Welcome to Gaia! ::

Is New York's new gun control law a good idea?

Yes. 0.2 20.0% [ 6 ]
Yes to some parts, no to others. 0.16666666666667 16.7% [ 5 ]
No. It'll be completely ineffective. 0.2 20.0% [ 6 ]
Bad legislation is bad. 0.3 30.0% [ 9 ]
Teh gubment gunna take our gunz! 0.13333333333333 13.3% [ 4 ]
Total Votes:[ 30 ]
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Wendigo
Mei tsuki7

Actually, an end to violence seems to be the goal. And again, banning guns will not do that.
I would also like for the moon to be edible, but sometimes you have to work on what can be achieved.


A defeatist attitude never brings about change. We can change crime rates. We just have to actually look into why crimes occur and not stick band aids on the issue and say it's all better.
Wendigo's avatar

Enduring Phantom

8,700 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Mei tsuki7
Wendigo
Mei tsuki7

Actually, an end to violence seems to be the goal. And again, banning guns will not do that.
I would also like for the moon to be edible, but sometimes you have to work on what can be achieved.


A defeatist attitude never brings about change. We can change crime rates. We just have to actually look into why crimes occur and not stick band aids on the issue and say it's all better.
'Ending violence' would would take a miracle.

We are, of course, evolved to facilitate violence - it's our big talent. Violent crime is a function of population density. The causes are multifarious but undistinguished; the perpetrator feels justified in harming the victim for the sake of their own interests.
Wendigo
Mei tsuki7
Wendigo
Mei tsuki7

Actually, an end to violence seems to be the goal. And again, banning guns will not do that.
I would also like for the moon to be edible, but sometimes you have to work on what can be achieved.


A defeatist attitude never brings about change. We can change crime rates. We just have to actually look into why crimes occur and not stick band aids on the issue and say it's all better.
'Ending violence' would would take a miracle.

We are, of course, evolved to facilitate violence - it's our big talent. Violent crime is a function of population density. The causes are multifarious but undistinguished; the perpetrator feels justified in harming the victim for the sake of their own interests.


That doesn't mean we can't try and even if we can't/don't achieve it I bet our actions would lessen it.

I'd disagree. That's part of why violent crime occurs but there are other factors we can deal with such as poverty. Poverty leads to crime. That has been proven again and again. It also leads to gang activity.
Wendigo
Japan: 506 total homicides (2009), 0.4 per 100,000 population. 127.8 million population.
UK 722 total homicides (2009), 1.2 per 100,000 population. 62.6 million population.
US 13,636 total homicides (2009), 4.4 per 100,000 population. 311.6 million population.

Which of these things is not like the other, which of these things is not the same...


population density (more people in one place, more murder)

demographics (more young men, more murder)

wealth inequality (more disparity, more crime)

there are a whole mess of things which affect the murder rate.
Wendigo's avatar

Enduring Phantom

8,700 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
hahahalolwut
population density (more people in one place, more murder)


London: 8,174,100
Tokyo: 13,216,221
Washington, DC Metro Area: 5,703,948
New York 8,244,910

Tokyo should by this metric have the most murders of the lot. Yet, it does not; more people are murdered in New York, in one year, than in all of Japan.
Disa Uniflora's avatar

Liberal Lunatic

9,450 Points
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Jolly Roger 50
  • Brandisher 100
Wendigo
hahahalolwut
population density (more people in one place, more murder)


London: 8,174,100
Tokyo: 13,216,221
Washington, DC Metro Area: 5,703,948
New York 8,244,910

Tokyo should by this metric have the most murders of the lot. Yet, it does not; more people are murdered in New York, in one year, than in all of Japan.

Japan's population density is ten times that of the United States. Those little guys are packed in like sardines!

For the record, I think comparisons by city or state are more useful than by country. The United States is simply too large and culturally/legally diverse by region to offer straightforward equivalencies to smaller nations, assuming that we accept global equivalencies as being useful at all. Statistics are great and they're better than conjecture any day, but they do fail to capture certain nuances.
Wendigo's avatar

Enduring Phantom

8,700 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Disa Uniflora

For the record, I think comparisons by city or state are more useful than by country. The United States is simply too large and culturally/legally diverse by region to offer straightforward equivalencies to smaller nations, assuming that we accept global equivalencies as being useful at all. Statistics are great and they're better than conjecture any day, but they do fail to capture certain nuances.
Well, it can be pretty tricky, talking about crime statistics for cities, counties and states in isolation. The borders are awfully porous between them.
Mei tsuki7
Totally Oblivious
HMS Thunder Child

So you admit that you have no grounds to argue.


