U.S. Politics Thread

[Bri]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Simple solution to this problem:

Public Campaign Financing. If the amount spent on elections is fixed, then politicians won't have to worry about fundraising. It is sad that the Founding Fathers failed to factor in the influence of money into this system. It's hard to take these kinds of things into account, when it wasn't even much of a problem with the Constitution was drafted. Of course, it didn't take long to become an apparent problem too.

It would certainly make politicians less vulnerable to lobby efforts. I guess the first amendment prohibits limits on political advertising (by third parties)?

[Badkarma 1]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Simple solution to this problem:

Public Campaign Financing. If the amount spent on elections is fixed, then politicians won't have to worry about fundraising. It is sad that the Founding Fathers failed to factor in the influence of money into this system. It's hard to take these kinds of things into account, when it wasn't even much of a problem with the Constitution was drafted. Of course, it didn't take long to become an apparent problem too.

Now here's a concept I could get next too! The Founding Fathers had no idea that it would come to this as the country at the time had no currency to speak of. They'd jest got done with a war.

[ganbaru]

Rand Paul: No drones flip-flop
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ton-90551.html

“I never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or policeman kills him,” Paul said on Fox Business Network, in reference to the Boston Marathon bombings. “But it is different if they want to come fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activity.”

Am I the only one tha see something wrong here, even without taking into account if this is ''backfliping'' or not ?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Rand Paul: No drones flip-flop
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ton-90551.html

Am I the only one tha see something wrong here, even without taking into account if this is ''backfliping'' or not ?

If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or policeman kills him

Kill him with what? A hellfire missile?

Has he seen how POWERFUL those damn things are?

[Bri]

If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or policeman kills him

Bit embarrassing if it just was the owner of the store going home at the end of the day.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The thing is, car registration and licensing is by state, not at the federal level. That might be the difference in how to do anything on guns. The US Constitution applies to what the Federal government can or cannot do. Everything else goes to the states.

An interesting point. I don't really care for the federal government to handle this. In fact, given how different things are in different regions of the country, the federal government is arguably very ill-equipped to handle this, and many other issues that they're taking on. They are the 1,000 pound wrecking ball when what you really needed was a hammer.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Banning weapons that "look scary" doesn't do a thing. Banning magazines over 10-round barely affects anything except the reliability of weapons designed to use certain magazine sizes. Looking overly-broadly at peoples' medical history is just a privacy can o' worms waiting to explode.

Do you have proof, or are you just posturing?

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

You want to reduce gun violence in the US?

Reduce poverty.

Reducing poverty should reduce gun violence by reducing violence overall. However, reducing the number of guns in circulation reduces the number of gun-related injuries and deaths. It's horribly obvious, and real-world data supports that notion.

Originally Posted by kyp275

If it's simple reminder about safety, sure. But whether I own any firearm is none of my physician's business. Should your doctor also be required to ask you about your sexual habits? STDs are also dangerous and can certainly causes deaths.

If your doctor isn't asking about your sexual habits then they are not doing their job. We are supposed to ask about your sexual activity, including whether you've been promiscuous and whether you're having sex with men, women, or both. This isn't because we're trying to pry into your and every other patient's private lives, it's because sexual activity is a health issue, and this is not limited purely to STDs. Given that, I apologize but the point you were trying to make by bringing up physicians questioning sexuality is lost on me.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Doctors are still humans, and humans do stupid things all the time, especially when ideology gets involved. Doctors are no exception - frankly, worse things has been done by so-called "doctors" over simpler motivations, just go look up that one dentist who had no qualms about exposing hundreds of people to HIV and Hepatitis virus or that abortion clinic in philly(?) that was little more than a dirty shack with workers that are quite literally plucked from the street.

You have raised a health issue carried out by one dentist in an effort to show how doctors are human and can do stupid things over ideology. I'd love to razz you for fun about how you used a dentist as an example, or how you brought up a single event to generalize all physicians, but I won't because I recognize part of the point that you're trying to make. You're correct. Perhaps due to lack of creativity on my end, I fail to see how you connect that to fears over ideology about guns. What do you think that an anti-gun physician could do? Realistically speaking, what is the worst that they could do?

