doctors cannot ask about guns

[StSapphire]

The parents who own guns know about gun safety. Not all of them practice what they know (hence, the accidental shootings). How to make them apply their knowledge?

Children whose parents don't have guns can still be exposed to guns when they visit the homes of other people, or go out in public. It's not just the gun-owning parents who have to be gun safety conscious. How's the doctor going to cover those situations by lecturing only the gun-owning parents?

Just because they can't fix everything doesn't mean that what they can do is useless. Specifically in regards to children of parents who don't own guns, I'd guess that they're probably far less likely to actually encounter a gun, so it's less of an issue. And I don't think the doctors are going around informing 2 year olds how to act around guns, more just ensuring that parents are being responsible as best as they can.

let me correct you there -

more like - "Jiro has 2 years old child at home with gun." and probably additional information such as his medical opinion or observation on my state of mind or whatsoever.

Why would your child's pediatrician be making detailed medical observations of you (unless they thought you were at risk for neglect/abuse or other risks, which you obviously want them to be watching out for)?

Regarding the state of mind aspects, though, I thought you needed a psych evaluation before getting a license? I could clearly be wrong, too, though. I'm honestly not all that educated in-depth on the subject lately.

I signed the consent form allowing NJ State Police and town police captain an access to my medical record. Police Captain may or may not see a mark on my medical file that I have 2 years child at home and doctor's additional note. He would deny me of my gun rights as out of concern for my child, thinking that 1 gun is more than enough for me.

In which case it has nothing to do with your medical history, it's an issue with the licensing process. So your root issue isn't with a doctor asking about it, it's with the people giving out licenses being unfair/too strict/etc.

It's not like without an obscure note in a medical file they wouldn't know that you have a child and that you already own a gun. If you do, it's registered and in that database, which they surely crosscheck all on their own.

A mark in my child's file will raise a concern for certain people and it's more than enough for police captain to deny me of gun rights. That's how it is in NJ-NY. Right now, I'm considering a lawsuit against my town police captain because he had incredibly lame reason to delay a licensing process to issue me another handgun permit. My friend had to resort to this and he lives just a several towns away. What a sad state this is. I've been waiting close to 3 months and that is unacceptably too long. I'll give it another week or so to hear his response to my courtesy letter.

The "mark" is literally nothing more than "Jiro owns a firearm". That's it. You're treating it as if it's a huge blemish, when it's nothing more than informative, just like "allergic to penicillin" or "is 5'9"" are. If that's enough for them to deny you a gun license... they're already going to know that by cross-checking the firearm registration databases. It's not a secret that you own a gun to them, and it's (probably) not a secret (or at least, shouldn't be) that you have a child in your home. So your issue isn't with doctors knowing or "marking it in your file", it's with the licensing process, which has nothing whatsoever to do with doctors asking if you own firearms.

bingo. their licensing process isn't working. their scheme isn't working. It's, in fact, illegal and unconstitutional. It's just a matter of time till massive lawsuit will land on them. It is predicted that lawsuit will come to NJ after Maryland.

Gun rights advocate group especially NRA want to keep NJ-NY last because these states are the most difficult and the most corrupted states in USA. It's best to target "easy" states just to build up enough ammunition to tackle NJ-NY.

So again, the issue has nothing to do with doctors at all. So I don't get what your pushback against them asking in the first place is. It simply seems like an entirely overreacted response.

 

[Reba]

Couple weeks ago, he denied me of additional permit simply because he didn't like the relay call with me - a verbal confirmation as part of background check. He complained that he does not like this because he does not know who is he talking to.

If you think about it, that doesn't even make sense.

Even for hearing people using a voice line, unless the Chief personally knows the other person well, he's not going to really know to whom he's speaking.

If he wants to know to whom he's speaking, call him directly by video phone (tell the department to get one), and have a terp stand by to interpret the call. That way, he can see you and the terp at the same time. Or Skype him, and let him figure it out.

So I wrote him a courtesy letter. let's see what happens next. I don't really want to resort to lawsuit because I don't want to brew up bad blood between us especially in my town and I certainly don't want to cough up legal fees.