I think he's kinda confused. You can't determine mental stability until he sees someone. If he is seeing a professional, you break doctor-patient confidentiality when you force that professional to report it, unless he did something to become institutionalized, has a police record, or something similar that happens in the public. Otherwise, he is a private citizen and it would be hypocritical to strip his rights on nothing more than a suspicion. Do you see how that works, God Emperor Akhenaton?


Saving lives >>>>>> Doctor/Patient confidentiality. As someone who has ADHD and therefore goes to a psychiatrist I have no issue with this. People who are a danger to themselves and/or others should NOT be allowed to buy weapons and the only way to stop this is to allow psychiatrists and psychologists to report them.

That's not how the law reads. If you went by that mentality, saving lives >>>> non-uniformed people having ANY guns, and that's Unconstitutional.

As much as you may hate it, there is nothing you can do except honor those whose lives were taken. You can prosecute the shooter for murder, but he's dead. The only thing he did wrong was pull the trigger on unarmed noncombatants. Everything else he did was legal. he had a Constitutional right to have and carry the weapons he had, and it was nobody's damned business about his mental state until he actually pulled the trigger.

Laws are useless since they are only for people who follow them, so why bother? People who follow laws know what's right and wrong, and people who don't, don't care, so give up already, you lost.
Totally Oblivious
Mei tsuki7
Totally Oblivious
HMS Thunder Child

So you admit that you have no grounds to argue.


I think he's kinda confused. You can't determine mental stability until he sees someone. If he is seeing a professional, you break doctor-patient confidentiality when you force that professional to report it, unless he did something to become institutionalized, has a police record, or something similar that happens in the public. Otherwise, he is a private citizen and it would be hypocritical to strip his rights on nothing more than a suspicion. Do you see how that works, God Emperor Akhenaton?


Saving lives >>>>>> Doctor/Patient confidentiality. As someone who has ADHD and therefore goes to a psychiatrist I have no issue with this. People who are a danger to themselves and/or others should NOT be allowed to buy weapons and the only way to stop this is to allow psychiatrists and psychologists to report them.

That's not how the law reads. If you went by that mentality, saving lives >>>> non-uniformed people having ANY guns, and that's Unconstitutional.

As much as you may hate it, there is nothing you can do except honor those whose lives were taken. You can prosecute the shooter for murder, but he's dead. The only thing he did wrong was pull the trigger on unarmed noncombatants. Everything else he did was legal. he had a Constitutional right to have and carry the weapons he had, and it was nobody's damned business about his mental state until he actually pulled the trigger.

Laws are useless since they are only for people who follow them, so why bother? People who follow laws know what's right and wrong, and people who don't, don't care, so give up already, you lost.
[Informative]

The law already reads that psychiatrists/ologists and doctors have an obligation to report when patients become threats to themselves or others.
HMS Thunder Child
[Informative]

The law already reads that psychiatrists/ologists and doctors have an obligation to report when patients become threats to themselves or others.


Are you sure?

Quote:
What is a breach of confidentiality?
A breach of confidentiality is a disclosure to a third party, without patient consent or court order, of private information that the physician has learned within the patient-physician relationship. Disclosure can be oral or written, by telephone or fax, or electronically, for example, via e-mail or health information networks. The medium is irrelevant, although special security requirements may apply to the electronic transfer of information.

Wendigo's avatar

Enduring Phantom

8,700 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Totally Oblivious
HMS Thunder Child
[Informative]

The law already reads that psychiatrists/ologists and doctors have an obligation to report when patients become threats to themselves or others.


Are you sure?

Quote:
What is a breach of confidentiality?
A breach of confidentiality is a disclosure to a third party, without patient consent or court order, of private information that the physician has learned within the patient-physician relationship. Disclosure can be oral or written, by telephone or fax, or electronically, for example, via e-mail or health information networks. The medium is irrelevant, although special security requirements may apply to the electronic transfer of information.

An imminent threat of harm to the patient or to others is the exception to doctor-patient confidentialiaty, and the situation in which psychiatric malpractice is considered to exist if a report is not made to the appropriate authorities.
Wendigo
Totally Oblivious
HMS Thunder Child
[Informative]

The law already reads that psychiatrists/ologists and doctors have an obligation to report when patients become threats to themselves or others.


Are you sure?

Quote:
What is a breach of confidentiality?
A breach of confidentiality is a disclosure to a third party, without patient consent or court order, of private information that the physician has learned within the patient-physician relationship. Disclosure can be oral or written, by telephone or fax, or electronically, for example, via e-mail or health information networks. The medium is irrelevant, although special security requirements may apply to the electronic transfer of information.