Originally Posted by kyp275

TBH most doctors probably won't care either way, but someone who feels strongly about the issue? are you saying there aren't any out there? And how exactly are they going to "catch hell"? I don't recall hearing anything about any oversight over these type of cases.

The oversight comes from the state medical board, which is responsible for licensing physicians per state. While it's true that a physician could move to another state, obtain a license, and then continue to practice, if you're blacklisted in one state then things won't be easy. My guess is that people perceive physicians as being similar to the police with their "blue line," blindly defending one another, but that isn't quite the case. We are advised to retain a lawyer ASAP if the state medical board contacts us with an issue and to try to have as little to do with them as possible, because they will ruthlessly dig through your work history to bring up every little error and possible error in order to bring a case against you. The board is likely to get involved if there are enough patients complaining or if something high-profile happens.

Simply put, a physician who is making baseless diagnoses that their gun-owning patients have mental health issues in an effort to have their firearms taken away is committing fraud in addition to acting unprofessionally and unethically. They are opening themselves up to easy lawsuits from their patients, and they would be making it very easy for the state medical board to knock them out. I don't think you'll find many people who are passionate enough about anything to risk torpedoing their careers, and when it comes to the gun debate, those who are for firearms tend to be more passionate than those who are against firearms. Interestingly, nobody is voicing concerns that pro-gun physicians might lighten up a diagnosis on anyone who really might be mentally ill just so that they could buy a firearm.

Originally Posted by kyp275

It's all a matter of degrees, and from his POV, these measures go too far.

Understood. His viewpoint was largely about him, however, and I wanted to bring his viewpoint a bit outside of his own life to understand that this isn't about taking things away from him for the sake of taking those things away. We all want to be free, yet we all represent a threat to the freedom of everyone around us. Society's rules and regulations are designed to ensure that there is maximum individual freedom without allowing any one individual to suppress the freedoms of those individuals around them.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Who knows, it is NY after all. If they can continue to insist that the central park 5 are guilty and the govt. didn't do anything wrong for 10 years even after the convictions were vacated and the real criminal have admitted to the crime, with corroborating DNA evidence, I won't put anything past them.

The Central Park 5 may not have been guilty of the crimes that they were charged with, but they weren't exactly total innocents who were exhibiting good behavior. I'm surprised you'd bring that up and be on their side.

Originally Posted by Badkarma 1

@Ledgem; Jest so yas know, my doctor is pro-gun, life member of the NRA, and we talk about them during my bi-yearly visits. And he's probably got more firearms than I do!

I'm not sure why you felt compelled to tell me this; your fear seemed to be that all physicians were anti-firearm, and yet you had a real life example of a physician who was not. Congratulations?

Originally Posted by kyp275

I mean, if I or my child go visit a doctor because we got the flu, it would be just as inappropriate for the doctor to ask either about my sexual habits or firearm ownership.

No, it wouldn't. Further, if you're going to the pediatrician with your young child then asking about firearms in order to remind you about safely storing them away would seem like a good idea.

[synaesthetic]

I'm sorry, but if I took my (hypothetical) child to a pediatrician and they asked out of the fucking blue whether or not I owned any guns I would tell them to go fuck themselves and go find another doctor. If they asked about my sexual habits I would be very tempted to kick their ass out their own window.

That is none of their god-damn business.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I'm sorry, but if I took my (hypothetical) child to a pediatrician and they asked out of the fucking blue whether or not I owned any guns I would tell them to go fuck themselves and go find another doctor. If they asked about my sexual habits I would be very tempted to kick their ass out their own window.

That is none of their god-damn business.

Such a violent temper. Are you sure you should own guns?

[Ithekro]

In the bad parts of Berkeley? Yeah, one should.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Such a violent temper. Are you sure you should own guns?

I don't own guns. I had to sell them to pay for groceries and bills when I still lived in Oklahoma, after the 2008 crash.

I also don't live in Berkeley anymore. I live in a much worse neighborhood in Oakland. I hear gunshots at night at least twice a week. I don't go out after dark, especially not alone. One of my roommates' cars was broken into a week after he moved in.

Where I live isn't what you'd call "safe," but what can I do about it? It's apparently more moral to simply be shot to death than it is to defend yourself.