The voice conformation thing is totally foreign to me. We've never had to do that.

Of course, the whole "get permission from police chief" deal is totally foreign to me, too.

(We don't need no stinkin' permission to pump our own gas either. )

 

[Daredevel7]

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for safety features and practices. I just wonder why it seems to take twice as much precaution now to get half as much result.

I'd like to share my experience with you to give a possible answer to your question.

I was born and raised in Miami. My dad wanted a gun for security. He was paranoid that someone would break in. My mom flat out refused. So my dad opted for big ass knives instead (think crocodile dundee) and kept them under the bed mattress.

My dad never told me about the knives. I found them one day (can't remember how old I was but definitely not older than 10 years) and thought they were really cool looking and played with them for a bit, then put them back. My parents never knew about this.

Knowing my dad, I highly suspect that he would never have taught me about guns. Frankly, he probably would have been the worst gun owner. Not locking guns, not practicing shooting, not informing me anything about guns, and so on. Honestly, I can't even imagine him to be able to defend himself with a gun if a robber did break in.

Now, I've moved to Alabama. Now I've lived here for almost 3 years, I've noticed that it's a drastic change how people react with guns. Kids are exposed to guns early, guns can be used for security purposes but they also are for recreational means (more so than in Miami), it is routine to teach kids the responsibility of guns, and so on. Kids often go "shooting" with their parents. Some people don't even bother locking their guns here because their kids are so well versed in guns.

I suspect that in very big cities, where crime is rampant, people get guns out of fear (like my dad) to give them the illusion of security, whereas in less crime areas, guns are simply part of a way of life and it's a nice thing to have for recreational and security reasons.

And that's why it is different from back then in rural America.

 

[Jiro]

Just because they can't fix everything doesn't mean that what they can do is useless. Specifically in regards to children of parents who don't own guns, I'd guess that they're probably far less likely to actually encounter a gun, so it's less of an issue. And I don't think the doctors are going around informing 2 year olds how to act around guns, more just ensuring that parents are being responsible as best as they can.



Why would your child's pediatrician be making detailed medical observations of you (unless they thought you were at risk for neglect/abuse or other risks, which you obviously want them to be watching out for)?

Regarding the state of mind aspects, though, I thought you needed a psych evaluation before getting a license? I could clearly be wrong, too, though. I'm honestly not all that educated in-depth on the subject lately.



In which case it has nothing to do with your medical history, it's an issue with the licensing process. So your root issue isn't with a doctor asking about it, it's with the people giving out licenses being unfair/too strict/etc.

It's not like without an obscure note in a medical file they wouldn't know that you have a child and that you already own a gun. If you do, it's registered and in that database, which they surely crosscheck all on their own.



The "mark" is literally nothing more than "Jiro owns a firearm". That's it. You're treating it as if it's a huge blemish, when it's nothing more than informative, just like "allergic to penicillin" or "is 5'9"" are. If that's enough for them to deny you a gun license... they're already going to know that by cross-checking the firearm registration databases. It's not a secret that you own a gun to them, and it's (probably) not a secret (or at least, shouldn't be) that you have a child in your home. So your issue isn't with doctors knowing or "marking it in your file", it's with the licensing process, which has nothing whatsoever to do with doctors asking if you own firearms.

So again, the issue has nothing to do with doctors at all. So I don't get what your pushback against them asking in the first place is. It simply seems like an entirely overreacted response.

As expected - I don't expect you to understand this... no matter how much I will explain. Like I said - Police Chief will find ANY tiny shred of reason just to deny you of gun rights. That's all it takes - a tiny tiny shred of reason. Simple as that.

I would be asking same questions like you and having same thoughts as you if I were living in a gun-friendly state - "oh that's just too silly... you're being paranoid, silly." But like I said - this is exactly how anti-gun NJ-NY are. The threat is very real... as real as Red Scare and nuclear threat back in 50's.

 

[StSapphire]

I wonder why guns are so much more dangerous now that they have trigger locks, safes, vaults, etc., compared to the days of rural America when the family rifle was easily accessible over the mantel or by the front door, with no locks on them?

