(06-19-2013, 04:11 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]BTW, the dad in St Paul who had 8 guns laying around when his 4 year old used one of them to shoot his younger brother, is going to prison.
Apparently, it's called child-endangerment or some shit like that.
And, the crazy fucker is St Paul who let his Pitbull kill his 7 year old a few years back, also went to prison.
Now, some would like to think of this simply as natural selection.
Maybe, but the day will come when a kid will pick up a gun and shoot someone other than someone who lives there, and it'll be a problem.
Both of those douchbags Should go to prison.
That said, I don't believe for a second that No One Ever would abuse the info the Dr gathers about guns. Because it is a gun, some anti gun nut is going to try, or start adding to the list of things they can collect info about.
Fine business if the Dr wants to ask and advise parents about gun safety, put out some gun safety pamphlets in the waiting room, hand them out to parents, no problem.
But, it should also be completely clear that the parents should be under no obligation to answer them.
The Dr's need to stick to their business of healing people.
(06-19-2013, 04:14 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
I don't know what the answer is but I do know that anything I have or anything I do is no one's business as long as I lead my life within the law.
I agree with that statement.
(06-19-2013, 04:20 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: [ -> ] (06-19-2013, 04:11 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]BTW, the dad in St Paul who had 8 guns laying around when his 4 year old used one of them to shoot his younger brother, is going to prison.
Apparently, it's called child-endangerment or some shit like that.
And, the crazy fucker is St Paul who let his Pitbull kill his 7 year old a few years back, also went to prison.
Now, some would like to think of this simply as natural selection.
Maybe, but the day will come when a kid will pick up a gun and shoot someone other than someone who lives there, and it'll be a problem.
Both of those douchbags Should go to prison.
That said, I don't believe for a second that No One Ever would abuse the info the Dr gathers about guns. Because it is a gun, some anti gun nut is going to try, or start adding to the list of things they can collect info about.
Fine business if the Dr wants to ask and advise parents about gun safety, put out some gun safety pamphlets in the waiting room, hand them out to parents, no problem.
But, it should also be completely clear that the parents should be under no obligation to answer them.
The Dr's need to stick to their business of healing people.
Maybe because I've not owned any guns, but I don't understand the paranoia that seems to envelop gun enthusiasts.
Are people really that determined to take away your guns?
I'm asking in all seriousness.
(06-19-2013, 04:22 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ] (06-19-2013, 04:20 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: [ -> ] (06-19-2013, 04:11 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]BTW, the dad in St Paul who had 8 guns laying around when his 4 year old used one of them to shoot his younger brother, is going to prison.
Apparently, it's called child-endangerment or some shit like that.
And, the crazy fucker is St Paul who let his Pitbull kill his 7 year old a few years back, also went to prison.
Now, some would like to think of this simply as natural selection.
Maybe, but the day will come when a kid will pick up a gun and shoot someone other than someone who lives there, and it'll be a problem.
Both of those douchbags Should go to prison.
That said, I don't believe for a second that No One Ever would abuse the info the Dr gathers about guns. Because it is a gun, some anti gun nut is going to try, or start adding to the list of things they can collect info about.
Fine business if the Dr wants to ask and advise parents about gun safety, put out some gun safety pamphlets in the waiting room, hand them out to parents, no problem.
But, it should also be completely clear that the parents should be under no obligation to answer them.
The Dr's need to stick to their business of healing people.
Maybe because I've not owned any guns, but I don't understand the paranoia that seems to envelop gun enthusiasts.
Are people really that determined to take away your guns?
I'm asking in all seriousness.
Some are I believe, yes.
The most immediate threat I see is more and more intrusion into my personal life. Next up, the govt and business have repeatedly demonstrated that they can not keep my personal information that they have stolen safe, it gets lost and leaked all the time. The nature of the info in question here could lead nefarious individuals to possibly target mr or my property for theft, vandalism, harassment etc..
Might never happen, but the only way to make sure..
