U.S. Politics Thread

[Xellos-_^]

i like to see guns owner become license like car owners. A simple written test with multi-choice questions regarding common sense usage of a gun and a Live test to show someone know how to handle a gun.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I don't really know you, and I wasn't serious about whether you should have guns or not, but please consider this: in the hypothetical situation of a physician asking a question you didn't like, you hypothetically came very close to violence. (Though, yes, I understand people like hyperbole. I know I do.)

So the question isn't just your life vs that of a criminal. It's also your life vs that of the next guy who, for one reason or another, sets off your hair trigger temper.

It was just hyperbole. I wouldn't actually attack someone for saying something I didn't like. I'm not a violent person and while I may exist in a state of perpetual mild annoyance, I'm actually very hard to really piss off.

I get where you're coming from, and that's a really good point. The only way to counter that sort of behavior, short of a unilateral ban (which will never happen) is education.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

i like to see guns owner become license like car owners. A simple written test with multi-choice questions regarding common sense usage of a gun and a Live test to show someone know how to handle a gun.

This, plus a training course where you learn the use, care and maintenance of your weapon as well as plenty of live-fire practice. I'm really fond of Vexx's idea about restarting the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that we should be focusing on car-related deaths over firearms because car-related deaths far outnumber firearm-related deaths. As I somewhat alluded to before, we're doing just about all that we can in that regard. An accident is an accident and reckless drivers will be reckless drivers; there isn't much that a physician can say or do to improve car-related deaths. So we focus on what we can make a difference in. That is the logical approach, don't you agree?

I agree with everything else you said.

Well, physicians *could* advocate for requiring more driver training and ongoing continuing education to retain a driver's license. A driver's license has come to mean absolutely nothing in terms of ability to drive.

Frankly, that's my main motivator for advocating for mass transit and alternatives (biking, walking) - getting idiot monkeys out of their magic boxes and off the road. When I am deemed unable to drive, I want other options for getting around.

A doctor moves a little out of bounds if they assert a house with children shouldn't have guns at all. If they want to advocate for proper training and storage (just like for other dangerous elements in the environment), I don't see anything illogical about that. Focus on mitigating the greatest risks but don't neglect the lesser risks.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

i like to see guns owner become license like car owners. A simple written test with multi-choice questions regarding common sense usage of a gun and a Live test to show someone know how to handle a gun.

I like the idea, but the problem is with how many people interpret the Constitution. If owning a firearm is a right, rather than a privilege, then forcing people to go through an exam would be a very bad thing. If you're concerned that someone has an agenda, then theoretically the entrance exam could be so strict that only the most proficient gun users would be able to pass it. Flip it around for other rights: should we require an exam to show that people know how to use "free speech" responsibly? Make it so that they can't post things on the internet or have anything published unless they pass the exam?

When I read the Second Amendment I tend to focus on the wording "well-regulated." I see it as more of a States' rights thing than an individual freedom thing; it's the idea that ordinary citizens should be allowed to handle and use firearms as a part of a State's own standing armed forces. I do not view it as a proclamation that anyone and everyone should be able to own a firearm, but arguing over the interpretation is a discussion with no end.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Well, physicians *could* advocate for requiring more driver training and ongoing continuing education to retain a driver's license. A driver's license has come to mean absolutely nothing in terms of ability to drive.

As I mentioned a few pages back, in the state of Pennsylvania (and perhaps others) physicians are mandated to report unsafe drivers to the DMV and confiscate their driver's licenses. So we're already a force for making a dent in statistics surrounding car-related injuries and deaths. As to advising patients to go through more driver training, I don't think that would go over well. Most people tend to think that they're far better drivers than they really are (and I'm fairly certain that I've read multiple studies on that). Thanks to the information age brought about by the internet we already have a lot of people thinking that they're experts who now treat physicians as nothing more than an order window for prescription drugs and lab tests; having the physician try to tell them something that they already feel extremely confident about will likely cause those patients to be turned off to the physician's health advice even further. However, if I ever run across a patient who admits to having been in multiple accidents then I'll keep this conversation in mind and might mention driver's education classes as a possibility. (No guarantee that such people won't have a defensive attitude and claim that it was the other person's fault in all cases, of course )

Originally Posted by Vexx

A doctor moves a little out of bounds if they assert a house with children shouldn't have guns at all. If they want to advocate for proper training and storage (just like for other dangerous elements in the environment), I don't see anything illogical about that. Focus on mitigating the greatest risks but don't neglect the lesser risks.

