Strange question at the VA Hospital.

[LAK]

Davek1977

LAK [me]QUOTE: If it were the intent to specifically protect persons with PTSD it would have specifically stated in plain english that "Persons diagnosed with [PTSD] shall never be construed as mentally defective or otherwise a danger to themselves or any other person, nor this otherwise used to prohibit such persons from owning, possessing, using or carrying any firearm for any reason" Or words to that effect. Period. But it does not. Why not? ENDQUOTE

Because, quite frankly, that statement doesn't universally apply to those diagnosed with PTSD. While many are completely harmless and would have no issues owning or using a gun, there are those diagnosed with PTSD that DO potential...even LIKLIHOOD...of hurting themselves and others. A blanket statement that PTSD is NEVER a valid reason to deny one of their 2nd Amendment rights can't and won't fly, because there is no way of promising that theose affected by PTSD are NOT mentally defective or a danger to those around them....It should be handled on a case by case basis. To expect a law would include such a blanket statement automatically excluding a large number of persons is simply silly. While I don't want far-reaching laws that can rob one of their rights without recourse, I also don't endorse a law that says "people with xyz aren't dangerous and should never be denied the right to own a gun under any circumstances whatsoever" with absolutely NO BASIS for that comment. There is NO WAY to accurately state that EVERYONE diagnosed with PTSD is actually truely fully mentally competent and capable of safe gun ownership. Mental illnesses, including PTSD, can casue unpredictable, abnormal behaviors in people. Do you deny this? Do you deny the fact here are those out there suffering from PTSD that may be potentially dangerous? Do you deny the fact tehre have been cases of people with PTSD acting out violently? Yet, you argue this entire class of people should be promised unhindered access to firearms, no matter what? That actually elevates the rights of those with PTSD far above those of the common man ..and dangerously so, IMO.

If you read the OP, and my first comments relating to PTSD, the followup challenges by other posters, perhaps you will understand.

The point is, PTSD sufferers are being set up for potential disarming.

That was challenged on the grounds and claim that the legislation does not do that. I countered it did, and you have simply quoted part of my response to that contention.

The legislation leaves that "loophole" was my point. Not whether PTSD sufferers should be barred or not, nor whether "some of them" should be barred or not. Only that it was possible regardless of the legislation some claim "protects" PTSD sufferers.

--------------------------------------

Je Suis Prest

 

[Davek1977]

Killchain:

TSo, essentially you are saying that about half the population needs to be "scrutinized?" Because I guarantee that most people (INCLUDING YOU) have seen something terrible in your life and could POTENTIALLY have PTSD

No, what I'm saying....which I stated quite clearly, if you bothered to read my response... is that I don't believe we should elevate the rights of PTSD suffereers above those of anyone else. They are in no way deserving of an exemption based soely on their diagnosis. I'm not saying PTSD sufferes should be under MORE scrutiny than you or I, just that they SHOULD be subject to the EXACT SAME scrutiny as you or I. A blanket provision stating PTSD sufferes shall not have their 2nd Amendment rights infringed upon under any circumstances does elevate their standing above ours. I don't think that a blanket exemption for sufferes of ANY mental illness should be written into law, as I believe there ARE certain individuals suffering from mental illnesses that are a danger to themselves and/or others, and that should absolutely NOT have access to firearms. Do you still disagree with my position, or am I still robbing vets of their gun rights under your view? If someone indicates they are thinking of suicide, or of hurting others, and this person tells a health care professional such things, you still believe that they person should have unfttered access to firearms? Or would disrming them be a denial of their second amendment rights, or too muych "scrutiny" in your opinion? Either you believe in true, unrestricted access to those suffering PTSD, or you believe there ARE certain conditions it would be better to disarm such an individual ...yet, if the law were worded in the manner you proposed, thats exactly what would be written into law...that their guns couldn't be taken under any circumstance.....right?


Lak:

The legislation leaves that "loophole" was my point. Not whether PTSD sufferers should be barred or not, nor whether "some of them" should be barred or not. Only that it was possible regardless of the legislation some claim "protects" PTSD sufferers.

hat makes sense, and I apologize for misunderstanding your point. I was mistakenly assuming you were ADVOCATING such a law, not merely commenting on the legislation and its potential. I do stand by my contention that any legislation that ABSOLUTELY guranteed PTSD sufferers their 2nd Amendment rights would elevate the rights of those diagnosed above those of those of us who have not been.