I think about Sgt. York and his family and neighbors. All the boys started shooting at a young age, and even though they weren't wearing bright orange in the woods, there didn't seem to be epidemics of shooting casualties.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for safety features and practices. I just wonder why it seems to take twice as much precaution now to get half as much result.

The guns aren't more dangerous, they're just more easily accessible but at the same time, more foreign. Anyone with a few hundred bucks can go buy a gun, but (especially in cities) many people simply don't need/want them, so they're more dangerous due to people simply being unfamiliar with how to handle them safely.

and it's also possible that my medical insurance will jack up the premium for that reason... forcing me to give up guns. It's NJ-NY's sleezy way to get around it.

For one thing, insurance doesn't have unfettered access to your medical records, you have to give them access and only to what they specifically need. If you're actually concerned about that, then don't prevent doctors from asking about it, make it illegal for insurance companies to punish you for owning them. (Good luck with that, mind you - insurance companies would like nothing better than to screw you and everyone else over.)

Too much discretion left in the hands of the police chief. Heaven help the person who applies to the chief when he's having a bad day, or he just doesn't like your looks.

Indeed.

Couple weeks ago, he denied me of additional permit simply because he didn't like the relay call with me - a verbal confirmation as part of background check. He complained that he does not like this because he does not know who is he talking to.

So I wrote him a courtesy letter, reminding him that he is the one who issued me a firearm license so why give me trouble on another background check? He ALREADY did a background on me in the first place. :roll: let's see what happens next. I don't really want to resort to lawsuit because I don't want to brew up bad blood between us especially in my town and I certainly don't want to cough up legal fees.

Wow, that's just shitty.

exactly why I support "Tell Us, Not Ask Us" Policy. I can see how both parties can easily agree to it.

Why give them more reason to make it unnecessarily harder for us law-abiding citizens? This state doesn't make sense. They made it nearly impossibly hard for us to own a gun and yet... they made it easier for people to get away from DUI? :roll:

The point is more that your "policy" that you're advocating doesn't help. It ties doctor's hands from being able to actually give relevant advice, and restricts the advice to a form that is far less likely to actually do, y'know, anything. Why not instead have a "Ask and/or Tell". Restricting options rarely has a better outcome than providing more options.

 

[Jiro]

If you think about it, that doesn't even make sense.

Even for hearing people using a voice line, unless the Chief personally knows the other person well, he's not going to really know to whom he's speaking.

If he wants to know to whom he's speaking, call him directly by video phone (tell the department to get one), and have a terp stand by to interpret the call. That way, he can see you and the terp at the same time. Or Skype him, and let him figure it out.

I wrote in the letter that I am more than willing enough to meet him in person at his office but I also reminded him that he is the one who issued me a license so this whole thing is unnecessary IMO (that last few words - I didn't say that in letter ).

The voice conformation thing is totally foreign to me. We've never had to do that.

same here. He needed to do voice confirmation too with people I listed for reference purpose :roll: and he complained that he was not able to get in touch with them. I contacted my friends and they said that they left numbers of voicemails. So I told police captain about that and he said he refused to accept it because he wanted to talk to them "live" for confirmation purpose. Good grief!

I also wrote in letter that these 2 friends I listed are the same people he contacted in past in order to issue me a license. This is just too ridiculous. and comical. comical!!!!! He's really hell-bent on preventing me from getting another handgun.

Of course, the whole "get permission from police chief" deal is totally foreign to me, too.

(We don't need no stinkin' permission to pump our own gas either. )

 

[StSapphire]

As expected - I don't expect you to understand this... no matter how much I will explain. Like I said - Police Chief will find ANY tiny shred of reason just to deny you of gun rights. That's all it takes - a tiny tiny shred of reason. Simple as that.

I would be asking same questions like you and having same thoughts as you if I were living in a gun-friendly state - "oh that's just too silly... you're being paranoid, silly." But like I said - this is exactly how anti-gun NJ-NY are. The threat is very real... as real as Red Scare and nuclear threat back in 50's.

