Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Jan 19, '13 at 10:16am

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

One of Obama's executive orders states that doctors will be able to not only ask their patients if they or their family own any firearms, but they'll also be able to report that family to the government. I believe doctors should be allowed to ask whatever they want, but anything the patient says should remain between the doctor, the patient, and the patient's family ONLY with few exceptions.

isn't this going past the topic?
if you want a gun. then you should allow the government to check if you can handle a gun or that you might be a risk. you have to agree whit those terms if you want to have a gun.
i mean. if you drive a truck, then you have to do a medical examine every so long.. if you dont want to share the results of those tests then you can't drive the truck. thats just how it go's. why would it be different whit guns?

 

Posted Jan 19, '13 at 10:40am

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,071 posts

Knight

if you drive a truck, then you have to do a medical examine every so long.. if you dont want to share the results of those tests then you can't drive the truck.

Not sure if this is a real example or hypothetical. Either way, this is wrong.

A patient should be allowed to say whatever it is they need to say to their doctor without fear of getting in trouble or having to suffer some form of negative consequence. I see absolutely no reason why a doctor should tell the government whether a family owns a gun or not, because it's not the government's business. Honestly, I can't understand why a doctor would need to know such information in the first place, but I'll leave my mind open just in case there is a reason. After all, a doctor should be allowed to ask anything if they feel it will improve a person's health.

Their is zero reason for the government to know whether or not a patient has a gun. ZERO. The ONLY time a doctor should break patient confidentiality is if they feel their patient is on the verge of harming themselves or others. If a patient owns a gun, shows no signs of harming others, a doctor should not be allowed to disclose whether or not the patient owns a gun to the government.

 

Posted Jan 19, '13 at 11:12am

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

Not sure if this is a real example or hypothetical

it is real for truckers that drive for there work. not for those for own use and hobby.

A patient should be

is it really a patient? he does the test by free will because he want to have a gun. he is not going to be helped about anything that might be wrong whit his body. he is just there to make a test required to own a gun.
everything outside this test does not have to be shared whit the government. only that what is tested. and what will be tested is said in the law. nothing more, nothing less.

I see absolutely no reason why a doctor should tell the government whether a family owns a gun or not, because it's not the government's business.

this question should indeed not be asked by a doctor but by a other test institute. i would think of the psychologist.

 

Posted Jan 19, '13 at 12:00pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,071 posts

Knight

is it really a patient? he does the test by free will because he want to have a gun. he is not going to be helped about anything that might be wrong whit his body. he is just there to make a test required to own a gun.
everything outside this test does not have to be shared whit the government. only that what is tested. and what will be tested is said in the law. nothing more, nothing less.

Are we talking about regular check ups or check ups necessary to own a gun? I'm talking about regular check ups that aren't being done to own a gun.

I also see no reason why someone should waste money, time, and resources getting a check up just to see if they are capable of buying a gun. Can you even name situation where you wouldn't be allowed to have a gun because a doctor doesn't see you fit enough to do so? What would the criteria be? I can understand truckers having to be tested, to a degree, but even that's a bit redicilous.

 

Posted Jan 19, '13 at 12:24pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

depends on what kind of autism he had. some can make them unreliable.

Unreliable? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, but autism doesn't make people violent or psychotic.

Are we talking about regular check ups or check ups necessary to own a gun? I'm talking about regular check ups that aren't being done to own a gun.

I'm pretty sure that he's talking about going in specifically to take a mental health test as one prerequisite for owning a gun. Not some out of nowhere interrogation on whether you own a gun.

I also see no reason why someone should waste money, time, and resources getting a check up just to see if they are capable of buying a gun.

I can see plenty of reasons, ranging from the suicides committed with them to crimes where they are used. Of course, that wouldn't affect anything in which a gun was illegally obtained to begin with.

Can you even name situation where you wouldn't be allowed to have a gun because a doctor doesn't see you fit enough to do so?

Anger issues, extreme lack of inhibition, mental retardation, psychopathic episodes, maybe Parkinson's in later stages because they might pull the trigger accidentally, etc.

What would the criteria be?

If a person with said whatever would be able to responsibly and safely own a gun and could be reasonably trusted to not use it for crime or harming another person except in the case of self defense.

I can understand truckers having to be tested, to a degree, but even that's a bit redicilous.

...I really don't see eye to eye with your libertarian views. They're driving something that weighs anywhere from 20,000 lbs without a trailer, to 32,000 lbs with an empty trailer, to 80,000 lbs at maximum load. If the driver were to lose control and run into something, well, that wouldn't be pretty now would it? General health such as risk factors for heart attacks, seizures, migraines, vision, anything that would affect driving, is VERY serious. When you're going at 60-70 miles an hour on the highway, I don't think I need to explain the force behind an 60,000-70,000 lbs object.