 

[LAK]

DaveK1977

hat makes sense, and I apologize for misunderstanding your point. I was mistakenly assuming you were ADVOCATING such a law, not merely commenting on the legislation and its potential. I do stand by my contention that any legislation that ABSOLUTELY guranteed PTSD sufferers their 2nd Amendment rights would elevate the rights of those diagnosed above those of those of us who have not been.

I agree in principle that bestowing upon "special" groups of people a sort of legislated protection is a bad idea.

I think the issue here though is the ever increasing excuses being used to disarm people by category. This all began with "convicted felons" and proceeded from there.

The writer in the cited article tried to pacify us with the notion that barring PTSD sufferers would deprive us of many police officers. Well, that has already been done before under the "domestic violence" category some years ago.

--------------------------------

Je Suis Prest

 

[d2wing]

As a vet with PTSD, I was told by my VA doc, that PTSD is not a mental illness in itself. It is a human response to trama. Treatment for PTSD is not treatment for a mental illness. To be diagnosed with mental illness is a seperate issue, so don't bring trouble on yourself by saying you are mentally ill if you have PTSD. Mental illness and PTSD are two very different things.

 

[sonofodin]

Hmmmm

I'm fresh out as of September. In the army they treated us like crap when it came time to any medical treatment. But then again my unit was full of flakheads. :banghead:

The VA wasn't much better. They treated me like I was just fibbing about everything that was wrong with me, same as the Army did. But they never asked this question of me owning guns. NOYFB if you ask me.

 

[SaxonPig]

The AMA advises physicians to ask and tell patients all about how dangerous guns are. It's an anti-gun move from the Brady Bunch and has been going on for a few years.

I was asked once and I proudly proclaimed "Hell, yes I have guns! I have a bunch of guns and always want to get more!"

When the MD started his spiel about the danger of guns I simply pointed out that more people die each year from medical malpractice than do from gunshot wounds. For some reason that shut him up.

 

[Ole Coot]

Strange, I was asked the same stupid questions back when I was around 50. No reason, just out of the blue and the doc seemed shocked that I would actually, as he put it "murder" another human. Don't know where they dig them up but that is an ask but I don't tell question now.

 

[crossrhodes]

daveK1977

So let me ask a closed end question daveK1977. If you have PTSD are you considered mentally defective and not be allowed to own a firearm?
Simple question. Now state the law on this and how they determine MENTALLY DEFECTIVE and then YOUR opinion.

 

[jcwit]

Seems like those complaining about the questions the VA ask are also the ones complaining about the health care available there, could there be a connection here?

 

[Gouranga]

What I find ridiculous is when you were deployed were you not trusted with weapons/firearms, etc? In some case much more powerful than what a civilian can own stateside? So now that you are home having served your country honorably, they suddenly want to question whether you can be trusted with firearms? Is that what is going on here?

My brother in law (who is a cop) was the first on scene when a guy committed suicide by freight train. He still has nightmares on it and HATES trains (10 years later). I would say that qualifies as PTSD. No how many folks have tried to take his guns away? And he lives in NYS. Just retarded and I am with the poster who said NOYFB.

 

[84B20]

What I find ridiculous is when you were deployed were you not trusted with weapons/firearms, etc?

Don't you mean were trusted? Athough in my case they did take away our rifles while in base camp. I did, however, have a handgun.

 

[Jolly Rogers]

jcwit posted...

Seems like those complaining about the questions the VA ask are also the ones complaining about the health care available there, could there be a connection here?

I would complain about any healthcare facility that had representatives asking this type of question.

And saxonpig posted...

When the MD started his spiel about the danger of guns I simply pointed out that more people die each year from medical malpractice than do from gunshot wounds. For some reason that shut him up.

the perfect response!
Joe

 

[CZguy]

Seems like those complaining about the questions the VA ask are also the ones complaining about the health care available there, could there be a connection here?

I've read this whole thread, and I didn't get that connection at all. Can you tell me what posts you are referring to?

 

[jcwit]

jcwit posted...

Quote:
Seems like those complaining about the questions the VA ask are also the ones complaining about the health care available there, could there be a connection here?

I would complain about any healthcare facility that had representatives asking this type of question.

SIL was asked questions similar to these when taking Gdaughter to dentist and Dr. So yes its not only the VA.

 

[sonofodin]

Its been the same since I have been home.

OHHHH sure your their boy when your over there shooting at brown kids and toting an M249 around the freakin desert, or rocking back and forth in an MRAP turret...But according to people like Nanci Pelosi you cant be trusted when you come back because you are "defective"...Shouldent have ANY kind of evil gun.

