exactly.....leftist elites like to make fun of certain people(hell you see it in this thread) for believing that people are out to get their guns, but a lot of this isn't entirely unfounded. Does anyone really believe that if some of these supposedly 'smaller steps' that the left says are 'common sense' are implemented that then they would say "ok, we are satisfied now". Hell no. For starters, the left doesn't even know what the hell they are talking about with respect to these things(there is no such thing as a 'gun show loophole') so that is one reason not to trust them.
Yes, You Can: Physicians, Patients, and Firearms
exactly.....leftist elites like to make fun of certain people(hell you see it in this thread) for believing that people are out to get their guns, but a lot of this isn't entirely unfounded. Does anyone really believe that if some of these supposedly 'smaller steps' that the left says are 'common sense' are implemented that then they would say "ok, we are satisfied now". Hell no. For starters, the left doesn't even know what the hell they are talking about with respect to these things(there is no such thing as a 'gun show loophole') so that is one reason not to trust them.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,609
No. We aren't talking about fractions. We are talking about actual human beings. We work at the individual level, right?
D
deleted480308
and at an individual level we all have rights and autonomy, if you wish to make clinical suggestions to those with mental illness about gun safety then by all means do so. What is inappropriate, is physicians wrapping themselves in their white coats to gain credibility as they advocate for violating people's rights and autonomy.
no, I'm still making those sort of calculations with my patients. When I start a medication on patient x, I've got to consider the percentage chance that it will work vs the percentage chance it will have side effects and other negative effects....and then weigh the two. The fact that those calculations may be different for two different patients doesn't mean I still don't consider it.
And for suicidality, obviously the numbers there will change to. That's why I said for a small minoroty patients I would consider pushing to have their gun removed.
Physicians wrap themselves in their white coats to gain credibility all the time. Pediatricians do it when they ask about bike helmets, reading books and child-proofing homes. GPs do it when they tell people to eat healthy and exercise. But it all of a sudden becomes a forbidden subject when the physician threatens to take away the patient's
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,609
It people's right and autonomy to do lots of things. Eat ****ty, for example. Why can physicians or health professions advocate against the harms of one thing, but not the other?
I understand the right to own guns. What I don't understand is the selective sensitivity to this issue, whilst not seeming to mind that your doctors asks, and advises, about all kinds of other "freedoms" that one maybe exercising.
Last edited:
D
deleted480308
I don't think physicians should be advocating for banning or restricting access to crappy food either.....if you want to eat like an idiot, it's your choice
Now attempting to educate a patient about the risks of their crappy food? totally cool
Ah, yes....the old, "your penis isn't big if you support firearms rights".....elevate your discourse
it's this sort of thing that creates so much animosity between americans exercising their second amendment rights and the anti-gun left. Leftists can't see it.....because they don't understand the issue, don't understand the language, don't understand anything about it. So they should just stop talking about it. It would be a much better strategy than continuing to get the **** kicked out of them on this issue for the next 50 years.
no you dont seem to understand the right to own guns, because you are comparing it to things that our founding fathers didn't specifically single out as rights in the bill of rights.
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,580
- Reaction score
- 2,795
So we all seem to be discussing gun ownership, but no one bothers to bring up the elephant in the room. Other threads attempt to discuss this but quickly fizzle out.
The complex characteristics of pathological characterological traits which lends itself to violence.
The complex characteristics of pathological characterological traits which lends itself to violence.
Last edited:
because we do a *terrible* job of being able to assess and predict this. After a horrific episode like the one in Ct(or wherever it was) we always see a psychiatrist interviewed who basically says "well don't hold us responsible because it's impossible to predict this sort of thing in many patients". And then when the public hears this they ask "then what the hell good are you then?"......
I'm actually not anti-gun. I've shot them, they're fun, and I get the appeal. They give you a sense that you can protect and provide for your family, that you're self-reliant and don't need some authority. I might even want one myself, although its prohibitively expensive where I live, I don't hunt, and I'm probably more likely to hurt myself/a loved one then actually defend myself. Similarly, I know a lot of people who are into cars for the same reason: it gives them a sense of power, independence and thrill.
But there are people who want to take away my First Amendment rights and tell me I can't ask about guns with my patients, that somehow its an abuse of power. And there's something special about guns, because those people aren't getting upset when pediatricians abuse their power to talk about helmets and seat belts.
Its not a reference to size, but potency.
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 9,129
I have a CHL and a handgun. I wouldn't consider myself a "gun nut" but do like going to the range and shooting some targets once a week. I also participate in local shooting competitions. It's a fun hobby and, like @WingedOx mentioned, is a great way to get your mind off things and exert significant focus on a single task. Shooting and cleaning the weapon afterward is a bit meditative in a way.