Well, yes; if a physician inquires about guns in the home and the answer is positive, the next question or advice deals with the storage of said firearms. If I were counseling someone with a young child who said that they had no way to safely store their firearm then I might advise removing the firearm from the home, whether by keeping it with a trusted friend or by selling it, but that isn't pushing any agenda other than trying to prevent an accidental injury or death related to that firearm.

There's a lot of fear about physicians pushing agendas on people. I won't say that it doesn't happen, but if someone has a firearm then how kindly do you think they'll take to such an obvious agenda push? The physician-patient relationship is critically important, not least of all because a patient is more likely to be compliant with their medications and other health advice if the relationship is a positive one. (Statistics show that they're also less likely to sue you if something goes wrong, and of course it makes your work much more pleasant if you're working with people who are friendly toward you.) So again, the fears about physicians pushing agendas directly on their patients regarding firearms seem very unrealistic from this side, and I hope that by giving everyone a small glimpse into what it's like from this vantage point you all can see why.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

It was just hyperbole. I wouldn't actually attack someone for saying something I didn't like. I'm not a violent person and while I may exist in a state of perpetual mild annoyance, I'm actually very hard to really piss off.

I get where you're coming from, and that's a really good point. The only way to counter that sort of behavior, short of a unilateral ban (which will never happen) is education.

Education and, I'm sorry, control. Making classes available isn't very useful if people aren't incentivized to attend and pay attention.

For that matter, someone with anger issues isn't going to be helped by a lecture on gun safety.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I think there would be a lot less people fearful of guns if they had to get some sort of training with them. If they'd understand that no, guns are not cursed artifacts that infuse their wielder with the urge to slaughter all who oppose them. If they learn that guns are just like hammers, knives, screwdrivers, computers or pneumatic wrenches--tools, designed to aid us in some task or another.

If you squeeze a hammer, knife, screwdriver, computer, or wrench wrong, it isn't going to fire a piece of metal of itself faster than you can blink and potentially hit yourself or another. With that "another" possibly being miles away.

And how would me getting training (which I have had, just not extensively; benefits of having a parent in law enforcement who also happened to be a firearms instructor for years) make me any less worried that some other jackass who didn't get the training isn't going to be an idiot?

Either way, there really isn't any point to debating this. Like abortion or gay marriage, it's just an issue that no one will convince someone on the other side of until the counter of their argument directly impacts them (see: GOP congressmen who are devoutly anti-gay, until their own child comes out).

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I like the idea, but the problem is with how many people interpret the Constitution. If owning a firearm is a right, rather than a privilege, then forcing people to go through an exam would be a very bad thing. If you're concerned that someone has an agenda, then theoretically the entrance exam could be so strict that only the most proficient gun users would be able to pass it. Flip it around for other rights: should we require an exam to show that people know how to use "free speech" responsibly? Make it so that they can't post things on the internet or have anything published unless they pass the exam?

The 1st Amendment is a right and is also regulated. Nobody has a right to Yell Fire in a crowded room.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Education and, I'm sorry, control. Making classes available isn't very useful if people aren't incentivized to attend and pay attention.

For that matter, someone with anger issues isn't going to be helped by a lecture on gun safety.

the saftey classes and license wouldn't cut down the psycho killers but will cut down on the number of accidental shooting deaths.

[Vexx]

Gotta go work, hope I don't leave anyone in limbo. I'll just say I'll be first in line the day someone sells a working, reliable stun phaser with a range of about 20 meters. In a highly urban environment, guns are just a mess no matter who is wielding them (good guys, bad guys, police, etc) as we've seen too often lately.

[Ithekro]

Well the reason for the car/gun relation is the idea that is should be a State issue, rather than a Federal issue.

All the car regulations are state by state, as are the rule of the road. In California for example, unless posted otherwise, I can turn right on a red light after coming to a stop and making sure I can turn safely. In some other states that is illegal and you can get a ticket for doing so.

