On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:50:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/2/2015 1:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:23:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I agree and the criminal element of our society will always find a way
to get a gun and ammo. However, these mass shootings in schools are not
being done by people with criminal records. They are young for the most
part and obviously suffer from some anti-societal mental health issues.
Making it harder for them to get the supplies (ammo) they need may
help reduce the number of horrific mass shootings, especially in schools.

If the person does not have a record, how do you prevent them from
buying a gun or ammo?


Apparently you missed *all* of the criteria I proposed that leads to a
license. Lack of a criminal record is only one. A doctor's sign-off
as to physical and mental good health is another. The medical details
do not need to be divulged but, for example, if the doc knows the
applicant has a history of drug abuse or is under treatment/medication
for severe depression or whatever, he would just disqualify the applicant.


How would your regular doctor know you were under treatment for severe depression or
whatever? A psychiatrist can't divulge that info without some pretty stringent
requirements.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On 10/2/2015 6:34 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:50:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/2/2015 1:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:23:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I agree and the criminal element of our society will always find a way
to get a gun and ammo. However, these mass shootings in schools are not
being done by people with criminal records. They are young for the most
part and obviously suffer from some anti-societal mental health issues.
Making it harder for them to get the supplies (ammo) they need may
help reduce the number of horrific mass shootings, especially in schools.

If the person does not have a record, how do you prevent them from
buying a gun or ammo?


Apparently you missed *all* of the criteria I proposed that leads to a
license. Lack of a criminal record is only one. A doctor's sign-off
as to physical and mental good health is another. The medical details
do not need to be divulged but, for example, if the doc knows the
applicant has a history of drug abuse or is under treatment/medication
for severe depression or whatever, he would just disqualify the applicant.


How would your regular doctor know you were under treatment for severe depression or
whatever? A psychiatrist can't divulge that info without some pretty stringent
requirements.

All your medical records (and I assume mental health records, if any)
are electronically stored and available for authorized people (docs) to
download and read.

Last time I visited my primary care physician he asked about the results
of a stress test I had taken two year prior. Before I could answer he
pulled up the results on his laptop in the exam office.

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:52:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/2/2015 6:34 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:50:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/2/2015 1:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:23:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I agree and the criminal element of our society will always find a way
to get a gun and ammo. However, these mass shootings in schools are not
being done by people with criminal records. They are young for the most
part and obviously suffer from some anti-societal mental health issues.
Making it harder for them to get the supplies (ammo) they need may
help reduce the number of horrific mass shootings, especially in schools.

If the person does not have a record, how do you prevent them from
buying a gun or ammo?


Apparently you missed *all* of the criteria I proposed that leads to a
license. Lack of a criminal record is only one. A doctor's sign-off
as to physical and mental good health is another. The medical details
do not need to be divulged but, for example, if the doc knows the
applicant has a history of drug abuse or is under treatment/medication
for severe depression or whatever, he would just disqualify the applicant.


How would your regular doctor know you were under treatment for severe depression or
whatever? A psychiatrist can't divulge that info without some pretty stringent
requirements.

All your medical records (and I assume mental health records, if any)
are electronically stored and available for authorized people (docs) to
download and read.

Last time I visited my primary care physician he asked about the results
of a stress test I had taken two year prior. Before I could answer he
pulled up the results on his laptop in the exam office.



For anyone besides me to view my health records, I have to sign a privacy release
form indicating same - and that includes my doctor. When I went to a cardiologist, I
signed a release so the results could be sent to my regular doctor. Without my
signature, they could not transmit the results to him.

It's much different for records which are a result of a prescription - such as the
one for the CT scan I had this morning. Those results will be sent to my doctor - the
one who wrote the prescription. They will then be stored on his computer.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On 10/2/2015 9:00 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:52:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/2/2015 6:34 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:50:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/2/2015 1:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:23:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I agree and the criminal element of our society will always find a way
to get a gun and ammo. However, these mass shootings in schools are not
being done by people with criminal records. They are young for the most
part and obviously suffer from some anti-societal mental health issues.
Making it harder for them to get the supplies (ammo) they need may
help reduce the number of horrific mass shootings, especially in schools.

If the person does not have a record, how do you prevent them from
buying a gun or ammo?


Apparently you missed *all* of the criteria I proposed that leads to a
license. Lack of a criminal record is only one. A doctor's sign-off
as to physical and mental good health is another. The medical details
do not need to be divulged but, for example, if the doc knows the
applicant has a history of drug abuse or is under treatment/medication
for severe depression or whatever, he would just disqualify the applicant.


How would your regular doctor know you were under treatment for severe depression or
whatever? A psychiatrist can't divulge that info without some pretty stringent
requirements.

All your medical records (and I assume mental health records, if any)
are electronically stored and available for authorized people (docs) to
download and read.

Last time I visited my primary care physician he asked about the results
of a stress test I had taken two year prior. Before I could answer he
pulled up the results on his laptop in the exam office.



For anyone besides me to view my health records, I have to sign a privacy release
form indicating same - and that includes my doctor. When I went to a cardiologist, I
signed a release so the results could be sent to my regular doctor. Without my
signature, they could not transmit the results to him.