I think it's completely appropriate to ask about firearms. Even in an intake setting I don't think it's inappropriate - it can help inform risk even in the absence of an acute crisis. However, I think a big point of broaching this topic is how you approach it. Reiterating that the question is simply a standard question on safety seems to help. Recognizing that individuals have a right (even if you disagree) to own a firearm can help. Focusing more on the simple yes/no response to whether or not they own a gun rather than attempting to proselytize - even indirectly - about why owning guns is a bad decision is probably a better approach. All of these things help build an alliance with the patient by saying, "I'm interested in your safety, not taking away your guns for no reason."
I've also not had trouble having these discussions even in an acute crisis if you lay everything on the table, make your goal (i.e., encouraging safety) clear, and are professional and objective rather than political and preachy. Some folks refuse to acquiesce, but I've found that most understand the concern and are willing to have their weapons given to someone else if only temporarily.
I think it's completely appropriate to ask about firearms. Even in an intake setting I don't think it's inappropriate - it can help inform risk even in the absence of an acute crisis. However, I think a big point of broaching this topic is how you approach it. Reiterating that the question is simply a standard question on safety seems to help. Recognizing that individuals have a right (even if you disagree) to own a firearm can help. Focusing more on the simple yes/no response to whether or not they own a gun rather than attempting to proselytize - even indirectly - about why owning guns is a bad decision is probably a better approach. All of these things help build an alliance with the patient by saying, "I'm interested in your safety, not taking away your guns for no reason."
I've also not had trouble having these discussions even in an acute crisis if you lay everything on the table, make your goal (i.e., encouraging safety) clear, and are professional and objective rather than political and preachy. Some folks refuse to acquiesce, but I've found that most understand the concern and are willing to have their weapons given to someone else if only temporarily.
Of course there is something special about guns......seat belts and helmets aren't in the bill of rights. I also love it when people who clearly feel uncomfortable around(and don't know **** about) guns always preface their bs with something about their own experiences with guns. That's up there with the "I have a lot of black friends...." conversation intro.
D
deleted480308
You find attempts to insult the other side with potency jokes as somehow more mature than size jokes?
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2005
- Messages
- 997
- Reaction score
- 41
My two cents as a psychiatrist and a firearms enthusiast: I think it is fine to ask if it is pertinent to your care of the patient. In psychiatry it is absolutely pertinent, it affects suicide risk. If you're a surgeon doing an appendectomy, it's maybe not so pertinent. However, as many others have said, please approach in a non-judgmental and practical way.
Let's take the motorcycle analogy. Motorcycles are dangerous, and your life would be safer if you did not ride a motorcycle. However, no doctor would ever say, "the safest way to get around is to not ride a motorcycle", as true as that may be. No, we ask if they are wearing their helmet and practising motorcycle safety. We advise against drinking and riding, and advise not driving or riding if a person had dementia or epilepsy. Thus the discussion should be, "Oh you own guns. If you have children, we recommend they be locked. Are you practising the 3 cardinal rules of gun safety? You're having suicidal thoughts? May I advise you give your guns to your family member for safe-keeping?" This is very different than, "Did you know you are much more likely to die from a gun if you own a gun? You should really consider getting rid of your guns". This btw is a specious and faulty, meaningless tautology because you're more likely to be killed by ANYTHING if you own that thing. Indeed, if you are much more likely to die from a car accident if you have a drivers license. Well, duh.
Many in the firearms community (of which I am part of) are deeply distrustful of doctors' qualifications in discussing gun safety, as these "gun people" will likely know way more about guns and gun safety than the typical doctor. In their words, "I don't expect my gunsmith to tell me how to manage my blood pressure, and I don't expect my doctor to lecture me about proper gun safety". Most doctors have never held a gun before and don't know anything about proper gun safety. FYI, the 3 cardinal rules are: (1.) trigger discipline; finger off the trigger until read to fire, 2.) keep firearm pointed in safe direction at all times, 3.) assume the firearm is loaded at all times). There is some truth to this distrust. If you're a doctor and you want to advise people about gun safety and not sound like an idiot, may I suggest you take a gun safety course and learn how to safely handle a firearm so that you know what you're talking about when you instruct your patients?