I have yet to see anything put out there to demonstrate the need for this particular item, no benefit, nothing to convince me that I need to furnish a Dr anything to do with my gun status.
Fair enough, Six.
Thanks for answering.
I personally have no desire to take any law abiding citizen's guns, even an AR-15.
I would just like to see it be as difficult as possible to obtain them, and prosecute those who want to circumvent processes designed to keep them out of the wrong hands.
Mostly I agree. I don't see any reason to make it difficult for a law abiding citizen, whats the point of that?. A thorough background check should be all that is required.
The penalties should be pretty stiff.
(06-19-2013, 05:06 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: [ -> ]I, I, my, my, my, my, I, I, my.
The self obsessed and completely selfish gun nut meme in full effect again.
Anti gun people may be “nuts” but they never shoot up schools, cinemas, churches and shopping malls.
Not all gun nuts are spree killers but all spree killers are gun nuts.
(06-19-2013, 03:58 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]Children are killed all the time from being left unattended with pets. Do you also think it's outrageous for the pediatrician to ask if you have pets in the house and if so do you leave your infant unattended around them? It's just a safety awareness thing and nothing more.
When Obama Care - The Affordable Care Act - was implemented, questions arose about the wording in one of its provisions. Some doctors thought it prohibited them from asking questions about guns. It didn't.
In regards to whether doctors can ask, it's the same in this country as it always was. Doctors can ask, patients can decline to answer. That's now been clarified by the Obama Administration. There is no regulation involved.
That "executive action" to clarify that the Affordable Care Act doesn't prohibit doctors from asking wasn't part of the background check/safety bill at all. It was just a communication of clarification, not subject to vote, and already a done deal.
Note: Florida had an NRA-backed law that prohibited doctors from asking gun-related questions. Physicians went to court to overturn the law. Last I read, the law was overturned as a violation of the doctors' first amendment rights. Those kinds of state-specific laws (not federal) were what prompted doctors to seek clarification to the wording of Obama Care's language.
(06-20-2013, 11:27 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (06-20-2013, 11:16 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Doctors can ask, patients can decline to answer.
That doesn't make any sense at all to me but not much coming out of DC does.
A lot of wellness-related programs ask questions that seem like common sense to most.
But some people/patients really aren't aware of proper safety precautions and will answer honestly. If a safety risk is uncovered, not only related to guns but all kinds of things in the environment, the doctor can offer guidance.
It's mostly like a way to minimize accidents and deaths cause by a lack of common sense, in my view.
I make jokes that tardness is contagious but all the stoopid is scaring me. It is blowing my mind that people have to be told not to leave their babies unattended when around vicious dogs or to not leave their loaded weapon lying on the coffee table. How do you make people use simple common sense. I know no one can answer that.
I don't know why its blowing your mind don't you read the news? children get savaged by out of control dogs all the time, people die in domestic related firearm accidents all the time.
Stoopid seems to be reaching hitherto unthought of high levels these days.
I agree, especially the polititians. But with the internet you hear about goofy shit almost as soon as it happens. You could not fit into one newspaper all the news that happens in a day around the world.
(06-19-2013, 04:06 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
It's about the crazies getting access to guns, it's not about the guns, do something about the crazy people.
I'd like to see a list of psychological disorders that would immediately disqualify a person from owning a firearm
permanently.
So far, a comprehensive list has not been offered and made public . . . at least to my knowledge.
In other words: "Where does one draw the line as it relates to specific "illnesses" and over what time period?"
Should a sober alcoholic or clean drug addict be prevented from owning a firearm? How about a person who suffered depression and was prescribed medication after a tragic event? Or a person who contemplated suicide decades earlier and is now a vibrant and healthy individual?
Hoarders . . . are they on the list? Autistic adults or narcissists: are they to be banned, too?
Where's the ACLU when you need them?
Silent fuckers.
(06-20-2013, 07:37 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ] (06-19-2013, 04:06 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
It's about the crazies getting access to guns, it's not about the guns, do something about the crazy people.
