Mental health experts say a new tougher New York state gun control law might interfere with treatment of potentially dangerous people and even discourage them from seeking help.

The law would require therapists, doctors, nurses and social workers to tell government authorities if they believe a patient is likely to harm himself or others. That could lead to revoking the patient's gun permit and seizing any guns. (source)

New laws tend to have unintended consequences worse than the conditions or situations they are intended to remedy. The hysteria over the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre has such strange bedfellows as the NRA and some of the most liberal Democrats calling for psychological or psychiatric evaluations of potential gun owners. 

Question: Does the state have enough of an interest to require a breach of the privacy normally holding between a patient and his clinician making the state an invisible presence in the conference room?

Question: Might more mayhem be prevented by letting clinicians do their job rather than imposing requirements on them.?

Question: Might imposing a reporting requirement on clinicians expose them to homicidal danger once the client realizes that his counselor has breached the shell of confidentiality holding between them?

Question: Given the ambiguities holding between what clients talk about and what they might actually do might a reporting requirement expose clinicians to needless criminal and civil sanctions if their best guess turns out to be wrong and a client they thought safe did something horrendous? The point is, it's a lot easier to judge how dangerous a patient was in retrospect and hold a clinician responsible.

Tags: control, gun, psychiatry, psycology

Views: 1305

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I carry a Glock 26 Gen4 because I can shoot it well and being proficient with a carry is (I think) a necessity so I shoot targets a lot.  The G26 is just a functional tool nothing more.

The Ruger 22/45 Ultra Lite I have is more of the "love" thing, the first handgun I ever shot was a Ruger Marksman (my Dad's gun), maybe nostalgia is a better word then love.

My hunch is you don't live in NY

I'm planning on moving there, that's why I NEED the FN P90...LOL

Actually I have been to NY,NY once in my life, I filled the gas tank and left.

Wouldn't you say, however, that most occasions when you'd need your pistol for self defense, it won't be at target practice distance? You'll probably be within 'barn door" distance.

I wouldn't say anything of the kind, I'm not prescient.

I also don't have a clue what "barn door" distance is?

A pistol (mine or anyone's) is a option in a self-defense situation, so is running away if conditions allow.

As far as handguns and the relationship to distance goes there is a "Goldilocks Zone" for each person.  At too great a distance a handgun is inaccurate, at too close a distance a handgun is inefficient and you will need some hand-hand fighting skill.   

It's also true that a gun can be drawn and the attacker simply runs away--at which point it's actually illegal to shoot.

The overwhelming majority of crimes stopped by a firearm are stopped without a shot being fired.

@Strega

I just discovered a county in England with an astronomical murder rate far in excess of any county in America. It's called Midsomer.

Hahaha - yes, every week there's one!

At LEAST one. I watched an episode on Netflix last night in which there were three murders. 

You put your left leg in, you put your left leg out...

Ten means ten. Incongruously one may refuse to acknowledge that ten means ten, or assert that ten means nine. But these incongruous applications do not change the determination that ten means ten.

Likewise for the meaning of wrong. It's incongruous to assert that something that meets the criteria for the meaning of wrong is not wrong. The application itself meets the criteria for being wrong.

"Ten" means one thing when applied to cardinal numbers and something else when applied to currency. Beyond that there was a group of painters who exhibited under the name Ten. It could be a code such as "If you have a winning hand, say something with the word 'ten' in it." It's all in how you apply it.

That kind of destroys the second paragraph.

Now, where is my reply to the rest of what you wrote? You have a tendency, it seems, to wear the opponent out with an avalanche of argument and if they don't respond you can declare victory. You're not the first on TA to use this tactic of forcing the opponent to spend a huge amount of time responding. 

I won't play that game. 

Break your post up into pieces, make your arguments concise, and I will gladly respond. So, awaiting your next post, here I am.

Likewise, in a context where wrong is understood to mean 'unfair, injurious, unjust, incongruous, inaccurate or dishonest', then it's incongruous to assert that wrong is not wrong, or that something which meets the criteria for being wrong is not wrong.

Different times, different contexts.

That kind of destroys the second paragraph.

Of course it doesn't. To destroy the statement you must falsify that: 'It's incongruous to assert that something that meets the criteria for the meaning of wrong is not wrong. The application itself meets the criteria for being wrong.'

You not only failed to falsify it, you actually provided more examples to support it, and then claimed (rather outrageously) that you'd done the opposite.

Different times, different contexts. It's doubtful (and impossible to determine anyway) whether, if you could explain what "wrong" means to us today to a caveman 100,000 years ago what's wrong with "wrong," since being "wrong" to someone was probably a good way to survive.

You have a tendency, it seems, to wear the opponent out with an avalanche of argument and if they don't respond you can declare victory. You're not the first on TA to use this tactic of forcing the opponent to spend a huge amount of time responding. I won't play that game.

And as you can see, I'm not.

...paired with a surpassing talent for answering them dishonestly. But don't concern yourself. I know why you won't reply.

I expected you'd say something along that line.

You have no sound argument that supports your point. And you're too proud to concede a point.

You haven't shown that concepts like "wrong" have any sort of eternality and objectivity to them. How do you explain that Greeks and Egyptions and Persians had no trouble with things we'd call wrong today. The Mayans sacrificed children to please their gods. Were they just very bad people, or did they apply the idea (I can't say word because they spoke Mayan, no English) in a very different way, then. A way that would seem horrific and alien to us?

And that brings us to cheap trick number one: He's forcing me to respond!

Really, Unseen. How exactly am I forcing you to respond? Psychic mind control powers?

You're not forcing me to respond, you're forcing me, if I do respond in kind, to devote a lot of time and energy. So, I won't. You could be a lot more concise.

Break your post up into pieces, make your arguments concise, and I will gladly respond. So, awaiting your next post, here I am.

And now we come to cheap trick number two: My response is now conditional on your compliance with these demands!

How can I make a demand of you? You're as free as you noted I am!

Naturally, you're the sole arbitrator of my compliance. (That's a fascinating observation, by the way, as my writing has been commended for incisiveness and clarity throughout my academic and professional careers.)

Incisiveness and clarity aren't conciseness. I'm probably the sole arbiter of your compliance, if I am, because you and I are probably the only ones reading these posts. Lengthy posts that go on and on tend to drive readers away.

RSS

Events

Services we love!

© 2016   Created by umar.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service