Finally I want to make a couple more general points not necessarily related to guns and medicine/psychiatry. I live in California, a liberal "gun control" state where it is extremely difficult to (legally) own many types of guns. Criminals don't obey laws. We have a 10-round magazine limit. I've never heard of a gang-member saying to himself, "Oh man, California like, banned these high-capacity magazines, I better get rid of them!" Using gun control laws to deter violence is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it more difficult for sober people to drive. Places with more poverty have more crime, regardless of gun control laws. Gun control laws are extremely strict in all of Latin America, yet they have extremely high levels of gun violence. One last word about guns and suicide: guns do make it easier to kill yourself, but consider that South Korea and Japan have almost no culture of civilian gun owernship and super strict gun laws, yet they have some of the highest rates of suicide in the world. People find a way to kill themselves.
Okay that's my thoughts on this topic. Peace out.
Let's take the motorcycle analogy. Motorcycles are dangerous, and your life would be safer if you did not ride a motorcycle. However, no doctor would ever say, "the safest way to get around is to not ride a motorcycle", as true as that may be. No, we ask if they are wearing their helmet and practising motorcycle safety. We advise against drinking and riding, and advise not driving or riding if a person had dementia or epilepsy. Thus the discussion should be, "Oh you own guns. If you have children, we recommend they be locked. Are you practising the 3 cardinal rules of gun safety? You're having suicidal thoughts? May I advise you give your guns to your family member for safe-keeping?" This is very different than, "Did you know you are much more likely to die from a gun if you own a gun? You should really consider getting rid of your guns". This btw is a specious and faulty, meaningless tautology because you're more likely to be killed by ANYTHING if you own that thing. Indeed, if you are much more likely to die from a car accident if you have a drivers license. Well, duh.
Many in the firearms community (of which I am part of) are deeply distrustful of doctors' qualifications in discussing gun safety, as these "gun people" will likely know way more about guns and gun safety than the typical doctor. In their words, "I don't expect my gunsmith to tell me how to manage my blood pressure, and I don't expect my doctor to lecture me about proper gun safety". Most doctors have never held a gun before and don't know anything about proper gun safety. FYI, the 3 cardinal rules are: (1.) trigger discipline; finger off the trigger until read to fire, 2.) keep firearm pointed in safe direction at all times, 3.) assume the firearm is loaded at all times). There is some truth to this distrust. If you're a doctor and you want to advise people about gun safety and not sound like an idiot, may I suggest you take a gun safety course and learn how to safely handle a firearm so that you know what you're talking about when you instruct your patients?
Finally I want to make a couple more general points not necessarily related to guns and medicine/psychiatry. I live in California, a liberal "gun control" state where it is extremely difficult to (legally) own many types of guns. Criminals don't obey laws. We have a 10-round magazine limit. I've never heard of a gang-member saying to himself, "Oh man, California like, banned these high-capacity magazines, I better get rid of them!" Using gun control laws to deter violence is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it more difficult for sober people to drive. Places with more poverty have more crime, regardless of gun control laws. Gun control laws are extremely strict in all of Latin America, yet they have extremely high levels of gun violence. One last word about guns and suicide: guns do make it easier to kill yourself, but consider that South Korea and Japan have almost no culture of civilian gun owernship and super strict gun laws, yet they have some of the highest rates of suicide in the world. People find a way to kill themselves.
Okay that's my thoughts on this topic. Peace out.
Last edited:
You're right, I'm probably the equivalent of a mild ignorant/racist person when it comes to guns. Not like KKK-level intolerance, more like that awkward uncle that makes uncomfortable remarks during the Thanksgiving football games after a bit too much to drink.
That being said, I still don't understand what being in the Bill of Rights means I can't ask patients if they own a gun. Sure, if I start lecturing them about gun safety, their eyes may roll so far back into their head it would cause permanent blindness, but I'm not talking about that -- I'm talking about laws in Florida that muzzle physicians, doing the basic interventions mentioned above. And I'm not some leftist. I feel the same way about the kids in college who are terrified of "trigger words" and need to be protected from dangerous ideas.
Of course what I said was immature, I'm just trying to clarify what my immature point was.
D
deleted480308
once again, timing wise that law was introduced during some of the physician groups posted papers calling for bans of firearms and the push for EMR records causing concern that doctors visits would be a back door to a gun registry
I share your opinion that asking psych patients about gun ownership/safety (if you have a clue what you are talking about) is appropriate
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,382
- Reaction score
- 4,324
I believe in the 2nd amendment and vehemently defend the constitution, but asking about gun ownership (particularly when there is a concern) should be allowable. Just my 2 cents.
I think we agree for the most part. I also think the florida law was ridiculous. There shouldnt be such a law, and that was ridiculous.
But what was even more ridiculous was what happened before that when leftist advocacy groups starting stirring the pot the way they did. That was what triggered the overreach.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 6,366
- Reaction score
- 4,298
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,382
- Reaction score
- 4,324
Using the range can help with stress relief and help a person with mindfulness principles. Breath control, being present, etc. Also, reloading your own ammo can be very relaxing.