I'd like to see a list of psychological disorders that would immediately disqualify a person from owning a firearm permanently.
So far, a comprehensive list has not been offered and made public . . . at least to my knowledge.
In other words: "Where does one draw the line as it relates to specific "illnesses" and over what time period?"
Should a sober alcoholic or clean drug addict be prevented from owning a firearm? How about a person who suffered depression and was prescribed medication after a tragic event? Or a person who contemplated suicide decades earlier and is now a vibrant and healthy individual?
Hoarders . . . are they on the list? Autistic adults or narcissists: are they to be banned, too?
Where's the ACLU when you need them?
Silent fuckers.
BT, those are very good points and I would also be very concerned about just where that line gets drawn and by who and using what ruler?
I am probably not qualified to make those distinctions, but have some ideas. Might need to think about it some though.
ACLU comes down on the anti gun side I think, don't know for sure though.
(06-20-2013, 09:30 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: [ -> ]ACLU comes down on the anti gun side I think, don't know for sure though.
I'm shocked they haven't been vocal about the hint of forcing an individual to declare a psychological event! You know . . . civil rights and all.
And I'm thinking about our men and women returning from combat with a host of traumatic mental health issues.
Are they, after fighting for our country and swearing to uphold the Constitution, now to be deprived of owning a firearm?
I'm betting PTSD is an anti-gun cinch for DQing an applicant.
As an aside - Do you think the military exhaustively researched the medical history of all applicants before issuing weapons?
I'm wagering on "No".
And why stop with the mental health issues.
Anyone with any association, through nationality, religion or political leanings against the US should be DQ'd, too.
Think Muslim Army shrink and mass shooting.
I don't remember him being declared as "crazy".
But first . . . let's disarm the niggers and spics.
Everyone knows they're crazy right out of the womb!
Yep, it's not only a question of those with documented mental illness not being reported to the Fed for NICS background check data population (due largely to state and organizational privacy policies), but also a problem in mental health categorization, tracking and reporting in general - not only specific to gun qualification.
There's a hell of a lot of room for improvement in keeping guns out of the wrong hands; hard work but needs to be undertaken.
Doesn't matter to me who initiates the dialogue and actions to work towards such improvements - bi partisan issue that benefits all.
I'm encouraged to at least see some of the ambiguity and gaps being acknowledged and formally addressed.
Of the 23 Executive Actions that were enacted in January, these are the ones that relate to mental illness/health and are now being addressed.
-Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
-Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
-Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
-Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
-Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
-Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
There will always be some mentally ill who never seek treatment and never have any "incidents" before going postal, and those who work around the existing system to get guns via straw purchasers or private transactions. But, it's still important to do as much as possible to keep guns out of the hands of unqualified gun owners who present known threats to society. IMO.
Tiki, Six, F.U., sally (and others interested in the details of mental illness/defect in regards to gun purchase qualifications):
Just read this recent report about what "mental defect/illness" used to mean in terms of disqualification from gun purchase, what it currently means, and some of the HIPAA and state challenges regarding NICS database population. I thought it was an interesting read.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43040.pdf
I don't want to see patients' private info revealed unnecessarily; mental health records in NICS should only include those which deem a person dangerous to himself or others. IMO.
That issue is addressed partially in the doc, along with the fact that those who have recovered can get themselves removed from the unqualified gun purchaser list.
As with most any guidelines/protocols, I can envision a lot of loopholes and opportunity for abuse if someone for some unknown reason was so inclined.
But, the report was helpful (to me, anyway) in further understanding some of the challenges related to what I perceive to be the biggest challenge with gun control laws: how to be most effective in keeping guns away from those who present a threat to society, while minimizing restrictions placed upon responsible gun owners in the process. The report doesn't include answers/solutions; more where we are and what's keeping us from where we might need to be.
ETA: Where's the ACLU? Straddling the fence and all over the map in terms of gun control. Don't really blame them in this case; individuals vs. the collective individuals making up society?