#54
On July 9th, 2008 at 1:53 am, GaMidnightRider said:

This reminds me of what happened to my little brother’s kid.

A substitute teacher had her class for a month while the regular teacher gave birth & got settled.

This sub looked like a hippy-flowerchild-reject, and was all “harmonic-conversions are coming…”, (whatever the heck that meant…). At one the substitute teacher stood in front of the class, and started going around the room, calling on each of the nine yr olds, asking if their daddy’s had guns.

When she asked Amanda, (my niece), Amanda said “of course!”. This got a big laugh from the peanut gallery, but Teach cut Amanda’s answer off, speaking over het about how guns weren’t funny, “they kill children and innocent people”, (note that, the phrasing stayed with me when I heard it… I know its accurate, because Amanda has perfect pitch & a photographic memory for what she’s heard.). Teach then launched into a tirade about nobody should have guns, and she’d never let anyone with a gun near her!

After Teach ran down, Amanda politely asked where Teach lived. When Teach asked her why, she said: “I know Daddy wouldn’t want to offend you. He’ll need to know so if you call the police he can leave his sidearm at the station. Or, maybe they should just fill out the report on the phone?”

It got Amanda sent to the office. When the Principal found out why, the Superintendent took Teach’s name off the Substitute List.

Don’t think that would happen now.

On July 9th, 2008 at 10:04 am, JennyBea said:

I can understand if a doctor wants to know if the kids are in a safe environment. It’s important. But they shouldn’t limit their questions to just guns.

Exactly!

-Does your child use public transit in Baltimore?
-Does your child attend an urban public school?
-How many chapters of NAMBLA/ACLU are located within 100-mile radius of your home?
-Did you bring your child here in a Pious Prius or a Suburban?
-Does lgm teach at your child’s school?

I could go on…

Put on your tinfoil hat, please.

For example, “Who have you had sex with in the last week, month and year?”

“What kind of sex have you had?”

Those two questions are valid questions to ask a homosexual or a hussey who may pose a health risk to unassuming men, especially if they’ve just removed a benign growth from her cervix…or other interesting biopsy.

Now we aren’t supposed to ask such questions according to the homosexuals or husseys, but such questions plus application of appropriate penalties (like quarantine) would save lives..would they not?

But guess what? that obvious life-saving act would scowled at by queers and feminists big-time…

Owning a gun that is not misused is a safer bet for public health than letting people go by unchecked with their sexual predilections when they visit a doctor.

What privacy rights are good for the libs,husseys, illegals, and homosexuals are also good for me

Hurumph!

Kendra said:
And does anyone have any proof that answering that question has had any negative results at all? Show me a case where it has and I’ll don my tin foil hat with the rest of you.

Do you have any proof that sticking your nose in someone else’s business is helpful? I know television doctors solve peoples personel problems while preforming heroic operations but that is televison.

This silliness that “it”, whatever “it” is is a public health issue is bull and nothing more than people sticking there noses into others lives. I would not answer that question to my auto mechanic and his actions can have just an immediate affect as a doctor.

These are the same doctors, and I doubt a majority, who like to have their ’special’ talk with our daughters when mommy and daddy leave the room. Not a chance. Stick to medicine and parents can do the parenting. And Kendra is now folding a tin foil hat although aluminum foil is cheaper.

Feel better?

On July 9th, 2008 at 1:59 pm, Jim M. said:
TOS,

Nice try at squirming.

What a load of BS! You are the one that squirmed. Accept the fact that you proliferated bogus data and move on. Maybe if you would have acknowledged that error maybe we could have had a meaningful discussion.

as engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent is not my cup of tea

lol…at least I arm myself with actually data and not perpetuate hearsay fallacy. nice try.

Nice try at squirming. Of course, that’s about all you had left to work with.

My “original claim” was not my claim at all. I was clear in stating it was something I saw reported elsewhwere, and even provided the cite. When you tried to compare cattle to oranges with your NSC herring, I did some additional research on the subject (something you did not bother to do).

Interesting that you have not nor can attack the new data, so you instead try the old liberal tactic of attacking the messenger.

No sense in trying to talk sense into someone with no sense. I’ll let it go there, as engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent is not my cup of tea.

