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: 1277

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Lots of gun availability, lots of guns, and low gun crime rate (for the U.S.). What a conundrum.

In particular, Karl, in Vermont you do not need a permit to carry a firearm concealed on your person (say, a pistol under your jacket).  Most other states in the US require such a permit.  Illinois forbids the practice completely.  Permit-free carry is known here as "Vermont Carry" or sometimes "constitutional carry" since many regard a prohibition or restriction on carrying a weapon in that manner as a violation of the second amendment (and I tend to agree with them).

In spite of this... nay, I think it's in part because of this... Vermont has a very low crime rate.  The very places you should be most frightened of here, at least in regard to your physical safety, are the ones with the strictest gun laws.  Now that's counter-intuitive if you think guns somehow cause (or correlate) with violent behavior.  But they don't.

Well I am being intentionally facetious.  A gun is really just a tool.  We had them in the house when I was a kid as my stepdad worked with animals.  I was taught how to use a gun and have handled unlicensed firearms too but it's pretty unusual in the UK. 

One of the most heavily armed countries in Europe is Switzerland yet their crime rate and murder rate is very low.  There're parts of many UK cities that I wouldn't go to after dark and you can be unlucky no matter where you are.

Lowering crime rate is not just dependent on increasing risk to the criminal though that may have an effect.  Other factors like poverty, population density, employment levels and culture all have a part to play. 

...I'm no anthropoligist or social scientist but it stands to reason that you can't shoot someone without a gun, if you become enraged or disturbed to the point of killing indescriminately and you have a gun, the consequences are far more serious than if you don't, where guns are commonly held, criminals will routinely use them when committing crimes, and increased availability of guns, increases the availability of guns to criminals, including violent criminals.

Because of the high gun ownership in the US, I can't imagine that an amnesty would be workable without it being sustained over many years, and even then people fearing the effects would probably cache weapons, so I guess the UK model wouldn't be suitable.  It'll pan out somehow.  Just hopefully you don't get any more of the school shootings which are always so terrible.

@ Strega,

Any more relaxed and there would have to be a law insisting you carry one!

We already have that :D

And the results are quite good, maybe there is a lesson here.

Gun Town USA

You're going to run into the fact that for anti-gun people that any positive news regarding guns must be wrong. They won't even look at the facts. that's funny;

...the fact that...They won't even look at the facts.

The vitriol and hyperbole on both sides of the gun debate is ridiculous.

Regardless what anyone's opinion is the 2nd Amendment is clear about the Right to "keep and bear Arms" and it's clear about who's Right that is.  It is also unambiguous about who the phrase "shall not be infringed." is directed at. 

All laws written to infringe on the Right bestowed upon "...the People..." are a direction violation of First Law and the Supremacy Clause takes precedence.

Under the founding Constitution of this country exercising a "Right" does not require permission nor a permit nor the paying of fees.

Tyranny even in small doses is still unacceptable to free persons.

I suppose I should have looked at your picture...sorry!

Bursts out laughing, no offense mate!  And I'm hoping I'm not addressing this post to a cute puppy dog :)

(and if I am, err...nice red collar you have there)

I don't think that even if there were enough support to amend the Constitution that it could be changed, aside from my feelings that the bill of rights shouldn't be changed for the worse, it seems to me that many politicians treat it not as the Bill of Rights but rather the Bill of Suggestions.  It's sad that it's gotten to that point.

It was intended, after all, to constrain politicians.  So of course many of them won't like it.

I assume you mean that they won't like the idea of changing it.

They would sell us all out (and the Bill of Rights) to get a few votes and stay in office, they will do whatever will take them to that end. They will do the expedient thing and not care if it was the right thing to do, all they want is to have their comfy job, even if it sinks the ship. They'll try, if enough short sighted people push it.


Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service