I do understand what you're saying. My point is that you're going after the wrong person. The person who's causing all the problem in your situation is the police chief. It's not the fault of the doctor who made a note, which he medically deemed to be potentially medically relevant. So to punish the doctor by restricting the ways he's allowed to operate because someone else is petty and stupid, is what's wrong.

 

[Reba]

I'd like to share my experience with you to give a possible answer to your question.

I was born and raised in Miami. My dad wanted a gun for security. He was paranoid that someone would break in. My mom flat out refused. So my dad opted for big ass knives instead (think crocodile dundee) and kept them under the bed mattress.

My dad never told me about the knives. I found them one day (can't remember how old I was but definitely not older than 10 years) and thought they were really cool looking and played with them for a bit, then put them back. My parents never knew about this.

Knowing my dad, I highly suspect that he would never have taught me about guns. Frankly, he probably would have been the worst gun owner. Not locking guns, not practicing shooting, not informing me anything about guns, and so on. Honestly, I can't even imagine him to be able to defend himself with a gun if a robber did break in.

Now, I've moved to Alabama. Now I've lived here for almost 3 years, I've noticed that it's a drastic change how people react with guns. Kids are exposed to guns early, guns can be used for security purposes but they also are for recreational means (more so than in Miami), it is routine to teach kids the responsibility of guns, and so on. Kids often go "shooting" with their parents. Some people don't even bother locking their guns here because their kids are so well versed in guns.

I suspect that in very big cities, where crime is rampant, people get guns out of fear (like my dad) to give them the illusion of security, whereas in less crime areas, guns are simply part of a way of life and it's a nice thing to have for recreational and security reasons.

And that's why it is different from back then in rural America.

Thanks for the family story.

Yes, I think you're right. Urban people attach too much mystical power to guns.

I don't like knives for self defense because they require proximity and physical strength to be of use (at least, for the average person).

 

[Daredevel7]

Thanks for the family story.

Yes, I think you're right. Urban people attach too much mystical power to guns.

I don't like knives for self defense because they require proximity and physical strength to be of use (at least, for the average person).

If you knew my dad, him using a knife for self defense is a really funny thought.... there was VERY little chance he would be able to use it with success!

Which is why my mom said "Okay... you CAN have a knife..."

 

[Reba]

I wrote in the letter that I am more than willing enough to meet him in person at his office but I also reminded him that he is the one who issued me a license so this whole thing is unnecessary IMO (that last few words - I didn't say that in letter )...

...I also wrote in letter that these 2 friends I listed are the same people he contacted in past in order to issue me a license. This is just too ridiculous. and comical. comical!!!!! He's really hell-bent on preventing me from getting another handgun.

Does he have a problem with deaf Asians?

 

[Jiro]

For one thing, insurance doesn't have unfettered access to your medical records, you have to give them access and only to what they specifically need. If you're actually concerned about that, then don't prevent doctors from asking about it, make it illegal for insurance companies to punish you for owning them. (Good luck with that, mind you - insurance companies would like nothing better than to screw you and everyone else over.)

you really think so? Like I said - it works on paper but it doesn't in reality. This is a capitalism world. Look at our corporations. They have a department and teams of lawyers dedicated to circumventing laws.

The point is more that your "policy" that you're advocating doesn't help. It ties doctor's hands from being able to actually give relevant advice, and restricts the advice to a form that is far less likely to actually do, y'know, anything. Why not instead have a "Ask and/or Tell". Restricting options rarely has a better outcome than providing more options.

I fail to understand what you just said. How does "Tell us, not ask us" restrict doctor's ability to help?

When a doctor tells us before we leave his office - "Hey... here is a pamphlet about gun safety and a contact number for a police officer to give you training in gun safety for free if you like".... he is not singling me out.

I then can choose either way - Accept/decline his paper and leave or engage in friendly conversation with him - "ah yes I do actually own gun at home. I do use gun lock but thank you for information. I think I'll call him for more advice and training." and then some more conversation.

Very friendly. Very simple.

I will definitely feel apprehended if he's asking me if I own a gun. I would get very worried about having police or social worker involved because it implies that a child may or may be hurt by my gun. Anything involving gun is very serious. This is no different from - "I see a bruise on his back. Did he get in fight at school or....?" You can obviously see that doctor is thinking that I am abusing him or even molesting him.