It’s how it starts.

first it’s a question in the form of ‘It’s for the children’.

then, it’s getting trigger locks on all the guns for, again, the ‘children’.

then, some study will come out about the number of guns in a household and that will be limited.

then calibers of guns or kinds of guns.

then, guns with magazines in it so only revolvers can be allowed..

then, only revolvers can be allowed but only if dis-assembled.

then it’s only a matter of time before all handguns have to be banned because little junior was still able to shoot his toe off with an ‘illegal’ gun despite all the ’safeguards’.

Look at the ban for the ‘Assault weapons ban’. All of those guns banned were perfectly legal. it was only a scary looking gun ban in effect. pistol grip, extended muzzle, ect.

the ‘banned’ guns never fired fully automatic. they gave the look and the feel of an M-16 or AK-47. but that was the extent of it. but still because of the LOOK of the ’scary weapon’ it was banned.

And does anyone have any proof that answering that question has had any negative results at all? Show me a case where it has and I’ll don my tin foil hat with the rest of you.

They asked my granddaughter in Mi. if there where guns around her home in school and she said yes. They tried to tell her how bad they where and that guns kill people and they should not be in the home.

Sounds like brainwashing children to believe liberal drivel about all guns being bad to me. Good thing in this case the little girl was far smarter than her teachers.

/hands you some tinfoil and a copy of Nancy Pelosi’s autographed picture (I stole the picture from TOS)

On July 9th, 2008 at 7:59 am, On-my-soap-box said:

Oh, and lgm is an IDIOT. I never want to forget to add that.

nothing to add, really, other than wanting to re-post this

Oh Kendra Kendra Kendra, I used to be as naive as you. You need to get a good case of paranoia going and start asking “why do you want to know?” I assure you, it is not for your own good.

So prove me wrong. My oldest is 13 and we’ve had the same pediatrician for both kids. That particular question was asked when my 13 year old was a toddler. No one has shown up at my house, no one has tried to tell me that I can’t own a gun or attempted to communicate with my kids about the dangers of our guns.
They ask that question of new parents who may not have the forethought to consider that little whatshisname is now walking and could get hold of something harmful that they never locked up prior to having kids in the house.
And does anyone have any proof that answering that question has had any negative results at all? Show me a case where it has and I’ll don my tin foil hat with the rest of you.

Imagine:

*Tell me about your security settings.
*Is your child allowed to use a computer behind closed doors in his/her room?
*Do you have your computer in a safe area where you can monitor your child’s online activity?
*What software do you use to filter dangerous content and websites?
*Do you view material of a questionable nature in your home, thus increasing the likelihood that your child will be exposed to it?

I’m just saying…

On July 8th, 2008 at 11:46 pm, Jim M. said:

I would not be too hasty to hang onto the National Sfety Council as an unbiased source of information.

It appears that the NSC is yet another liberal agenda driven advocacy group. 2800 deaths from medical/surgical complications? If that was the real figure, the John Edwards’ of the world would be out of business.

NSC’s data comes from the National Center for Health Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau. Is the government liberally biased as well? And I’m sure that the AAJ (the kings of frivolous lawsuits) which you linked to are far more unbiased.

On July 9th, 2008 at 12:22 am, Jim M. said:

The NSC numbers deal with accidents. Period. Car accidents, workplace accidents, etc. They do NOT include medical errors or malpractice.

Funny thing, but there seems to be little information out there regarding doctors screw ups.

Yes, that’s a real knee-slapper, especially given that I was refuting your claim that “Accidental deaths caused by physicians total 120,000 per year.” You know you could of just taken the data I provided and made the claim that you are more than 4 times more likely to be accidently killed by a doctor (2,883 in 2004) than accidently killed by a firearm (649 in 2004).

Also, please note that the figure 2,883 represents “Complications of medical and surgical care and sequelae”…sounds like malpractice to me. Your unbiased(?) AAJ study regards preventable deaths, which is far different than your original claim.

When you want to question someone’s numbers, you just might want to make sure the figures you use to support your position are (A) relevant, and (B) factual.

I did that! Now, maybe you should heed your own advice.