That's so the Libbo Dems can use Obamacare to take away our gun rights.
I ask about anything that I think is reasonable to assume that the individual would use to harm themselves. Guns, knives, and poisons/medications are at the top of my list, but depending on the patient, I would ask other questions. Whether they intend to drive is one, since I've had several that have threatened to drive their car into a tree.
In the situation that I am discussing there is a legitimate reason to ask about access to firearms. Since this is a danger to the individual... or perhaps another, this law would not apply to me and I could ask about one's gun ownership to my heart's content. If I suspect suicidality and the person refuses to answer, I can have them hospitalized as a danger to themselves.
Just asking, is all. The Mayor worked in a place where some loser decided to tie a plastic bag over his head in the little room where NAS spec manuals were kept. Some poor secretary found him right after lunch.. The man had some serious determination. Too bad it wasn't applied to succeeding at life.
The Mayor can certainly see the appropriateness of such questions in the mental health field.....even though patients lie all the time. Must be rough, that kind of job. For the record, the Mayor was not disagreeing with your position. But....is such a question appropriate for most circumstances an MD faces with his patients? Probably not.
Then again, note that the Mayor respects the First Amendment, and the Second, too.
It's not the questioning that's important, it's the potential of what can be done with the answers that presents the risk to freedom.
I love the idea of banning doctors from asking if you have a gun,hopefully they extend that other nosy people.
Yes it is. It asks who you voted for and if you didn't vote his way to get lost.
Once it becomes commonplace for "doctors" to ask about unrelated firearms, the next steps will be:
Recording the answers. These will naturally be digitized and stored electronically.
Then:
Correlating the answers with state firearm registration databases.
Then:
arresting people with unregistered firearms.
Finally:
Confiscation.
Don't believe the Mayor?
Seat belts were optional.
Seat belts became mandatory equipment.
Wearing seat belts became a matter for start-interlocks, and later, alarms.
Wearing seat belts became MANDATORY for all states seeking federal hgihway funds, subject to possible tickets by state tax collectors when stopped for other reasons. (These tax collectors are called "cops" in the vernacular of the peasantry.)
Unconstitutional seatbelt check roadblocks were implemented. Another loss of freedom.
Finally, not wearing a seatbelt has become in itself, a ticketable offense for which any tax collector can stop a vehicle and submit a tax bill.
This thread proves that conservatives are just fine with big government, just as long as its the sort of government interference they want.
It's ok for the government to decide how your doctor can operate?
Doctors routinely ask about home risk factors, especially pediatricians. Are your electrical sockets covered? Are dangerous/poisonous substances kept out of reach? Is there a gun in the home, and if so is it kept in a locked box or safe?
The paranoia about "backdoor registration" is just absurd.
If the question bothers you, don't ****ing answer it. But no, you'd rather run to the nanny state to get Big Brother Government to make sure the meanie doctor doesn't ask you a question that might bother you.
How exactly does any of that harm you?
Yet another example of so-called libertarians goose-stepping along with oppressive government. Does the mere mention of the word "gun" completely scramble all you hoplophiles' logical faculties?
This isn't a gun rights issue. This is a free speech and medical privacy issue. The libertarian position is clear: the government should not interfere with a doctor and patient.
Why do you keep saying they're? How many physicians were reported doing this?
Does the word paranoia ring a bell.
How exactly does any of that harm you?
A number of reasons have been listed in this thread.
How does something that is a precursor to firearms confiscation hurt you? You have to ask? I suppose that if you do not own firearms then it doesn't hurt you? If you have some absurd notion that no government in the whole entire has ever turned on it's people or that even in this country a fire arm registry has never been used to confiscate firearms then sure you might have some delusion that a firearm registry will not hurt you.
GunCite - Gun Control: gun registration;firearm registration
New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated. (Same source as previous paragraph)
In May of 1995, Canada's Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. Current owners of such guns were "grandfathered," which means the guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner. Bill C-68 also authorizes the Canadian government to enact future weapons prohibitions.
On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed.
"Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule...The handgun ban by no means has satiated the anti-gun appetite in Great Britain." (All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America", Hamline Law Review, 1999)
Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson)
How does something that is a precursor to firearms confiscation hurt you? You have to ask? I suppose that if you do not own firearms then it doesn't hurt you? If you have some absurd notion that no government in the whole entire has ever turned on it's people or that even in this country a fire arm registry has never been used to confiscate firearms then sure you might have some delusion that a firearm registry will not hurt you.
Why do you keep saying they're? How many physicians were reported doing this?
Does the word paranoia ring a bell.
Maybe the AMA needs to stick to medicine, and leave politics to the citizenry.Maybe the Florida legislature needs to put a bill up to prevent doctors from asking who you voted for.
It might ring a bell to you. I've been asked by my physician during a physical whether or not I own a gun. Why would legislation be considered if only one or two physicians are asking? And since when have physicians assumed to be experts in firearms safety? Are you kidding me or what?
Listing reasons doesn't make them legitimate.
Yeah, pretty much this. Less government micro-management is ALWAYS a good thing. As several people have stated in the thread already, the doctor should be able to ask whatever they like, that doesn't mean a patient has to answer truthfully, or even at all.
Personally, I don't think it's any of the medical provider's business, but I don't need the government to tell them that, I'm perfectly capable of expressing my opinions all by myself. :2razz:
Just saying they are not legitimate without offering reasons does not make it so.
Guns in American Society: A - L - Google Books
It's pure politics....waiting periods add nothing to healthcare. Neither does a politically motivated hysteria over "assault" weapons.
No, but it shouldn't stop the question from being asked, which seems to be the point of contention here. I've given you a valid medical reason as to why a doctor should be allowed to ask the question. Well I think it's a free country and a doctor should be able to ask any question anyway; but whatever. Some people seem to contend that idea as well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?