 

Posted Jan 19, '13 at 12:52pm

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,633 posts

I can see plenty of reasons, ranging from the suicides committed with them to crimes where they are used. Of course, that wouldn't affect anything in which a gun was illegally obtained to begin with.

I can see the problem with crimes, but if someone wants to kill themself and no one else, I would let them. Freedom of choice.

Anger issues, extreme lack of inhibition, mental retardation, psychopathic episodes, maybe Parkinson's in later stages because they might pull the trigger accidentally, etc.

Regarding our existing stance on gun laws (STRICT) I don't think we'll be letting idiots give idiots guns. The seller should be smart enough, and if not, he needs only give a little quiz. The Hippocratic Oath binds a doctor to confidentiality.

...I really don't see eye to eye with your libertarian views. They're driving something that weighs anywhere from 20,000 lbs without a trailer, to 32,000 lbs with an empty trailer, to 80,000 lbs at maximum load. If the driver were to lose control and run into something, well, that wouldn't be pretty now would it? General health such as risk factors for heart attacks, seizures, migraines, vision, anything that would affect driving, is VERY serious. When you're going at 60-70 miles an hour on the highway, I don't think I need to explain the force behind an 60,000-70,000 lbs object.

Society doesn't put idiots in charge of the big things. Actually, regarding politics, that's not true. But we usually don't put idiots in charge of practical things where the needed criteria is bloomingly obvious. It's like conscripting a blind and deaf man into the army; stupid.

 

Posted Jan 19, '13 at 1:01pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,071 posts

Knight

General health such as risk factors for heart attacks, seizures, migraines, vision, anything that would affect driving, is VERY serious.

This is the part where I understand why truck drivers should have their health examined before they can drive on the road, but it's not something that should be reported to the government.

I can see plenty of reasons, ranging from the suicides committed with them to crimes where they are used.

A check up will not determine if someone is going to use their gun to commit crimes or suicide. Therefore, it's just a waste of time.

Anger issues, extreme lack of inhibition, mental retardation, psychopathic episodes, maybe Parkinson's in later stages because they might pull the trigger accidentally, etc.

The only thing more uncommon than people who have these problems are people who have these problems and want to buy a gun.

I can understand prohibiting sales of a firearm to someone who is mentally disabled or has parkinson's disease, but these will come up in a background check (especially mental retardation). 99.99% of people who get a check up to own a gun will pass. It's just not worth the time, money, and resources.

Unless we actually have a problem with the aforementioned people obtaining guns and doing harm with them, the checkups should be out of the question.

If a person with said whatever would be able to responsibly and safely own a gun and could be reasonably trusted to not use it for crime or harming another person except in the case of self defense.

The criteria that would prohibit someone from owning a gun would be so ridiculously rare, it's a non-issue. Anger issues is the most common, but even people with anger issues are seldom committing crimes.

 

Posted Jan 19, '13 at 1:11pm

xxcommandoxx97

xxcommandoxx97

11 posts

Alright for one if a person is mentally unstable they shouldnt be able to have access to a gun period. If they are on any type of medicine for antidepression or anyting like that...no guns. Two, now gun shows do need background checks, that is the only thing i agree with on the whole thing. Other than that im completely against it. If you put a ban on guns, the crime rate is just gonna go up. Like with the drug wars we as taxpayers spend more money on taxes to pay for their services in jail like meals and t.v. and for them to carry out these drug raids and all. If you took the law away of no drugs and legalized it but controlled it...you have a lower crime rate. Just compare that to the gun control laws.

 

Posted Jan 19, '13 at 1:16pm

wolf1991

wolf1991

3,061 posts

A check up will not determine if someone is going to use their gun to commit crimes or suicide. Therefore, it's just a waste of time.

But a background check of any mental illnesses might. For example, if a person wishing to purchase a gun suffers from chronically severe depression, or even severe manic depression, then that person is a risk to themselves and others. Even without a gun those with severe depression pose a risk to themselves.

mental retardation

I realize that term is what many Americans use, however I do infact find it offensive, I would prefer if you used something along the lines of hadicapped.

Unless we actually have a problem with the aforementioned people obtaining guns and doing harm with them, the checkups should be out of the question.

Perhaps I'm not following, but how does one know if someone is reasonably stable to own a gun if there is no primary background check.

 

Posted Jan 19, '13 at 1:17pm

wolf1991

wolf1991

3,061 posts

If you put a ban on guns, the crime rate is just gonna go up.

Please, for the love of god stop saying this! No one here is suggesting we ban guns!

 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!