An imminent threat of harm to the patient or to others is the exception to doctor-patient confidentialiaty, and the situation in which psychiatric malpractice is considered to exist if a report is not made to the appropriate authorities.

You are talking about someone under specific psychiatric care, and the operative word you use is imminent. If the doctor isn't qualified in that specific field, then the call is murky. A physician can't drop a dime on anyone they think "might" be unstable as that is a disincentive for anyone needing such care to seek it out. So the difference it makes is negligible.

The effort still fails and nothing gets done, except that a doctor is labeled a snitch and leaves themselves open to a lawsuit if they blow the call for violating the confidentiality. It's a lose-lose situation.
Wendigo's avatar

Enduring Phantom

8,700 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Totally Oblivious

You are talking about someone under specific psychiatric care, and the operative word you use is imminent. If the doctor isn't qualified in that specific field, then the call is murky. A physician can't drop a dime on anyone they think "might" be unstable as that is a disincentive for anyone needing such care to seek it out. So the difference it makes is negligible.

The effort still fails and nothing gets done, except that a doctor is labeled a snitch and leaves themselves open to a lawsuit if they blow the call for violating the confidentiality. It's a lose-lose situation.
Yes, there's a reason it's imminent harm, and not "possible, future" harm. Even psychiatrists are not mind-readers; they can only make guesses from what information is made available to them. Sometimes a hunch that a patient is up to no good just isn't enough for the police to act on, either, and a report won't be of much help.

A physician, although they can prescribe and are often in the position of prescribing psychiatric medication, is unlikely to be privy to a lot of the inner workings of a patient's mind in order to make the report in the first place. A psychotherapist who lacks medical training may, of course.
Wendigo
Totally Oblivious

You are talking about someone under specific psychiatric care, and the operative word you use is imminent. If the doctor isn't qualified in that specific field, then the call is murky. A physician can't drop a dime on anyone they think "might" be unstable as that is a disincentive for anyone needing such care to seek it out. So the difference it makes is negligible.

The effort still fails and nothing gets done, except that a doctor is labeled a snitch and leaves themselves open to a lawsuit if they blow the call for violating the confidentiality. It's a lose-lose situation.
Yes, there's a reason it's imminent harm, and not "possible, future" harm. Even psychiatrists are not mind-readers; they can only make guesses from what information is made available to them. Sometimes a hunch that a patient is up to no good just isn't enough for the police to act on, either, and a report won't be of much help.

A physician, although they can prescribe and are often in the position of prescribing psychiatric medication, is unlikely to be privy to a lot of the inner workings of a patient's mind in order to make the report in the first place. A psychotherapist who lacks medical training may, of course.


It appears we agree that unless someone is in the public square making threats, or has a history of shooting people up, it's useless to rely on medical professionals to be able to point them out without violating their obligation to the patient.

Come to think of it, making threats in public isn't even enough to act on as I have seen many people do it on television without any serious repercussions. People like Ted Nugent, Alex Jones, James Yeager, etc. The 1st Amendment lives to protect the 2nd Amendment and the 2nd serves to protect the 1st. It's a nice balance.

Face it. The United States is a violent country. It was birthed in guns and war, and hasn't strayed very far from guns and violence ever since. From the Revolutionary War, through fights with Canada and Mexico, Beating back the Natives as we expanded Westward, and when we ran out of groups we could fight within our borders, we fought among ourselves and then got involved overseas. I think our least violent period was during the Great Depression, but thanks to WWII we were once again able to do what America does best, and we have barely looked back since. Weapons were there at our birth, and will likely see the USA off in the end, sometime in the far, far future.
Wendigo's avatar

Enduring Phantom

8,700 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Totally Oblivious
It appears we agree that unless someone is in the public square making threats, or has a history of shooting people up, it's useless to rely on medical professionals to be able to point them out without violating their obligation to the patient.
No, they can make their threats privately, or become obsessive over violent acts, without actually having a history of violence, and still necessitate an intervention by their therapist. The Colorado shooter Holmes, for example, allegedly told his psychiatrist that he was "fantasizing about killing a lot of people," but would not have met either of those conditions prior to the shooting spree in the theater.

Plus, almost nobody could ever meet the "history of shooting people up" requirement and not already be in prison. Aside from the Jonesboro shooters, who are both out on their own recognizance (having been juveniles at the time), none comes immediately to mind.

Quote:
Come to think of it, making threats in public isn't even enough to act on as I have seen many people do it on television without any serious repercussions. People like Ted Nugent, Alex Jones, James Yeager, etc.
There are laws which could be brought to bear for those guys. They don't seem to realize that, but it's true.

James Yeager, for example, had his gun permits revoked by the state of Tennessee. 'Cos he said he'd start killing people with the guns soon, of course.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games