D
deleted480308
I'm all for prosecuting that guy. But I'm not giving up my gun because he's an idiot any more than I'm giving up my car because of drunk drivers
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 7,139
- Reaction score
- 11,293
yup.
Just don't leave it loaded at your bedside table if you have a history of sleepwalking or carry it when you smoke pot when pot makes you paranoid causing you to discharge your weapon through your bedroom door at an "intruder" that happened to just be your girlfriend coming over.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,382
- Reaction score
- 4,324
I'm thinking about a Mossberg 500 for home defense, though i've read some pretty convincing arguments for an AR-15 option. I'm much more comfortable with the latter, so that may win out.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2005
- Messages
- 997
- Reaction score
- 41
I always say, handgun is for self-defence, shotgun is for home defence, and a rifle is for civil defence
Best to have all 3. My personal collection:
handgun = Glock 19
shotgun = Remington 870.
AR = by FN USA
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2005
- Messages
- 997
- Reaction score
- 41
That's horrific that that happened. However, we don't ban cars because someone left their keys in the car and their little child got in and crashed the car. We chastise the parent and punish them. There should be stiff criminal penalties for negligence like leaving a loaded gun in reach of children, just like we punish parents who leave other dangerous items around, but we shouldn't punish responsible gun owners.
this has absolutely nothing to do with America.
Also, and perhaps 5 is a little young, but these parents need to be teaching their children gun safety principles and how to be comfortable around guns at a young age. When I was growing up(and I don't remember a specific age...certainly less than 10...older than 5) a gun was on a family room table. It was something that was respected and we knew not to pick it up and play with it.
One of the hunting forums I am in has a thread devoted to the kills of children of forum participants. It's awesome to see people bonding over that and for youth to be learning to appreciate and enjoy guns. Now a 5 yo shouldn't be handling a rifle completely unsupervised...and really the age at which kids can hunt with their parents(and the kid controls the gun) all depends on the kid.
D
deleted480308
a rifle provides more rounds at a faster rate of fire...given ammo selection though, there is some consideration for penetration through multiple walls
great post...but a few points:
1) not a huge fan of the motorcycle analogy because the risk of harm from frequent motorcycle use is exponentially greater than for firearm use for most of the population.
2) I am very distrustful of most psychiatrists qualifications in discussing gun safety(not necessarily physicians in general). Go over to some of the other forums here and you will see most of the guys there are more than comfortable with guns.
when I'm debating between two guns in terms of a next purchase, I always.......buy both.
me neither....but it's also important to recognize that our rights to own guns(as many as we want) are on a completely different level than our rights to own a car or drive or whatever. I always avoid analogies like this because one of the favorite tactics of the left is to argue that because driving is extremely regulated that the same level of regulation should be open to guns. The two are not remotely similar.....nowhere in the Bill of rights is driving mentioned.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,609
I wonder why that is....
My guess is it would be because the bill of rights was written in 1789 and cars were invented at the very end of the 1800s. That said, at no point in the last 125 years has the constitution been amended to give the right to own a car and drive the same sort of protection as the right to own a firearm.
Leftists always like the talk about how so much has changed since the Bill of Rights and that we need to take this into consideration. Well....the good news for gun hating leftists is that there actually is a process by which the constitution can be modified. The framers even spelled it out! They anticipated that the world would change and modifications may be necessary down the line. So there is already a place in process by which these things can be addressed......I suggest that leftists get busy on those constitutional amendments
D
deleted480308
the constitution doesn't give rights. rights simply exist. The constitution merely chooses to name something as a right or not in terms of govt enforcement.My guess is it would be because the bill of rights was written in 1789 and cars were invented at the very end of the 1800s. That said, at no point in the last 125 years has the constitution been amended to give the right to own a car and drive the same sort of protection as the right to own a firearm.
Leftists always like the talk about how so much has changed since the Bill of Rights and that we need to take this into consideration. Well....the good news for gun hating leftists is that there actually is a process by which the constitution can be modified. The framers even spelled it out! They anticipated that the world would change and modifications may be necessary down the line. So there is already a place in process by which these things can be addressed......I suggest that leftists get busy on those constitutional amendments
Yes, excellent point. That's a much better way to put it.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,382
- Reaction score
- 4,324
My personal level of comfort and accuracy are two big considerations for me.
Penetration is an issue w. most options. If I went with a .45, it'd still go clean through sheetrock and similar. Buckshot I guess would work, but it lacks true stopping power.
Great policy!
