school administrators, and doctors via organizations like the AAP. The anti-gun agenda is promulgated far and wide by those in positions of authority. Who speaks for gun ownership? Essentially, gun owners, and gun owner groups like the NRA and Gun Owners of America, so the opinions of people who aren't familiar with the issues of gun ownership are influenced by the perception that people in authority are generally against gun ownership, while only the wacko self-interested gun nuts are for it.

I know several people who would like to have guns in the home, but their wives are against it. Their wives are against it for the most part because they have no experience with guns and their perceptions are colored by media and other social stigmatization. So it's not as simple as people willing to take responsibility and those who are not. If these people had guns in the home they would take responsibility for them. But for someone in this position a pediatrician telling them that guns are bad for children makes taking that step far more difficult. To the extent gun ownership is normalized there will be more support for it. To the extent it becomes something unusual there will be less support for it. In Britain most of the population had limited or no experience with guns and their ownership and use was widely stigmatized. It was easy to ban guns there.

I don't know what will produce better results here for 2nd Amendment rights but history tells a pretty clear story: where there is no history of gun ownership, or where gun ownership becomes uncommon, guns get banned. Switzerland has a tradition of militia service and broad gun ownership. In most of the rest of Europe, gun ownership is severely limited or effectively banned. America is just about the only stable country is the entire world where people like you and I can own and carry a wife variety of guns and use them in self-defense.

Those are very reasonable arguments - I can't find any fault in them.

This right is under constant attack. I see this AAP anti-gun strategy as attack by attrition. It may be far less effective than I fear it is, or it may be far more effective than you think it is. The question is: is the greater effect to reduce the number of people who would otherwise own guns and handle them responsibly; or to reduce the number of people who would otherwise own guns and handle them irresponsibly? Your replies suggest you believe the latter. I frankly don't know, but given the obvious agenda at work here I think the people promoting it believe the overall effect is to reduce the number of people owning guns and to thereby reduce the support for gun ownership.

[/quote]

Your summary, while perhaps oversimplified, is also reasonable. I also do not know the answer to the greater effect. I guess, yes, I probably would lean toward the latter. But then I guess have a real problem with 'casual gun owners'.

A third effect that I hope would register in a statistically significant quantity, if such could be measured, would be an increase in the number of irresponsible gun owners who are reminded to consider ways to be more responsible.

I know several people who would like to have guns in the home, but their wives are against it. Their wives are against it for the most part because they have no experience with guns and their perceptions are colored by media and other social stigmatization.

It's funny you mention this because such was the case with me. It's been a process. The first obstacle was getting them in the house. Then it was working with the kids - teaching them. Then taking the kids to the range - that was a big hurdle. I still haven't gotten her to the range yet.

Now that I have pursued and gotten my CHL, a funny thing happened the other day. She teased me when we were leaving the house because we were only going to Home Depot and Walmart. Anyway, on the drive home, I asked her if she had thought at all about the fact that I was armed in those stores. She realized that she hadn't and she said something like:

"I still don't like guns - they scare me and so I'm not sure I know yet what to think about this. But I like knowing that your thinking about it and taking care of things."

[VMI77]

It's funny you mention this because such was the case with me. It's been a process. The first obstacle was getting them in the house. Then it was working with the kids - teaching them. Then taking the kids to the range - that was a big hurdle. I still haven't gotten her to the range yet.

My father-in-law spared me that difficulty. My wife grew up with a father that hunted and associated with people who owned and used guns. She even had her own gun when I met her --a gift from her father.

[terryg]

I agree that to some extent that it is your responsibility to vet the facts for accuracy (though I also think a doctor or organization delivering the "facts" has a responsibility to tell the truth).

I can also agree that the doctors office bears some responsibility to verify facts. But I am tempted to give the a bit of a pass here for several reasons:

1. Given the sheer volume of new and changing information in this profession, they have to be able to rely upon the supporting networks, of which the AAP would be one (AMA would be another). All of these networks are subject to errors and, perhaps, undue political influence. But by and large, I imagine that for most aspects relating to advising individuals and parents, the information they provide is worthwhile. In fact, I would imagine they would be more likely influenced by pharmaceutical companies than a particular political leaning.

2. The pediatrician's responsibility is to work with the parent to treat illness and help protect children from accidental injury. They are not responsible to provide or advise regarding security. So many of the counter-balancing facts would not directly apply to their profession. Regardless of the numbers, children are still killed because they find unsecured guns laying around the house. This fact effects his/her profession much more than the fact that properly used handguns prevent injuries and deaths to innocents.

---

I guess my primary take away message would again be caution at misplacing blame on the doctor. If they are being used as part of a larger conspiracy to capture data that may one day be used against us, as TAM suggest; or if they have connections to health organizations who's mission is unduly skewed by extremest political ideologies; or both; then they are guilty only of unintentional enabling. With a few exceptions, I think it is safe to say that most of these doctors are simply doing the best that they can to take care of kids. That and make a lot of money ...

[Oldgringo]

{SIGH}

Is there any end to these orations?

[terryg]

{SIGH}

Is there any end to this?

{SIGH} {SIGH}
Yeah, it sure seems that way to me. Like any good well mannered discussion, we seemed to have boiled it down to where we now know which parts we agree on and which we will have to part as friends over.

I am sorry if it took to long for you.

I was being asked to clarify two aspects of the discussion - the NRA piece which wrapped up a while back - and then the doctor piece which seems to be finishing today.

[Cobra Medic]

If the docs were asking if the parents were illegals, how quickly do you think before the Obama government sued them?

[Hoi Polloi]

Would those of you who have wives or significant others or friends who are afraid of guns due to lack of exposure please respond to this thread I started about an idea on how to address that? In particular, would such a program help and would people you know be likely to attend?
Seminar for Gun-Phobes (Seriously, I'd like to arrange one.)