Gun regulations are also state by state. The 2nd Amendment makes it clear the Federal Government can't infringe on those rights, but the 10th Amendment make it possible for the States to do as they like on that matter.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

In California for example, unless posted otherwise, I can turn right on a red light after coming to a stop and making sure I can turn safely. In some other states that is illegal and you can get a ticket for doing so.

I didn't know that some states don't allow that. It's the same in MA, RI, and CT (the three main states where I do my driving, lol); you can turn right on red after you come to a stop unless there's a sign saying you can't.

[GDB]

Maryland's the same. What states don't allow it?

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by GDB

Maryland's the same. What states don't allow it?

I thought than it was allowed everwhere both in US and Canada, exept in New-York and Montréal .

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

If your doctor isn't asking about your sexual habits then they are not doing their job. We are supposed to ask about your sexual activity, including whether you've been promiscuous and whether you're having sex with men, women, or both. This isn't because we're trying to pry into your and every other patient's private lives, it's because sexual activity is a health issue, and this is not limited purely to STDs. Given that, I apologize but the point you were trying to make by bringing up physicians questioning sexuality is lost on me.

I believe I mentioned in my post that those questions are indeed often asked in some visits, usually annual physicals and the like. However, AFAIK doctors are not REQUIRED by law to ask those questions, and they certainly can't put my name down on some ban-this-guy-from-having-sex list if I don't answer or they don't like my answers.

You have raised a health issue carried out by one dentist in an effort to show how doctors are human and can do stupid things over ideology. I'd love to razz you for fun about how you used a dentist as an example, or how you brought up a single event to generalize all physicians, but I won't because I recognize part of the point that you're trying to make. You're correct. Perhaps due to lack of creativity on my end, I fail to see how you connect that to fears over ideology about guns. What do you think that an anti-gun physician could do? Realistically speaking, what is the worst that they could do?

A dentist AND a physician And no, the intent is not to generalize medical practitioners, but just to show that they do screw up and let other things (in those cases, greed) get the better of them. As for what they can do, it would depend on the legislation in place.

I don't think you'll find many people who are passionate enough about anything to risk torpedoing their careers

And I said as much, but like everything else, it's not the majority of people with common sense that one would be worried about.

The Central Park 5 may not have been guilty of the crimes that they were charged with, but they weren't exactly total innocents who were exhibiting good behavior. I'm surprised you'd bring that up and be on their side.

They may not be outstanding citizens, but the fact remains that the government's action is grossly inappropriate here. You don't get to interrogate and coerce confessions from minors without legal guardian and representation, and use those confessions to convict them of rape, toss them in prison for a decade, and then go "oh well, they didn't do it, but we didn't do anything wrong, I mean, it's not like they were honor students!"

If they committed crimes, then charge them with said crime. You can't arrest a drug dealer and send him to prison for murder when he didn't do it just because he was an unsavory character.

No, it wouldn't. Further, if you're going to the pediatrician with your young child then asking about firearms in order to remind you about safely storing them away would seem like a good idea.

I have never had a doctor, in multiple countries, that have brought up these kind of completely unrelated questions in a regular visit. During annual physicals? yes. When I go in for the flu? allergy? bronchitis? broken foot? broken back? not a peep. And if they had, I would've told them to go fk themselves and start doing their job, who and how I'm having sex with or whether I owe any guns has nothing to do with a common viral infection or the fractured bones in my body

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

The 1st Amendment is a right and is also regulated. Nobody has a right to Yell Fire in a crowded room.

So are firearms. But if we're gonna make out of context comparisons, when's the last time you had to take an exam to exercise your 1st Amendment right?

the saftey classes and license wouldn't cut down the psycho killers but will cut down on the number of accidental shooting deaths.

I want to agree with you, but sadly I would have to disagree. Not to say those doesn't help (indeed, we go over safety rules constantly in the military), but from what I've seen, It's not the lack of knowledge that leads to accidents, but rather complacency and lapse in sound decision-making.

You can tell people to treat every weapon as if they're loaded as many times as you want, but if they think they know better, it's not gonna do jack, and eventually someone end up shooting themselves in the foot because they didn't properly clear their weapon - not because they didn't know they should've, but because they thought there was no need to.

