OT: Asked if I had a gun in my home during physical.

Good answers.

My internal medicine babe asked me that, too!

Since she said "in the home, I honestly answered "no":

I carry a gun at all times to protect my Peeps Lip Balm from strong arm robbery.

[quote="NotMuffy"]My internal medicine babe asked me that, too!

Since she said "in the home, I honestly answered "no":

Thanks for the laugh, notmuffy. Great pic!

I think the canadiens were looking for Americans getting free medical care in Canada. Guess I happens a lot.

On a (slightly) more serious note, I believe that query (along with a bunch of others like "wearing a bicycle helmet") is based on recommendations from "The Guide to Clinical Preventive Services" by AHRQ.

It is also noted that a firearm in the home is 18 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

Like a kid who finds it ("But I always keep it locked up!")

NotMuffy wrote:On a (slightly) more serious note, I believe that query (along with a bunch of others like "wearing a bicycle helmet") is based on recommendations from "The Guide to Clinical Preventive Services" by AHRQ.

It is also noted that a firearm in the home is 18 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

Like a kid who finds it ("But I always keep it locked up!")

Can you provide a link to that information? I just searched http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforc ... cs.htm#A-Z, which the AHRQ refers to for up to date information. A search for "firearm" yielded no results and the 7 results for "gun" dealt with other issues, such as "have you been hurt or threatened with a gun". I couldn't find a single direct reference on that website to firearm presence in the home nor any statistics on their usage.

I often support the NRA and attended the annual convention in Charlotte this year. Met lots of good people here and saw and handled some neat guns.

But now the NRA is doing something stupid:

Doctors would be barred from asking most of their patients if they own guns under a measure that passed in a House panel on Tuesday after it was amended in response to doctors’ concerns – though not enough to win over the medical establishment, reports Michael Peltier of the News Service of Florida.

By a 9-6 vote, the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee approved a National Rifle Association-backed bill sponsored by Rep. Jason Brodeur, R-Sanford. The proposal would bar physicians, nurses and other medical personnel in non-emergency settings from asking patients if there are guns in the home, a query backers say oversteps a physician’s authority and infringes on Second Amendment gun rights.
http://saintpetersblog.com/2011/03/hous ... -gun-bill/

Most NRA members know we have far too many laws on the books, but now they want another one.

Just as there should be no law requiring me to answer the question, there also should be no law forbidding the doctor from asking it.

NotMuffy wrote: It is also noted that a firearm in the home is 18 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

Hmm, 18 times huh?
Not the 43 (or 46 or 48 depending upon your source) times that Arthur Kellermann first claimed in his 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study nor the 22 times claimed in another study based in part on Kellermann's nor the 6 times claimed by Patterson and Smith in another AMA study in 1987 nor even the 2.7 times Kellermann claimed in his revised study......
18 times huh?
Interesting....

NotMuffy wrote: It is also noted that a firearm in the home is 18 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

Unfortunately, that statement is a deliberately fraudulent statement, long ago debunked, but still widely quoted by the gun control freaks. The statistic had to do with whether you would kill a "stranger" or a "non-stranger." The statistic has been deliberately twisted to make you think that it's counting only accidental or spur of the moment "rage" shootings of family members.

"Non-strangers" include the abusive ex-boyfriend or ex-husband breaking into your house. Or the battered woman defending herself. Defending yourself against an attack by a psycho ex-employee, business partner, neighbor is considered a "non-stranger" shooting. The phony statistic assumes all of these are "bad" shootings

Also, a drug dealer shooting a competitor, drug deals gone bad, one criminal shooting another, etc. are considered to be "non-stranger" killings. While these shootings are "bad," they're not something us "honest" citizens are likely to use our gun for.

It also doesn't take into account cases where someone with a gun stops an intruder without killing them. A lot of house breakins get stopped by a homeowner with a gun by wounding the attacker without killing them, or by causing the criminal to stop or surrender. It also doesn't count the criminals who don't break into houses at night because they know the owner might have a gun.

It also counts suicides and assumes that the person wouldn't have committed suicide in some other way if the firearm wasn't handy.

roster wrote: Most NRA members know we have far too many laws on the books, but now they want another one.

Just as there should be no law requiring me to answer the question, there also should be no law forbidding the doctor from asking it.

You should go read the article again. Physicians were refusing to treat patients who refused to answer whether or not they had guns in the home.

archangle wrote:

roster wrote: Most NRA members know we have far too many laws on the books, but now they want another one.

Just as there should be no law requiring me to answer the question, there also should be no law forbidding the doctor from asking it.

You should go read the article again. Physicians were refusing to treat patients who refused to answer whether or not they had guns in the home.

Exactly. Besides, when NRA members reference "too many laws" they are referring to those that place restrictions on firearm ownership/RtC.

BernieRay wrote:

NotMuffy wrote:On a (slightly) more serious note, I believe that query (along with a bunch of others like "wearing a bicycle helmet") is based on recommendations from "The Guide to Clinical Preventive Services" by AHRQ.

It is also noted that a firearm in the home is 18 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

Like a kid who finds it ("But I always keep it locked up!")

Can you provide a link to that information? I just searched http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforc ... cs.htm#A-Z, which the AHRQ refers to for up to date information. A search for "firearm" yielded no results and the 7 results for "gun" dealt with other issues, such as "have you been hurt or threatened with a gun". I couldn't find a single direct reference on that website to firearm presence in the home nor any statistics on their usage.

Since the original question pertained to the source of the H&P, I think it's a safe bet that their template is from an earlier version of the AHRQ document, and I believe the query on the H&P is something like

• Alcohol abuse
• Healthful diet
• Regular physical activity
• Seatbelts and helmet use
• Fall risk
• Firearm safety
• Smoke detectors
• Hot water heater to < 120-130° F
• Household members trained in CPR
• Regular dental care

At any rate, AHRQ 1989 had a ton of stuff on firearms.

Ah. Somehow, it doesn't surprise me that superceded 12 year old recommendations are still being used. That, in and of itself, is a sad comment on medical care in the US.

Whatever happen to common sense? A lack of it seems to be at the root of a lot of crap these days.

Ooops!

Forgot Handout...

http://ccc.iccnetwork.org/Documents/The ... nglish.pdf