Beretta8045

I've never seen that question before, but I would definitely answer along the lines of NOYFB.

Random

Links, please!

chrise2004

What a liberal idiot I can't believe he/she would even put a question on there like that. Wow amazing the what the sheep do.

__________________
Glock 27,Hi-Point .380, S&W 3913

NRA Member/Supporter

"Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." - President Ronald Reagan

DaveH

At my PCP, if he asked (which I doubt), I'd say "yup" got one here, too.

To which he likely say, as he does now, "Take the rig off and re-weigh" -- as he does now.

__________________
Μολὼν λαβέ

I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL

BTW -- I am neither a lawyer, nor I do not play one on television or on the Internet. I hope no one assumes that I am giving legal advice

Veni, Vidi, Velcro

Vtxdpm

Found a great site/resource about this:

Doctors For Sensible Gun Laws
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws

Listing of articles available from their website:
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws


Before you get up in arms (pun intended) about "sensible gun laws", these Drs are shooters, i.e.:

WHAT ARE SENSIBLE GUN LAWS?
A Position Statement by Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws

In order to be considered sensible, an existing or proposed gun law must meet the following conditions:

1. A sensible gun law must save more lives than it costs.
Research shows that guns are used much more often to prevent crimes than they are used to aid crimes. Therefore laws that hinder the ordinary citizen's right to self defense with a firearm tend to cause a net increase in crime.

2. A sensible law must make the best use of scarce public resources.
For example, the money spent enforcing the law might save more lives if it were invested in other areas, such as medical research, drug treatment programs or voluntary firearms safety training.

3. A proposed gun law must be backed up by good quality, peer reviewed research showing that it meets the above criteria.
Junk medical science has no place in public policy debates.

4. A sensible law is one that does not weaken our society by inflaming anti-government sentiment.
Many gun laws raise concern about increasing government control of people's lives and unreasonably limit their constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. This breeds disrespect for the law and for our government.

5. A proposed law should be reviewed by a legislative committee equally represented by both sides of the issue to determine the unintended consequences of that law before it is presented for a final vote.

6. A sensible law must be Constitutional.



Lest anyone say that Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws are a group of extremists who do not support any gun laws, we offer some examples of gun laws that we consider sensible:

* It makes sense to prohibit carrying a gun when visiting a prison inmate or entering a high security military base.
* It is sensible to prohibit visitors from carrying guns into government facilities that are likely targets of terrorists, such as the White House.
* Although such measures are usually misguided, we believe that people and businesses have the right to prohibit weapons on their private property and ask violators to leave.
* We support laws appropriating public funds for voluntary civilian firearms training.

Vtxdpm

Hey Random, I did a Google search on "Doctors Kill more than guns" and found that info in my previous post.

However, going back into the fray again, I found an article that kind of refutes those particular statistics but still agrees with the point that Drs are more dangerous than guns. It provides different numbers but DOES include a few references. It can be found HERE:
Doctors kill more people than guns: urban legend or fact? (update 1)

It says:

A popular message circulating the internet claims that "guns don't kill people, doctors do," based on statistics that theoretically show that doctors are responsible for more accidental deaths every year than firearms. Independent research by NaturalNews staff shows that this claim is based on a logical fallacy of comparing apples and oranges, but according to the hard statistics, doctors do indeed kill more people than guns.

The message, which sometimes says that doctors kill more people than guns and traffic accidents combined, has been circulating the internet for years. Like many urban legends that cross the internet, it has a lot of "facts" for its readers, but it is unlike most urban legends in that it quotes a source: "Statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services." The message was even recounted in an article by Nathan Tabor. The letter claims that:

-- There are 700,000 physicians in the United States.
-- There are 120,000 accidental deaths in the United States caused by physicians every year, and the accidental death percentage per physician is 0.171.
-- There are 80 million gun owners in the United States.
-- There are 1,500 accidental deaths from guns every year, regardless of age group, and the accidental death percentage per gun owner is 0.0000188.