[Vexx]

I'll be less skeptical when the pediatrician also asks about - household chemicals, power tools, lawn mowers, gasoline, electric outlets, access to knives, household steps & stairways, access to driveway and streets, proper car seats and how to use them .... all the things that actually kill or injure more children.

No question that guns should require training - *everyone* should get that training whether they plan to own a gun or not. Demystify them, make them boring.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I'm sorry, but if I took my (hypothetical) child to a pediatrician and they asked out of the fucking blue whether or not I owned any guns I would tell them to go fuck themselves and go find another doctor. If they asked about my sexual habits I would be very tempted to kick their ass out their own window.

That is none of their god-damn business.

It is their business because it has to do with your health, and as their patient your health is, quite literally, their business. When a physician takes you on as a patient they also become legally bound to provide care for you. If you've heard about the more recent trend of physicians "firing" difficult patients, that's what it's all about.

You have the right to refuse answers to any question, of course, but your apparent rage is way out of line.

Originally Posted by Vexx

I'll be less skeptical when the pediatrician also asks about - household chemicals, power tools, lawn mowers, gasoline, electric outlets, access to knives, household steps & stairways, access to driveway and streets, proper car seats and how to use them .... all the things that actually kill or injure more children.

Do you have the statistics to back up your last statement?

Consider this: most of the things that you mentioned already have warning labels covering a good portion of the product. Most people do not read the labels in detail, but their presence is enough to indicate to most people that these are not things to be ingested or played with. Additionally, many of the items that you've mentioned lead to injuries, but not to death. A pediatrician doesn't have hours to spend with each patient, and safety surrounding many of these objects is common sense for many people. Given limited time you go for the highest-yield thing you can, and guns are certainly a valid thing to ask about. Their harming power is greater than anything else you can find in the home, and the news stories about children killing other children or adults with a firearm that was left loaded and easily accessible are unfortunately not that rare.

The paranoia surrounding physicians in this thread is pretty surprising. Then again, just as we say that "think of the children" is an argument that causes many people to shut down all reasoning, the topic of firearms seems to have a similar effect.

[Vexx]

Actually, yeah. Car accidents are the most likely way for children to die. (The chart defines a "child" as anyone from 0-19yrs. gotta watch for that, I've found bogus statistics that define anyone under 25yrs as a child to hype numbers, or say "child" when they should be saying pre-pubescents)

http://www.childdeathreview.org/nati...talitydata.htm

Doctors are not scientists. I have to repeat that a lot. They also are not necessarily great statisticians. They're often not even very good at pharmacology though they're the ones who write prescriptions. They have biases, like anyone. None of that writes doctors as a group off but it means doctors vary. We have doctors who refuse to provide medically necessary abortions or prescribe birth control pills after all.

I agree about the warning labels (though application is inconsistent and sometimes approaches rank idiocy "do not immerse toaster in water") - that's why I think everyone should get gun safety training. Know how they work, know how to handle them safely, know what they can and cannot do, etc). I'm the guy that thinks everyone who owns a gun should also be required to be part of the community Civil Defense corp like we had in the Cold War days, so I'm not exactly 'extremist' on the issue.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Actually, yeah. Car accidents are the most likely way for children to die. (The chart defines a "child" as anyone from 0-19yrs. gotta watch for that, I've found bogus statistics that define anyone under 25yrs as a child to hype numbers, or say "child" when they should be saying pre-pubescents)

http://www.childdeathreview.org/nati...talitydata.htm

Look at all of the numbers involving firearms. Add all of those numbers up and you're second only to motor vehicle issues. You're telling me that you'll only accept pediatricians asking about firearms in the home after they ask about all of the other things you mentioned? Seatbelt advice is supposed to be given but it is often not, although we anticipate that the threat of being given a ticket by police for those issues and the reminders to buckle up that line many roads takes care of many cases. Aside from having your physician ask about it, the only reminder to safely store your firearm seems to be news stories about someone else's kid killing themselves or someone else with a gun that they got their hands on. Who wouldn't prefer to have that last reminder become a thing of the past?

