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.
(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.
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.
I just discovered a county in England with an astronomical murder rate far in excess of any county in America. It's called Midsomer.
Haha - don't move there!
Hahaha - yes, every week there's one!