I'll probably end up doing this because 2 > 1.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2005
- Messages
- 997
- Reaction score
- 41
Even if cars were around in 1776 they would not have made it into the Constitution. Cars can be helpful, but are not the critical item necessary to overthrow a tyrannical government. The 2nd amendment is a "Doomsday Provision", a "break the glass" kind of tool. The US Government was built upon an intricate system of checks and balances. The 2nd Amendment is the "Final Check" when all other checks have failed. Contrary to what anti-gun people will claim, the 2nd amendment does not enshrine the right to hunt delicious deer, or even to defend your home. It is there for only one purpose: to defend your freedom when everything else has gone to hell.
Anti-gun people claim that guns are useless to fight a government with nukes and tanks. My rebuttal is:
1.) If I'm facing a government with nukes and tanks, I say it's infinitely better to have guns than have nothing
2.) Every successful revolution in history starts with a group of angry, armed people.
3.) No totalitarian dictator has ever tolerated civilian gun ownership. Ask Kim Jung Il.
4.) Angry guys with guns have given our all-powerful military with its nukes and tanks a LOT of trouble in the Middle East and Vietnam.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,609
I try to be Merton-ish in my views. So, we are never going to agree that right to acquire massive amounts of deadly weaponry makes the world and its citizens a safer and/or more peaceful place.
while I agree with all these things, I think it's a mistake to even have discussions like this with anti-gun/anti-American types. Because it is a spineless attempt on their part to change the terms of the discussion into something more possible for them. Don't fall for their crap.
When we were 5 and our moms told us we couldn't have that coca cola before bed, what was her response:
a) "I'm your mom and I said no and that's that"
or
b) "well coke has caffeine in it and that may keep you up and it will also cause tooth decay"
I sure as hell hope it was A. Because that's the only ****ing answer that is relevant. It is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to a 5 yo on the degree to which coke causes tooth decay or staying up to late or whatever. WHO THE **** CARES. What does matter is that the parent makes the rules at that age, so that's that. Just like all these arguments anti-American/anti-gun people come up with on guns. Of course they are wrong on all their 'points' anyways, but it doesn't matter if everything they say is spot on. It just doesn't matter. Because that's not the issue.
IT DOES NOT MATTER whether this is true or not. You couldn't have made a more irrelevant point. Maybe guns last year were responsible for 12 million deaths in the US. Or maybe they saved 12 million lives. DOESN'T MATTER.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,609
I know. And I agree. The difference is I think thats sad, and you dont.
If you feel it's sad, work to change the constitution. As I said above, that was one of the brilliant provisions our founders came up with. This beautiful document they created allows for that.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2013
- Messages
- 2,542
- Reaction score
- 4,260
I'm confused, wasn't the second amendment about the State's right to maintain militias as a means of protecting the government? It has nothing to do with citizens owning guns to protect us from the government. At least that is what a professor of mine concluded after his dissertation on the origins of the second amendment. Go ahead and own guns, but lets not get our founding fathers into this. Their context would involve flint lock muskets and I doubt they had a clue about ARs.
yes, you are confused. very very confused. But since you seem interested in pontificating on the motivations of our founding fathers(incorrectly I might add, but whatever it doesn't really matter), there is a simple remedy for your quandary- work for a constitutional amendment that changes the constitution in this regard to whatever you feel would be the current appropriate translation for more modern times.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2005
- Messages
- 997
- Reaction score
- 41
Guns don't make us safer, they make us freer. America was meant to be a free country, not a safe one, IMHO
D
deleted480308
don't try to change it...you can't have mine back either way
My personal level of comfort and accuracy are two big considerations for me.
Penetration is an issue w. most options. If I went with a .45, it'd still go clean through sheetrock and similar. Buckshot I guess would work, but it lacks true stopping power.
Great policy!
I'll probably end up doing this because 2 > 1.
buckshot will still go through drywall, and will still stop a person....I agree however with accuracy and comfort being a factor
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,609
I am a human first. "American" comes second.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2005
- Messages
- 997
- Reaction score
- 41
McDonald Triad, I am sorry some of my fellow pro-gun people are a bit...passionate about their views. I think we should try to remain polite with each other.
But to answer your question , I'm familiar with the "collective rights" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but IMHO that interpretation makes no sense. Everyone agrees that other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights guarantees individual rights. When the other 9 amendments use the phrase "the People", everyone agrees they mean the individual people of the United States. Why would the 2nd Amendment be the only Amendment to use "the People" to mean the American collective?
Also, you interpret the 2nd Amendment to only apply to flintlock muskets. Does the 1st Amendment only apply to parchment and paper print? No, it applies to blogs and video too.
