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.
Our legislators shouldn't be paid as much as they are, turning their work into public service not self-service. They should be forbidden for a long number of years from serving in any corporation they may have had in their purview (e.g., a bank if they are on a committee that influences legislation regarding banks). Ditto for lobbying.
The cushy healthcare they and their families are entitled should be withdrawn. How can they understand the ordeal healthcare is for most of us if they don't have to wrestle with it themselves. I can almost guarantee that if they did, we'd have a national healthcare program in short order.
No, I mean the politicians don't really like the bill of rights. It doesn't allow them to do everything that they'd like to do. (In particular they are good at ignoring the ninth and tenth amendments.)
I WANT (stomps his feet) A P90 (stomp,stomp,stomp) I WANT A P90 and I want it NOW!!! (stomps off into the distance........
The only P90 I know is a kind of guitar pickup. I gather you mean something more deadly.
Good grief what on earth for?! Unless something has changed in the last decade or so, Ruger semiautomatics SUCK.
(On the other hand you may have been thinking of the FN P90, on which I have no opinion.)
It doesn't excite me all that much, but I recognize some things are a matter of taste. (E.g., I don't love Glocks but I do own a couple and I recognize they work well... but they are butt ugly and feel cheap to me even though I know damn well they aren't. I won't condemn someone for owning one but I don't love them myself.)
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.