 

[Jiro]

I do understand what you're saying. My point is that you're going after the wrong person. The person who's causing all the problem in your situation is the police chief. It's not the fault of the doctor who made a note, which he medically deemed to be potentially medically relevant. So to punish the doctor by restricting the ways he's allowed to operate because someone else is petty and stupid, is what's wrong.

My problem is that people are focusing on wrong thing. Gun is not a huge issue in here.

 

[Jiro]

I'd like to share my experience with you to give a possible answer to your question.

I was born and raised in Miami. My dad wanted a gun for security. He was paranoid that someone would break in. My mom flat out refused. So my dad opted for big ass knives instead (think crocodile dundee) and kept them under the bed mattress.

My dad never told me about the knives. I found them one day (can't remember how old I was but definitely not older than 10 years) and thought they were really cool looking and played with them for a bit, then put them back. My parents never knew about this.

Knowing my dad, I highly suspect that he would never have taught me about guns. Frankly, he probably would have been the worst gun owner. Not locking guns, not practicing shooting, not informing me anything about guns, and so on. Honestly, I can't even imagine him to be able to defend himself with a gun if a robber did break in.

Now, I've moved to Alabama. Now I've lived here for almost 3 years, I've noticed that it's a drastic change how people react with guns. Kids are exposed to guns early, guns can be used for security purposes but they also are for recreational means (more so than in Miami), it is routine to teach kids the responsibility of guns, and so on. Kids often go "shooting" with their parents. Some people don't even bother locking their guns here because their kids are so well versed in guns.

I suspect that in very big cities, where crime is rampant, people get guns out of fear (like my dad) to give them the illusion of security, whereas in less crime areas, guns are simply part of a way of life and it's a nice thing to have for recreational and security reasons.

And that's why it is different from back then in rural America.

Bingo!!!!!! It's what I have been telling my friends around here. I frequently offered to take them to PA/WV/VA for vacation.

I would love to see that kind of culture to Northeastern area. They need to get off their sofa and stop watching too much movies full of misconceptions. They need to get back to reality and improve their family time experience.

 

[Jiro]

Does he have a problem with deaf Asians?

 

[StSapphire]

If you knew my dad, him using a knife for self defense is a really funny thought.... there was VERY little chance he would be able to use it with success!

Which is why my mom said "Okay... you CAN have a knife..."

So not good. Giving someone a weapon which they don't know how to properly handle is more dangerous for everyone involved. Knives are way more dangerous than guns, since you're just as liable to cut yourself as you are to cut someone else, combined with needing to be close-ranged. Very scary.

you really think so? Like I said - it works on paper but it doesn't in reality. This is a capitalism world. Look at our corporations. They have a department and teams of lawyers dedicated to circumventing laws.

I may be slightly over-idealistic, but we do live in a country that is run by rule of law. If those insurance companies break/circumvent laws, they should be punished. But that's an entirely different issue, then.

I fail to understand what you just said. How does "Tell us, not ask us" restrict doctor's ability to help?

When a doctor tells us before we leave his office - "Hey... here is a pamphlet about gun safety and a contact number for a police officer to give you training in gun safety for free if you like".... he is not singling me out.

I then can choose either way - Accept/decline his paper and leave or engage in friendly conversation with him - "ah yes I do actually own gun at home. I do use gun lock but thank you for information. I think I'll call him for more advice and training." and then some more conversation.

Very friendly. Very simple.

I will definitely feel apprehended if he's asking me if I own a gun. I would get very worried about having police or social worker involved because it implies that a child may or may be hurt by my gun. Anything involving gun is very serious. This is no different from - "I see a bruise on his back. Did he get in fight at school or....?" You can obviously see that doctor is thinking that I am abusing him or even molesting him.

By restricting the doctor from asking if you even own a gun, it makes the entire process far less personal and much less effective. If a doctor hands me a pamphlet on something, I'd take that as a sign that they're uninterested in actually talking about the subject or that they don't take it seriously.