This means, the letter points out, that doctors are 9,000 times more deadly than gun owners.

Tabor's reason for pointing out these statistics seems to be the endorsement of second amendment rights, but the stats have turned the heads of many people, regardless of their stance on gun control. The claim has been reprinted across the internet on sites such as Rense.com, and other sites that warn of the dangers of modern medicine. NaturalNews staff members were unable to find DHHS figures that either supported or debunked the urban legend's claims. Such figures are hard to compare anyway, as the internet anti-chain-letter site BreakTheChain.org points out with responses gathered from the public:

-- Most people see doctors when their health is already poor, so that has to be considered a factor in any doctor-related deaths, accidental or otherwise.
-- Some people will never interact with a gun in their lifetime, but very few people will never see a doctor. This means that doctors could be more lethal simply due to a greater chance of public exposure to them.

As you can see, the doubts raised by these factors mean the statistics cannot be fairly compared, however NaturalNews's stance is that conventional medicine is still one of the top causes of death in the United States. Specifically, information obtained in "Death by Medicine" shows that an estimated 106,000 people die from adverse drug effects -- from properly prescribed drugs -- every year, and approximately 98,000 die annually from some sort of error by medical staff. Compare this to statistics from the Department of Justice and the U.S. Centers for Disease control for the year 2004, which show an estimated 16,137 people were victims of homicide (not just firearm murders) in the United States.

(emphasis added)

I hope that helps,
V

PS: Just noticed, this is my 100th Post.

Frogbones

hmmm

By saying noyfb, NA or the like gives them the answer they are looking for.

also by leaving it blank it would also suspect them to believe that have they answer they are looking for.

So my answer would have to be "my hands are my guns".....just to throw them off a bit...in a comedy kinda way. In other words...they wouldn't get a strait answer from me.

Heck...Popeye had battle ships, guns, and anvils in his biceps after a can of spinich. ;)

__________________
Progress, not perfection.

triple tap
"think triangle - nipple to nipple to Adam's apple. The hope is that at least two of the three will make serious contact with a major organ or the spine." http://theshootersclub.com/

Tyler11B

when the wife and i were at her ob/gyn after we found out she was preggers they asked the same question, my answer was "a whole arsenal, why do you ask?" they replied to me that it was concerning more of lead-based ammuntion then the actual firearms, the dr. chuckled when i said that and said he wouldnt have asked unless he had too, but like i said the main concern was lead in the ammo which i could understand when bringing a baby in the house if you have ammo out everywhere making contact with objects on the ground, but like most sensible firearm owners my ammo is neatly stacked in a secure location

__________________
3rd SBCT
2nd ID
A Co. 2-3 INF
"It is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs. He does not have to…[he] is entitled to stand his ground, and meet any (life-threatening) attack made upon him with a deadly weapon…." Gibson v. KY, 34SW936(Ky.1931)

nedrgr21

More misguided BS. The heavy metal (lead and other crap) contamination is from breathing in air after firing ammo/primers, not the lead in the bullets or unfired primers - also from eating and drinking on the firing line. There was an RSO/Training Center Supervisor that spent way more than 40 hrs/wk on a rifle/pistol/shotgun range for years before his lead levels were so bad he had to stay off the range. That said, kids under six and pregnant women should stay away from well used ranges b/c their bodies don't process the lead out of their systems as well as males, but that's no excuse for the Dr. to be asking about guns in the home.

ccw9mm

And simply telling them what the "safest" thing they want to hear (ie, "No.") is probably the best approach, all things considered. It's not like fibbing to a person with medical training about items in your cupboard and sock drawer is a crime. After all, it's your own health in question, and you're responsible for your own health. Idiots can't force one to be "healthy" according to their conception of what constitutes healthy, no matter how fatuous or seemingly virtuous their views.

__________________
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
Deal with evil through strength. Affirm the good in Man through trust.
NRA. GOA. OFF.