[Badkarma 1]

So lemme get this straight, your not only a physician but also a social worker too?
And in my bi-yearly doctor visits I've never been asked about the sex thing or gun thing!
It's not about fear, it's about common sense and and our right to privacy. As a doctor you get to ask questions, as a patient I have the ability to say no, and none if your business, I also can waive an exam, refuse a test, and pull my records at any time and go elsewhere.!
I notice 2 words showin up a lot, "fear" and "control". I don't fear you but you can't control me. So I'm jest wonderin why you chose those words?
Happily we still live in a place where were free to make our own choices in life, choose a path we determine, and can at any time tell somebody to mind their own business!
Illinois already "licenses" it's gun owners with the FOID card, you have the Internet look it up. And when one goes to get a CCW they are required to submit to a state background check, and fire a qualification course, some states may even fingerprint you.
There's a lot of ignorance in some of these posts, and lack of common sense. I suggest some might look into a little research before cutting and pasteing old arguments!
And some just have a problem with us saying "No!" Or "None of your business" to.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Gotta go work, hope I don't leave anyone in limbo. I'll just say I'll be first in line the day someone sells a working, reliable stun phaser with a range of about 20 meters.

The Russians have an answer for you. Just fix a blunt object to the end of one of their ballistic knives and fire it at anyone you don't like.

Speaking of which, shouldn't you be working on something like this at work? Just scale down one of those vaporisers you built to just burn away clothes or something like that.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Badkarma 1

Illinois already "licenses" it's gun owners with the FOID card, you have the Internet look it up. And when one goes to get a CCW they are required to submit to a state background check, and fire a qualification course, some states may even fingerprint you.
There's a lot of ignorance in some of these posts, and lack of common sense. I suggest some might look into a little research before cutting and pasteing old arguments!

One state does not a country make. Ironic that you brought up lack of common sense and then act like Illinois sets any level of standard for the country as a whole.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by GDB

One state does not a country make. Ironic that you brought up lack of common sense and then act like Illinois sets any level of standard for the country as a whole.

I could say the same thing about Texas or California. Either way, progress and change to the whole argument starts at the state-by-state level. Whether these kinds of changes propagate among the states, that is left to be seeing.

For example, the legalization of marijuana in Colorado. If this spreads, part of Mexico's problem regarding drug cartels would be solved. In addition, a well-regulated marijuana industry means more revenue.

[synaesthetic]

Weed on the rise, tobacco on the decline. Makes so much sense, amirite?

Newsflash: burning plant matter still fucks up your lungs, no matter what burning plant it came from. Both weed and tobacco will do a coal mine number on your lungs--weed even more so since right now it's not being regulated. Not that I think weed ought to stay illegal (it shouldn't), just that people need to stop treating tobacco smokers like the new niggers. Like any addiction, it's an addiction and not everyone can quit (or even wants to quit) without help.

Why do so many progressives treat illegal drug addicts with pity but nicotine addicts with so much scorn? It's beyond belief.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Weed on the rise, tobacco on the decline. Makes so much sense, amirite?

Newsflash: burning plant matter still fucks up your lungs, no matter what burning plant it came from. Both weed and tobacco will do a coal mine number on your lungs--weed even more so since right now it's not being regulated. Not that I think weed ought to stay illegal (it shouldn't), just that people need to stop treating tobacco smokers like the new niggers. Like any addiction, it's an addiction and not everyone can quit (or even wants to quit) without help.

Why do so many progressives treat illegal drug addicts with pity but nicotine addicts with so much scorn? It's beyond belief.

If you can find a way for smokers to smoke without forcing everyone else around them to breath the same air at the same time, I would be happy to cut them some slack. Weed smoke is just not focused on because it's not done in public yet.

[Badkarma 1]

Originally Posted by GDB

One state does not a country make. Ironic that you brought up lack of common sense and then act like Illinois sets any level of standard for the country as a whole.

Never said that Illinois was the standard for anything, 'cept maybe corrupt politicians.
The lack of commons sense remark was directed at those that don't look into their own locality to see if they offer beginner classes on firearms, laws pertaining to such, or what is required to buy a firearm!
If you want to make this personal, my VM and PM boxes are open!