Originally Posted by Vexx

Doctors are not scientists. I have to repeat that a lot. They also are not necessarily great statisticians. They're often not even very good at pharmacology though they're the ones who write prescriptions. They have biases, like anyone. None of that writes doctors as a group off but it means doctors vary.

I don't disagree but I also don't see what this has to do with physicians asking about firearms as a part of a health and wellness check.

[synaesthetic]

I'll say it again.

Give me a personal energy shield that renders me impervious to high-energy projectiles, and I'll support you.

Until then, the only thing a gun control advocate means is that they consider the life of a criminal more important than my life, the life of a law-abiding citizen.

[Vexx]

Yes, a mortality rate of 8.1 versus a combined firearm total mortality rate of 3.7. There's some nuance difference between "second most likely", "over 200% more likely to die in a car accident", and whatever other arm waving language comes to mind in either direction.

I don't personally object to a doctor asking about firearms as part of asking about the general safety skill check of a parent. Here again, I advocate *all* people get trained in firearm safety. We have far too many people - be they gun owners ranging to fearful of guns who just don't have basic knowledge on the subject.

I got training from my parents, I got training in the Boy Scouts, I got training when I applied for a carry permit. Everyone should get that training. Even if someone loathes guns for whatever reason, knowledge of guns and gun safety could prove useful in any situation where guns are a factor.

[Kyuu]

Yea, I'm amused by those who bring up cars to the gun debate. Cars have all these layers upon layers of regulation in order to operate and own one. Of course, the main backbone of that stems on liability. If two people (or more) end up in an accident, it comes down to the moron, who 'caused it in the first place.

In addition, infrastructure is engineered to ensure that the roads are as safe as possible, although improvements can be made in various places.

Originally Posted by Vexx

that's why I think everyone should get gun safety training. Know how they work, know how to handle them safely, know what they can and cannot do, etc). I'm the guy that thinks everyone who owns a gun should also be required to be part of the community Civil Defense corp like we had in the Cold War days, so I'm not exactly 'extremist' on the issue.

Now, that's a good idea. Would that be a "militia" at the city/municipality level?

As a bonus, anyone involved in this Civil Defense corp. is exempt from being deployed overseas. However, sorry, no benefits like free college and stuff like that - gotta keep the pot sweet for the military. Yet, some kind of benefit should still be available; don't know what though.

To think, for Boston, instead of keeping certain people at home, some could have been used to establish a stronger perimeter, while the FBI/police handle the fugitive tracking.

Add gun licensing too. Yea, sure, there's the argument of: "I don't want the government to have information on me." Well, government already does; just whip out that driver's license.

[synaesthetic]

I think there would be a lot less people fearful of guns if they had to get some sort of training with them. If they'd understand that no, guns are not cursed artifacts that infuse their wielder with the urge to slaughter all who oppose them. If they learn that guns are just like hammers, knives, screwdrivers, computers or pneumatic wrenches--tools, designed to aid us in some task or another.

It's not friggin' Frostmourne, okay? It's not going to turn you into a death knight and force you to wipe out entire towns.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I'll say it again.

Give me a personal energy shield that renders me impervious to high-energy projectiles, and I'll support you.

Until then, the only thing a gun control advocate means is that they consider the life of a criminal more important than my life, the life of a law-abiding citizen.

I don't really know you, and I wasn't serious about whether you should have guns or not, but please consider this: in the hypothetical situation of a physician asking a question you didn't like, you hypothetically came very close to violence. (Though, yes, I understand people like hyperbole. I know I do.)

So the question isn't just your life vs that of a criminal. It's also your life vs that of the next guy who, for one reason or another, sets off your hair trigger temper.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Yes, a mortality rate of 8.1 versus a combined firearm total mortality rate of 3.7. There's some nuance difference between "second most likely", "over 200% more likely to die in a car accident", and whatever other arm waving language comes to mind in either direction.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that we should be focusing on car-related deaths over firearms because car-related deaths far outnumber firearm-related deaths. As I somewhat alluded to before, we're doing just about all that we can in that regard. An accident is an accident and reckless drivers will be reckless drivers; there isn't much that a physician can say or do to improve car-related deaths. So we focus on what we can make a difference in. That is the logical approach, don't you agree?

I agree with everything else you said.