skip to main |
skip to sidebar
In an effort to stem the tide of what seems to be an epidemic of accidental shootings at the hands of children, some cities are looking at a novel solution: asking children to turn in their firearms. The incentive? Receiving a good grade.
One official who chose to remain anonymous due to the possibility of threats from the NRA said, “It seems like you can’t go a day without hearing about some kid shooting another kid...or an adult. We think it could work to get guns out of the hands of children if we guarantee a passing grade in one of their classes.”
When asked how the program would work, he said, “Well, we haven’t worked out all the details yet. We’re thinking that the bigger the gun, the better the grade. Turn in a .22, get a C. A .38 Special would get you a B. A .45 Magnum? Definitely an A. We’re thinking of factoring in the difficulty of the class, too. If you want an A in Calculus, you’re going to have to cough up the big ones. It’s a win-win situation. Fewer guns in the hands of kids, and smarter kids. At least on paper.”
He went on to say that they are also considering a scholarship program. “If you turn in something like an AK-47, you deserve to get a break when it comes to college. Since you’ll be getting better grades through this program, you’re also more likely to get into college.”
NRA spokesmodel Tammy Sue Spratt reacted strongly to the possible program in an issued statement:
“It’s a child’s God-given right to own a firearm. We feel that this is more important than vaccines. A child can fight off those diseases. You can’t shoot a virus, but you can shoot the neighbor kid trying to steal your bike. The only way to stop a bad toddler with a gun is a good toddler with a gun.”
When an official at the CDC was asked about the program, he placed his face in his palm and muttered, “You have got to be kidding me.”
***
This was a silly bit of fun that came to me the other morning. It’s really no laughing matter, though. Although the statistics are out there, it seems that there has been no comprehensive study of the numbers of children who shoot others, either accidentally or deliberately. It does seem to me that this seems to be happening more frequently, but maybe it has always happened, and we just hear about it more. The NRA has tried to block the CDC from studying gun violence as a public health issue, which strikes me as beyond absurd. Gun violence in this country is most certainly an issue that affects every American. President Obama attempted to direct the CDC to pursue this after the Sandy Hook shooting, but sadly, the CDC remains in fear of losing funding from a Congress whose balls are tightly in the grip of the NRA.
One can only imagine the long-term psychological effects such a shooting would have on a child, especially if they are old enough to realize that they have just harmed or killed a person...perhaps even their sibling or their parent. And yet...this still keeps happening and we ignore the consequences. It will continue to happen until people figure out that the NRA is not a benevolent organization. They are nothing more than shills for gun manufacturers.
My friend Milwaukee Dan #1 recently posted an article on Facebook from the Chicago Tribune concerning a restaurateur in Chicago that was sending his employees outside to cook. Raw eggs were outside in high temperatures, mixing buckets were rinsed out with garden hoses, and the cooks mixed batter with their ungloved hands. The owner of the restaurant maintained that it was only temporary, but the health department was planning on investigating.
I think most of you are probably as grossed out right now as I was when I read the story. In my years in the laboratory, I witnessed quite a few outbreaks of foodborne illness, including Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter, and E coli O157. I saw a case or two of Listeria, as well as a rare Yersinia case. That doesn’t count the toxin screens usually done by the State Board of Health that test for Staph aureus, Bacillus cereus, and botulinum toxins. Those are just the most common ones. Most of us have probably suffered through a bout of food poisoning at some point in our lives; it’s not uncommon, and most of the time it is self-limiting and we can fight it off after a few days of misery.
However, severe outbreaks can tax the resources of local, county, and state labs, as well as resulting in hospitalization for those most affected. The CDC estimates that “each year roughly 1 in 6 Americans (or 48 million people) gets sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases.” Some of the symptoms of food poisoning include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, fever, and some bacteria (E coli O157) can cause hemolytic uremic syndrome, in which kidney failure occurs and can cause a lifetime dependence on dialysis.
The very young, the elderly, and the immunocompromised can be devastated by such illnesses, and complications can include septicemia (when the organism gets into the bloodstream), endotoxic shock, and massive organ failure.
Although dealing with each of these types of illnesses is too broad of a subject for one blog entry, I want to address a comment that Dan received after posting the Chicago Tribune story. (Yes, this is going to get political, but it is a point that needs to be made.) One of his more conservative friends made a sarcastic comment about how oh dear, someone was cooking good food outdoors for people to eat! When Dan mentioned the dangers of food poisoning, and I mentioned that as a microbiologist, I was appalled by what this restaurant owner was doing and that he either needs to take his operations inside or be shut down, the person wondered if there had been any complaints to the health department about this establishment, and that their own immune system was fine with it.
Suffice it to say that I wouldn’t be surprised to see a picture of this person in a tricorner hat, drinking a big jug o’ tea. I pointed out that for those whose immune systems are compromised—people with cancer or diabetes—a bout of food poisoning can be a life-threatening situation.
I recently read a story about a teabagger gathering in which people were cooking and selling food without a permit. One defender of this practice said that if the vendor gives people food poisoning, he won’t be in business for long...the market will correct itself.
To me, this is every single damn thing that is wrong about these freakin’ teabaggers. I suppose that if a food vendor manages to kill a bunch of people because he sells tainted food, he probably would be put out of business. In the meantime, a whole bunch of people are still dead. If that’s what the market needs to do to correct itself, then I think that market needs a little more regulation. Not everyone is a healthy, hale adult whose immune system can fight off a bout of Salmonella; sometimes people who have underlying disease that leaves them vulnerable to infections ingest these bacteria, viruses, or toxins, and it can be devastating to their health. A pregnant woman who eats ice cream or a hot dog that is tainted with Listeria will often miscarry because Listeria can cross the placental barrier and will often kill the fetus.
What really burns my bacon about those who think the government and the FDA should mind their own business and let the food market regulate itself is that they seem to have no concept or intellectual grasp of just how devastating these infections can be. As long as they’re strong and healthy and can fight off a bout of Shigella (although from talking to friends who have had Shigella, they won’t be quite so strong and healthy after that...one person told me that they were pretty sure they weren’t going to die, but they wanted to), they really don’t seem to give a flying fuck about anyone else, including kids, the elderly, and anyone who might not have the immune system of a superhero or a vampire.
We have an agency that is designed to protect the safety of our food, the FDA. It is not perfect, and there are still things that get by it. But we won’t get healthier by eating Salmonella-tainted eggs and spinach, or E coli-laden beef, or drinking unpasteurized milk contaminated with Campylobacter or Brucella. We’ll just get sick, resulting in lost productivity and in some cases, loss of life. We have the ability and technology to screen our food supply for these organisms, and we are healthier because of it. Challenging our immune systems by allowing all sorts of contaminants to enter our food supply is irresponsible and dangerous.
Anyone who thinks that the open market will correct such contamination problems, or that food vendors will police themselves, should probably take a look at what happened with Wall Street and our economy when regulation was eased. It may right itself eventually, but only after a lot of hurt, pain, and general misery. Perhaps they also might want to think about the greater good; although your portfolio might be robust, or you are in very good health, not everyone is that fortunate. What is so hard about watching out for the other guy, not just for yourself? Isn’t that what we are supposed to do as a society?
In an effort to stem the tide of what seems to be an epidemic of accidental shootings at the hands of children, some cities are looking at a novel solution: asking children to turn in their firearms. The incentive? Receiving a good grade.
