Reply With QuoteI dont quite understand
Miami federal judge sides with ‘Docs’ over ‘Glocks’ in Fla. gun rights case
I dont quite understand
Some doctors with an anti-gun agenda were asking kids about guns in their parent's home. If the kids mentioned unsecured firearms in the home, the doctor would file a complaint with children's services and try to get the kids removed from the home and placed into foster care. The law was intended to prevent this practice,Originally Posted by Roebuck
what a DBAG move. My parents had no problem giving me a revolver at 15 for home defense with rigorous education on the matter.
Maybe people who leave unsecured weapons around children should have them taken from them? I mean, I'd consider anyone who left alcohol or drugs around the house so the kids could find it as unfit. I'd say the same responsibility goes with guns.
I don't know if it's the doctors responsibility to make sure the kids live in a alcohol/drug/gun restraint environment though.
What constitutes unsecured? If you have kids, putting in on a shelf, or in a drawer out of reach should do. And of course a thorough talking to if they even think about trying to touch it complete with some good old fashioned corporeal punishment...
I agree.
I meant just laying around or on a shelf where a 7 y.o. could get a hold of it.
I remember being shocked when my kids Dr. asked if I had guns in the house. I was thinking "WTF?" But I answered "yes, and how is that any of your business?" My kids were like 5 and 2 at the time. And yes, they were locked up and out of reach.
Now they know where the guns are, they know not to touch them unless they ask first. My son has his own rifle that I built for him. They know firearm safety rules and I've never, ever had an issue with them doing anything they shouldn't.
Would these same doctors be OK with the DEA, SWAT etc being called on them just because their kids mentioned to someone their parent had "drugs" in the house? Making life altering calls to authorities about people with very limited information which is totally out of context is moronic, possibly criminal and should lay them open to massive damages claims.
And if a teenager goes on a shooting spree caused by a family breakdown or other mental issues because the doctor never reported anything and as a result they had easy access to a firearms.
Then what?
Reading the article it appears the doctors do not wish to infringe on anybodies rights but rather they want the law cleared up so they can inform patients/familes or the appropriate authorities about legitimate concerns. IE a person suffering mental illness who has firearms in their house.
Of course it's an attack on the 2nd naturally.....................:P
If you read up on why the doctors apparently wished to ask the questions it was justified by statements like this
"Physicians should continue to discuss with patients the implications of keeping guns at home," wrote study author Douglas Wiebe, assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania Center for Public Health Initiatives, adding that additional studies are warranted to "better understand the implications of firearm ownership."
and the law stopping them now overturned was
"The measure was introduced in the state Legislature after a pediatrician in Central Florida dismissed a mother from his practice when she angrily refused to answer a routine question about whether she kept a gun in her house. The doctor, Chris Okonkwo, said at the time that he asked so he could offer appropriate safety advice, just as he customarily asks parents if they have a swimming pool and teenagers if they use their cellphones when they drive. He said that he dismissed the mother because he felt they could not establish a trusting doctor-patient relationship. "
Since when was a medical doctor any sort of expert on firearm safety and storage? Any "advice" given would be hearsay, personal opinion or politically driven. Does the same doctor offer those with swimming pools instruction on swimming technique, or those with cellphones how to get the best value contract?
I don't know. Maybe seeing the damage a projectile made of lead can do to a human body probably gives them some legitimate views on firearm safety. As would being able to offer advice to parents on how to resuscitate a person drowning in a pool, or discuss the possible consequences with teenagers of using a phone whilst driving.
To look at it from a doctors point of view. You're treating a patient with mental problems. Now due to patient/doctor privacy confidentiality ect he can not mention to the authorities that a person suffering from mental illness or chronic alcoholism has easy access to firearms.
I can think of a few reasons why allowing doctors to discuss the issue or mention a problem to the authorities can be justified.
If doctors don't have the ability to talk about a patient whats the worse that can happen? Suicide, murder, gun massacre in a school.
If they do have the ability to talk with a patient or the relevant authorities then patient gets a knock on his front door by the police or mental health practitioner and a proper evaluation can take place to determine whether it's a good idea for there to be firearms in the home. If there is problems with a teenager then maybe a new storage method is needed or in some cases it just maybe better for there to be no firearms present.
There is also a problem with tort. If a medical practitioner is aware of a problem and does nothing they could very well be held liable for the actions of another person because they never intervened. There is a huge problem with the cost of health care at the moment, largely fueled by the cost needed for liability insurance by medical practitioners/hospitals if something goes wrong. This could also go some way in lowering the costs to practitioners, and thus lowering the cost of medical care to the consumer.
Just saying.
Be advised - "mindy" is a troll, or at least most posts are "troll-like" - his/her reason de poste seems to be to just stir the pot with flawed and specious arguments. Just check his-her post record. "just saying..."
Playing devils advocate or disagreeing with the general consensus on the forum is not trolling.
I'd prefer to use the term "A Social Gadfly" I've never shied away from asking questions that are not popular, theorising different ideas that are not mainstream or going against the consensus.
It's how society functions. If we accept the position that a single view is always correct and any opposition is crushed, ignored or censored then how can society function and how can society strive for the ultimate goal and that is the "Betterment of Man"
If a situation arises that means an individual's rights are infringed but the benefit to society is greater if the individual's rights are infringed then such questions do need to be asked, even if they go against your own viewpoint on the issue.
What may appear to be oppressive for the individual today, strengthens society collectively and will free the individual of the shackles of yesterday.
Heh I came up with that
Posting Permissions