It's much different for records which are a result of a prescription - such as the
one for the CT scan I had this morning. Those results will be sent to my doctor - the
one who wrote the prescription. They will then be stored on his computer.

So, if you want a gun permit, sign a release allowing your medical and
mental health records to be viewed by your doctor. What's the big deal?

The biggest problem with controlling who has access to guns seems to be
mental health issues and the privacy concerns. No one seems to have an
answer as to how you handle this. It's also obvious that those people
conducting these mass shootings in schools, movie theaters and other
public places have some serious mental health issues. It would seem to
be a good place to focus on in terms of trying to control who has easy
access to guns.

Police departments usually know of people with problems in their
communities. They can't know of all, for sure, but how often have you
heard the phrase, "suspect is known to the police" ... usually due to
some previous reason for contact.

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:09:22 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/2/2015 9:00 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:52:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/2/2015 6:34 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:50:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/2/2015 1:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:23:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I agree and the criminal element of our society will always find a way
to get a gun and ammo. However, these mass shootings in schools are not
being done by people with criminal records. They are young for the most
part and obviously suffer from some anti-societal mental health issues.
Making it harder for them to get the supplies (ammo) they need may
help reduce the number of horrific mass shootings, especially in schools.

If the person does not have a record, how do you prevent them from
buying a gun or ammo?


Apparently you missed *all* of the criteria I proposed that leads to a
license. Lack of a criminal record is only one. A doctor's sign-off
as to physical and mental good health is another. The medical details
do not need to be divulged but, for example, if the doc knows the
applicant has a history of drug abuse or is under treatment/medication
for severe depression or whatever, he would just disqualify the applicant.


How would your regular doctor know you were under treatment for severe depression or
whatever? A psychiatrist can't divulge that info without some pretty stringent
requirements.

All your medical records (and I assume mental health records, if any)
are electronically stored and available for authorized people (docs) to
download and read.

Last time I visited my primary care physician he asked about the results
of a stress test I had taken two year prior. Before I could answer he
pulled up the results on his laptop in the exam office.



For anyone besides me to view my health records, I have to sign a privacy release
form indicating same - and that includes my doctor. When I went to a cardiologist, I
signed a release so the results could be sent to my regular doctor. Without my
signature, they could not transmit the results to him.

It's much different for records which are a result of a prescription - such as the
one for the CT scan I had this morning. Those results will be sent to my doctor - the
one who wrote the prescription. They will then be stored on his computer.

So, if you want a gun permit, sign a release allowing your medical and
mental health records to be viewed by your doctor. What's the big deal?

Or I just tell my doctor I've never been to a shrink. There's no way for him to find
out otherwise.

The biggest problem with controlling who has access to guns seems to be
mental health issues and the privacy concerns. No one seems to have an
answer as to how you handle this. It's also obvious that those people
conducting these mass shootings in schools, movie theaters and other
public places have some serious mental health issues. It would seem to
be a good place to focus on in terms of trying to control who has easy
access to guns.

Perhaps the Form 4473 should have a space for the doctor to sign stating..."
Name...has no mental problems which should preclude the purchase of a firearm, to the
best of my knowledge."

That would be pretty simple. The purchaser could take the form to his doc, pay the
office visit price, get a signature (or just forge one), and take the form back to
the gun dealer.

Police departments usually know of people with problems in their
communities. They can't know of all, for sure, but how often have you
heard the phrase, "suspect is known to the police" ... usually due to
some previous reason for contact.


I'll bet it wouldn't be long before you'd hear a lot of cries of 'police racism' when
suspects 'known to the police' were refused permission.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 21:19:36 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Perhaps the Form 4473 should have a space for the doctor to sign stating..."
Name...has no mental problems which should preclude the purchase of a firearm, to the
best of my knowledge."

Any doctor?

Damn we can't even stop doctor shopping for narcotics. How would this
work?

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 01:09:16 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 21:19:36 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Perhaps the Form 4473 should have a space for the doctor to sign stating..."
Name...has no mental problems which should preclude the purchase of a firearm, to the
best of my knowledge."

Any doctor?

Damn we can't even stop doctor shopping for narcotics. How would this
work?

Actually, there was a lot of sarcasm there, which is why I added 'or just forge one':

"That would be pretty simple. The purchaser could take the form to his doc, pay the
office visit price, get a signature (or just forge one), and take the form back to
the gun dealer."

I am not agreeing with Luddite's 'doctor sign off' requirement.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:52:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 6:34 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:50:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/2/2015 1:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:23:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I agree and the criminal element of our society will always find a way
to get a gun and ammo. However, these mass shootings in schools are not
being done by people with criminal records. They are young for the most
part and obviously suffer from some anti-societal mental health issues.
Making it harder for them to get the supplies (ammo) they need may
help reduce the number of horrific mass shootings, especially in schools.

If the person does not have a record, how do you prevent them from
buying a gun or ammo?


Apparently you missed *all* of the criteria I proposed that leads to a
license. Lack of a criminal record is only one. A doctor's sign-off
as to physical and mental good health is another. The medical details
do not need to be divulged but, for example, if the doc knows the
applicant has a history of drug abuse or is under treatment/medication
for severe depression or whatever, he would just disqualify the applicant.