Shot that pic from the turret of my MRAP with a Nikon Coolpix S600
(yes I was the ever faithful gunner)

Now how dangerous do I look with my adorable cat sleeping on me? I must be really, really sick and dangerous because I baby that cat and she crys when I leave the room for 10 minutes. She even cleans my beard.

 

[LAK]

crossrhodes

daveK1977
So let me ask a closed end question daveK1977. If you have PTSD are you considered mentally defective and not be allowed to own a firearm?
Simple question. Now state the law on this and how they determine MENTALLY DEFECTIVE and then YOUR opinion.

I can answer this. And this is not "opinion"; read the whole thread and read the referenced legislative bill, and the linked article from military.com.

If you are a PTSD sufferer; no - you are not automatically considered to be "mentally defective" by law. Yet.

The cited bill, does not define "mentally defective". How "they" determine "mentally defective" for the purposes of the federal regulation of those who would buy, sell, transfer, possess (etc) firearms is by what medical institutions define as "mentally defective".

So the simple answer is that this is subject to change, according to what is decided by the medical institutions recognized by the federal government.

While PTSD may not all inclusively be defined as being "mentally defective" today - tomorrow it may well be the case.

-------------------------------

Je Suis Prest

 

[thralldad]

My son was asked this question during a routine physical before heading to college. He answered truthfully (We taught him to never lie). When he asked how I would have answered I said N/A! Not applicable, as in none of your business.

 

[Vector]

Though I do not necessarily agree with this point of view, it is timely and to the point of this thread.

---


Florida: Let doctors treat illness, not guns



Please read the following op-ed from the Tallahassee Democrat by Marion Hammer, Executive Director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida and former NRA president.

Marion P. Hammer . My View . Published on January 20, 2011

Re: "Too much, too far: Doctors' inquiry about guns isn't a threat" (Jan. 18).

As noted in your editorial, legislation has been filed to stop pediatricians and other physicians from prying into our personal lives, invading our privacy and straying from issues relating to disease and medicine into questioning children or their parents about gun ownership.

We take our children to physicians for medical care, not moral judgment, political harassment, and privacy intrusions - and that is what HB 155 and SB 432 intend to prohibit.

These bills come in answer to families who are complaining about the growing political agenda being carried out in examination rooms by doctors and medical staffs - and the arrogant berating if a patient refuses to answer questions that violate privacy rights and offend common decency.

Horrified parents have described nurses entering the answers to gun questions into laptop computers to become a part of medical records. They have become concerned about whether those records can be used by the government or by insurance companies to deny health care coverage because a family exercises a civil right in owning firearms.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Medical Association are pushing this gun ban agenda. The website of the AAP makes it clear its goal is to ban guns and to prevent parents from having guns in their homes or vehicles.

The intent of some may be to stop death from firearms accidents, but it is worth noting that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, doctors and medical staffs in Florida are responsible for six times more accidental deaths (called "Medical Misadventures") than firearms accidents. Physicians have plenty of room to work in their own backyards to stop accidental deaths in keeping with their "first do no harm" medical oaths.

Keeping children and families safe is a worthy goal, but physicians should focus on what happens to children and patients in their offices and hospitals. Doctors should practice medicine rather than behave like social workers or gun monitors or gun registration bureaus.

As parents, we are responsible for our children's safety. We don't need doctors pushing their anti-gun politics on us or our kids. We need them to spend their time practicing medicine and not prying into our personal lives on issues that have nothing to do with disease, its cure, or its eradication.

Please urge your state Senator and Representative to support and vote for

SB 432 and HB 155.

 

[john wall]

All in all, I am very happy with VA care.

Twice a year, I get a COMPLETE physical, and am asked by a Nurse if I am depressed, or have nightmares about my Military service. I am not and do not, and tell her so. I was asked what I do for a living (firearms instructor), and told them so.

As an FFL, NRA Level II Shooting Coach, Tenn State Certified Trainer, Tenn Dept of Safety Certified Handgun Instructor, Armed Guard, and holder of Tenn HCP, I think I am already on a list, if one exists.

I have not specifically been asked about possession of firearms, (probably a moot question).

The Doc is great, up to speed and is a really neat fellow. I have been asked about drugs, smoking, and drinking. (No, no, and no).

BTW, I get a drug test during every physical. I saw the list, and opioids and cannibanoids are on the list. I am not in the drug culture, but I don't think these have anything to do with Blood Sugar or Prostate health.

Once again, I am very happy with the VA in Nashville Tn.