No one is gonna take your guns...

[statman]

And digital medical information will never be misused. To suggest otherwise is just crazy talk...

http://www.infowars.com/new-york-pol...ty-medication/

It not...

[YOhio]

Infowars? C'mon, statman.

[ERCougar]

then why do you keep buying them?

[statman]

I don't live in the Socialist Republic of New York and it'll never happen in Utah. The cops in UT know better and if the Feds ever tried to do it, they'd have a serious constitutional crisis on their hands.

[Tim]

I didn't used to feel this way, but lately I've come to grips that sometimes we have to give up a level of freedom in order to ensure a higher level of safety. I'm not saying I like the TSA, just that I'm willing to tolerate the inconvenience in order to keep even one more plane from being blown up. (I'm sure Uncle Ted will post a response, replete with inline links, to cases in which the TSA has failed to stop someone from getting onto a plane with a dangerous weapon, and he'll do so with a precise wit and a wink that'll attempt to make me look like an idiot for suggesting that the TSA improves security. Let me just say now, Ted, that I don't think the TSA is awesome. I just think that it's okay to give up some level of freedom to help improve the safety level for everyone.) People on anti-anxiety medication shouldn't be allowed to have guns, and they should accept that by giving up that level of freedom, they're making a small contribution to collective safety.

[byu71]

I didn't used to feel this way, but lately I've come to grips that sometimes we have to give up a level of freedom in order to ensure a higher level of safety. I'm not saying I like the TSA, just that I'm willing to tolerate the inconvenience in order to keep even one more plane from being blown up. (I'm sure Uncle Ted will post a response, replete with inline links, to cases in which the TSA has failed to stop someone from getting onto a plane with a dangerous weapon, and he'll do so with a precise wit and a wink that'll attempt to make me look like an idiot for suggesting that the TSA improves security. Let me just say now, Ted, that I don't think the TSA is awesome. I just think that it's okay to give up some level of freedom to help improve the safety level for everyone.) People on anti-anxiety medication shouldn't be allowed to have guns, and they should accept that by giving up that level of freedom, they're making a small contribution to collective safety.

I will agree with you on the TSA. That is something that pretty much everyone in government agreed needed to be done. I hear this quote that 90% of Americans want background checks. I would like to see how the question was asked.

Here is my problem. I am to the point where anything that primarily is wanted by the democrats by themselves scares the living daylights out of me. Now if the bill they are talking about now has a group of republicans signing on, I am fine with it.

Obamacare was passed by just the dems and it is basically a piece of shit legislation. The same would be true if the dems had enough clout to pass their version of gun control. If the current crop of dems ever get control of congress and white house again, heaven help us all.

[Uncle Ted]

I will agree with you on the TSA. That is something that pretty much everyone in government agreed needed to be done. I hear this quote that 90% of Americans want background checks. I would like to see how the question was asked.

I don't agree about the TSA. I fly to San Francisco often and SFO doesn't have the TSA. They have a private security firm. Maybe it is just me but I feel like more of a human at that airport than I do when subject to the TSA at others. Why does the government have to do it? Why do we need yet other USPS that will most likely end up cost three times more than it should? Why could the airlines be in charge of their own security?

Here is my problem. I am to the point where anything that primarily is wanted by the democrats by themselves scares the living daylights out of me. Now if the bill they are talking about now has a group of republicans signing on, I am fine with it.

It seems the republicans are on-board with the background checks. I don't have a problem with keeping guns out of the criminals and crazies hands.

Obamacare was passed by just the dems and it is basically a piece of shit legislation. The same would be true if the dems had enough clout to pass their version of gun control. If the current crop of dems ever get control of congress and white house again, heaven help us all.

I think that is an understatement the more I learn about it. I am starting to think we would be better off if we just made all health care providers government employees but maybe that is the dems end game.

[statman]

I will agree with you on the TSA. That is something that pretty much everyone in government agreed needed to be done. I hear this quote that 90% of Americans want background checks. I would like to see how the question was asked.

Here is my problem. I am to the point where anything that primarily is wanted by the democrats by themselves scares the living daylights out of me. Now if the bill they are talking about now has a group of republicans signing on, I am fine with it.

Obamacare was passed by just the dems and it is basically a piece of shit legislation. The same would be true if the dems had enough clout to pass their version of gun control. If the current crop of dems ever get control of congress and white house again, heaven help us all.

What happened to the "reasonable" POS legislation that contained al the verbiage about gun 'transfers' that was intended to make a felon out of anyone who let a friend borrow a gun? And you could only give a gun to a spouse, a parent (not an in-law) or one of your children. There was a lot of talk about it last week...

Yes, background checks are a good idea - but the stats the Dems use about the number of guns bought without background checks are simply horse shit. I've been to a number of gun shows, and purchased a number of guns at gun shows, and I ALWAYS had a background check done. Anyone selling guns fur a living or even as a hobby has a federal firearms license. And guess who's selling at gun shows? people with FFLs. And they all HAVE TO DO background checks. The one time I bought a gun through a purely private sale (through KSL.com), that guy did background check on me. Most people with any common sense would never sell a gun to a stranger without a background check. I know some on KSL.com would waive doing a background check if you had a concealed carry permit. But whole the Dems are saying that 30%-40% of gun sales are happening without a background check, if you eliminate family gifting of guns from that, and take out the number of private sales that are done on the basis of the buyer having a CCL, and concede that the "loophole" for background checks at gun shows has never really existed outside the minds of Democratic strategists, you come down to a number that's probably 1/10th as big as they say it is. But if only 3 or 4 or 5% of gun sales are happening without background checks , people don't get so excited...

[statman]

"I think that is an understatement the more I learn about it. I am starting to think we would be better off if we just made all health care providers government employees but maybe that is the dems end game."