It's not an issue of "singling you out" so much as it is "personalizing your visit". Incidentally, that aspect of your argument (that him finding out if you even own a gun before wasting his time on ensuring you know how to properly store/handle guns around children makes you feel like you're being targeted or singled out or whatever) is the part that makes you appear paranoid to others. Not the crap that your police chief is going through.

My problem is that people are focusing on wrong thing. Gun is not a huge issue in here.

The reason people are focusing on guns is because... that's what the original article of the topic was about. If the topic instead said that docs can't ask about whether you're sexually active or not, then we'd be talking about sex, rather than guns. We're focusing on that because it's the topic.

Bingo!!!!!! It's what I have been telling my friends around here. I frequently offered to take them to PA/WV/VA for vacation.

I would love to see that kind of culture to Northeastern area. They need to get off their sofa and stop watching too much movies full of misconceptions. They need to get back to reality and improve their family time experience.

I can confirm that this does, in fact, work, too. My mom has always been extremely anti-gun growing up, to the extent of getting somewhat upset when I shot BB guns as a boy scout, once. One of my exes' entire families was very gun-friendly, with basically every member of the family having their own concealed carry license (including his daughter, who I was dating) and several guns apiece. I learned far more about gun and gun safety from that family, and felt far more safe around firearms of all types after that than I ever did prior.

 

[Foxrac]

Very sad examples.

I don't know why some parents are so careless about gun safety with children in the home. Laziness? Carelessness?

All new guns come with gun locks and safety instructions. Gun stores give away free gun locks for those who need them.

Yup, what irresponsible gun owners! :roll:

More irresponsible gun owners = more states will find an excuse to pass the gun control or gun ban by try to around above the constitution.

I prefer to see irresponsible gun owners to lose the rights to firearm if they don't take gun so responsibility instead of adopt the gun control/gun ban.

 

[KristinaB]

I personally have never been asked at any of the appointments for myself, hubby or either child if we had guns or such in the house.

 

[StSapphire]

I personally have never been asked at any of the appointments for myself, hubby or either child if we had guns or such in the house.

Probably has a lot to do with the doctor himself/herself. It's certainly not a standardized question, at least.

 

[Jiro]

I may be slightly over-idealistic, but we do live in a country that is run by rule of law. If those insurance companies break/circumvent laws, they should be punished. But that's an entirely different issue, then.

Company A can easily circumvent around it by simply buying or contracting with Company B that has personal data. This has been going on since capitalism. What do you think how and why more and more ads are much more targeted than before?

There are virtually many different ways to circumvent it. It's comical and easy. So a mark in medical file regarding gun possession is a big no-no to me.

By restricting the doctor from asking if you even own a gun, it makes the entire process far less personal and much less effective. If a doctor hands me a pamphlet on something, I'd take that as a sign that they're uninterested in actually talking about the subject or that they don't take it seriously.

It's not an issue of "singling you out" so much as it is "personalizing your visit". Incidentally, that aspect of your argument (that him finding out if you even own a gun before wasting his time on ensuring you know how to properly store/handle guns around children makes you feel like you're being targeted or singled out or whatever) is the part that makes you appear paranoid to others. Not the crap that your police chief is going through.

that's not how I see it. A doctor does not just hand you a pamphlet and walk away like annoying guy with pocketful of go-go girl cards in Las Vegas. See examples in Post #610. You can just do it differently to achieve same result while abiding by laws.

The reason people are focusing on guns is because... that's what the original article of the topic was about. If the topic instead said that docs can't ask about whether you're sexually active or not, then we'd be talking about sex, rather than guns. We're focusing on that because it's the topic.

We both know gun has always been a hot topic for decades.

 

[jillio]

Doctors have no business asking if you have a gun. They have no business asking if you own or rent a home. They have no business asking if you own a car, or a motorcycle. They have no business asking if you are employed. They have no business asking if you prefer Mozart or Bach. They have no business asking if you are hetero or homo.

They DO have business in asking you about your illness, injury, etc. After all, that is why they are doctors.

Sounds like you have a fear of bill collectors, not doctors.