How would your regular doctor know you were under treatment for severe depression or
whatever? A psychiatrist can't divulge that info without some pretty stringent
requirements.

All your medical records (and I assume mental health records, if any)
are electronically stored and available for authorized people (docs) to
download and read.

Last time I visited my primary care physician he asked about the results
of a stress test I had taken two year prior. Before I could answer he
pulled up the results on his laptop in the exam office.



You had to sign a HIPPA authorization or he was breaking the law. It
was probably in that 15 page packet you fill out every time you go to
a different doctor.
How many people would sign a HIPPA release if they knew the
information was going to be a public record, as virtually any
government document is. (with the Snowden factor, they are all public
records)
The question becomes what ELSE would be affected by this?
Jobs, housing, credit?

If I was an employer I might be reluctant to hire a guy who the
government says can't be trusted with a gun because of mental
problems. I certainly wouldn't rent them an apartment. Too hard to
clean up the blood when they snap.

On 10/3/2015 12:59 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:52:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 6:34 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:50:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/2/2015 1:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:23:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I agree and the criminal element of our society will always find a way
to get a gun and ammo. However, these mass shootings in schools are not
being done by people with criminal records. They are young for the most
part and obviously suffer from some anti-societal mental health issues.
Making it harder for them to get the supplies (ammo) they need may
help reduce the number of horrific mass shootings, especially in schools.

If the person does not have a record, how do you prevent them from
buying a gun or ammo?


Apparently you missed *all* of the criteria I proposed that leads to a
license. Lack of a criminal record is only one. A doctor's sign-off
as to physical and mental good health is another. The medical details
do not need to be divulged but, for example, if the doc knows the
applicant has a history of drug abuse or is under treatment/medication
for severe depression or whatever, he would just disqualify the applicant.


How would your regular doctor know you were under treatment for severe depression or
whatever? A psychiatrist can't divulge that info without some pretty stringent
requirements.

All your medical records (and I assume mental health records, if any)
are electronically stored and available for authorized people (docs) to
download and read.

Last time I visited my primary care physician he asked about the results
of a stress test I had taken two year prior. Before I could answer he
pulled up the results on his laptop in the exam office.



You had to sign a HIPPA authorization or he was breaking the law. It
was probably in that 15 page packet you fill out every time you go to
a different doctor.
How many people would sign a HIPPA release if they knew the
information was going to be a public record, as virtually any
government document is. (with the Snowden factor, they are all public
records)
The question becomes what ELSE would be affected by this?
Jobs, housing, credit?

If I was an employer I might be reluctant to hire a guy who the
government says can't be trusted with a gun because of mental
problems. I certainly wouldn't rent them an apartment. Too hard to
clean up the blood when they snap.



I have to admit that it's amazing to see how many reasons there
are that you "can't" do something with very little consideration
as to how maybe you "can". If enough thought and energy were
given to solving the problem as given to the reasons why you can't,
maybe some progress could be made.

On 10/3/15 2:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/3/2015 12:59 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:52:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 6:34 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:50:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 1:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:23:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I agree and the criminal element of our society will always find
a way
to get a gun and ammo. However, these mass shootings in schools
are not
being done by people with criminal records. They are young for
the most
part and obviously suffer from some anti-societal mental health
issues.
Making it harder for them to get the supplies (ammo) they
need may
help reduce the number of horrific mass shootings, especially in
schools.

If the person does not have a record, how do you prevent them from
buying a gun or ammo?


Apparently you missed *all* of the criteria I proposed that leads to a
license. Lack of a criminal record is only one. A doctor's sign-off
as to physical and mental good health is another. The medical details
do not need to be divulged but, for example, if the doc knows the
applicant has a history of drug abuse or is under treatment/medication
for severe depression or whatever, he would just disqualify the
applicant.


How would your regular doctor know you were under treatment for
severe depression or
whatever? A psychiatrist can't divulge that info without some pretty
stringent
requirements.

All your medical records (and I assume mental health records, if any)
are electronically stored and available for authorized people (docs) to
download and read.

Last time I visited my primary care physician he asked about the results
of a stress test I had taken two year prior. Before I could answer he
pulled up the results on his laptop in the exam office.



You had to sign a HIPPA authorization or he was breaking the law. It
was probably in that 15 page packet you fill out every time you go to
a different doctor.
How many people would sign a HIPPA release if they knew the
information was going to be a public record, as virtually any
government document is. (with the Snowden factor, they are all public
records)
The question becomes what ELSE would be affected by this?
Jobs, housing, credit?

If I was an employer I might be reluctant to hire a guy who the
government says can't be trusted with a gun because of mental
problems. I certainly wouldn't rent them an apartment. Too hard to
clean up the blood when they snap.



I have to admit that it's amazing to see how many reasons there
are that you "can't" do something with very little consideration
as to how maybe you "can". If enough thought and energy were
given to solving the problem as given to the reasons why you can't,
maybe some progress could be made.




"They" don't want progress on this issue. None.