The Obamacare law is so blatantly horrible in almost every regard, it's hard to believe that it isn't the Dem endgame. They are all either dumb as rocks or sly as foxes...

[CardiacCoug]

People on anti-anxiety medication shouldn't be allowed to have guns, and they should accept that by giving up that level of freedom, they're making a small contribution to collective safety.

Something like 30 million Americans take some type of anti-depressant/anti-anxiety pill, I would think. Will all those people lose their right to purchase and own firearms?

One of the unintended consequences you've gotta worry about here is that if people who get diagnosed and treated for depression and/or anxiety can't ever own or buy firearms then will some people with mental illness just avoid getting diagnosed and treated? Will you end up with more messed up people who have avoided diagnosis/treatment mental illness so they can still own a firearm?

[Eddie]

Something like 30 million Americans take some type of anti-depressant/anti-anxiety pill, I would think. Will all those people lose their right to purchase and own firearms?

One of the unintended consequences you've gotta worry about here is that if people who get diagnosed and treated for depression and/or anxiety can't ever own or buy firearms then will some people with mental illness just avoid getting diagnosed and treated? Will you end up with more messed up people who have avoided diagnosis/treatment mental illness so they can still own a firearm?

If you are simply talking about trading in freedom for safety, I think it could even go beyond firearms.

Where is the research to demonstrate that folks who are on medication for anxiety are more likely per capita to use a firearm to injure someone? Sure - I can see how folks might think that. But is it really true, or is that just feel good legislation?

Then let's also do some research to determine if folks who are on medication for anxiety or depression are more or less likely to cause an auto accident. And if they are more likely - then for the safety of all they should be forbidden to drive.

It could become a real emotional issue really quick if it was determined that folks on medication for anxiety or depression are more likely to abuse or neglect their children...because we know the logical next step, right?

[CardiacCoug]

If you are simply talking about trading in freedom for safety, I think it could even go beyond firearms.

Where is the research to demonstrate that folks who are on medication for anxiety are more likely per capita to use a firearm to injure someone? Sure - I can see how folks might think that. But is it really true, or is that just feel good legislation?

Then let's also do some research to determine if folks who are on medication for anxiety or depression are more or less likely to cause an auto accident. And if they are more likely - then for the safety of all they should be forbidden to drive.

It could become a real emotional issue really quick if it was determined that folks on medication for anxiety or depression are more likely to abuse or neglect their children...because we know the logical next step, right?

Yep, who on earth would ever admit to depression/anxiety symptoms after we get the nanny state revved up like that? It reminds me of the furor over HIV testing back in the 80s and 90s -- the initial reaction from the public was "Hell yeah we need to test everybody and make sure everybody knows who has HIV." But eventually people realized that that would be counterproductive -- at some point in a free society you just have to rely on the fortunate fact that most people do the right thing most of the time. You can't protect everybody from everything.

[il Padrino Ute]

I didn't used to feel this way, but lately I've come to grips that sometimes we have to give up a level of freedom in order to ensure a higher level of safety. I'm not saying I like the TSA, just that I'm willing to tolerate the inconvenience in order to keep even one more plane from being blown up. (I'm sure Uncle Ted will post a response, replete with inline links, to cases in which the TSA has failed to stop someone from getting onto a plane with a dangerous weapon, and he'll do so with a precise wit and a wink that'll attempt to make me look like an idiot for suggesting that the TSA improves security. Let me just say now, Ted, that I don't think the TSA is awesome. I just think that it's okay to give up some level of freedom to help improve the safety level for everyone.) People on anti-anxiety medication shouldn't be allowed to have guns, and they should accept that by giving up that level of freedom, they're making a small contribution to collective safety.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin


To hell with collectivism.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I don't see what's wrong with the statute in question (although I'm relying on the articles summary, not having read the entire statute). It merely "authorizes" the health care professional to report a mentally unstable person who may cause harm to others. There's no compulsion here; rather, it creates a safe harbor for those who might otherwise be sued for violation of the doctor/patient privilege. If a doc doesn't want or feel the need to report a patient, he/she doesn't have to. But if the doc had just met with Adam Lanza, would anyone here object if the physician gave the Newtown police a head's up? And if the cops decide it might be a good ideal to take away Adam's assault rifle, where's the problem?

Gun rights advocates say the effort to reduce gun violence should focus on keeping criminals or the deranged from getting guns, not on limiting the rights of good citizens (and I agree). This statute seems aimed at such an objective.

[Eddie]

I don't see what's wrong with the statute in question (although I'm relying on the articles summary, not having read the entire statute). It merely "authorizes" the health care professional to report a mentally unstable person who may cause harm to others. There's no compulsion here; rather, it creates a safe harbor for those who might otherwise be sued for violation of the doctor/patient privilege. If a doc doesn't want or feel the need to report a patient, he/she doesn't have to. But if the doc had just met with Adam Lanza, would anyone here object if the physician gave the Newtown police a head's up? And if the cops decide it might be a good ideal to take away Adam's assault rifle, where's the problem?

Gun rights advocates say the effort to reduce gun violence should focus on keeping criminals or the deranged from getting guns, not on limiting the rights of good citizens (and I agree). This statute seems aimed at such an objective.

So...let me be the first to admit to not having read the article. I was simply responding to Tim's post that folks on medication shouldn't be allowed to have guns.

Frankly - off the top of my head I agree with you. I like the idea of looking at individuals and considering their situation when determining who should or shouldn't be qualified for gun ownership due to mental illness. I also think it should be reviewable if the person's situation changes over a long period of time. I also think there should be an appeals process - as I could see someone who believes no one should have a gun getting themselves into a position to make that determination for people who are not necessarily a danger to self or others.