Posted on 06/22/2007 11:04:47 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
The House of Representatives has fast-tracked new legislation to "improve" the National Instant Criminal Background Check System by allowing doctors to now decide who can own firearms.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Don’t visit any shrinks.
Oh; you didn't mention that she's a 'Rat!
“After the Virginia Tech shootings, many FReepers were asking why the shooters mental issues didn’t come up on the background check.”
They WOULD have come up if the shooter had been adjudicated as mentally unstable instead of the judge just ordering him to seek psychiatric help.
There a big difference between the two with all kinds of legal ramifications.
It’s a BS argument.
Perhaps a new FR record -- only 9 posts to remind people that just because it is on the Internet, it is not necessarily true. Thanks, NorthFlaRebel, for the reality check. (Absolutely no sarcasm intended)
I would only add a small caveat that it doesn't take much for an in-process bill to attract wooly-boogers that totally change the intent and meaning of the original bill. The NRA has said they will be watching for those.
“Trial lawyers are standing-by...”
Yeah, but are they ever on the right side of anything?
“.”Each year, tens of thousands of barred individuals slip through the cracks of the system and gain access to firearms...”
According to the “findings” in this bill, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110BqZtGe:e2342:
“From November 30, 1998, through December 31, 2004, nearly 49,000,000 Brady background checks were processed through NICS. Approximately 916,000 individuals were prohibited from purchasing a firearm for failing a background check.”
That is ONLY 1.87% of those who were checked. Not a very good refusal rate in the eyes of these asses.
Why do so many doctors join the siren call for more gun control? The public thinks it is a smoke screen for something more sinister. At the risk of offending those who use American statistics to belittle gun ownership but cry foul when gun owners use them to prove that gun ownership is beneficial, I will resort to some statistics from the United States to examine this anomaly.
The prestigious Institute of Medicine recently announced "stunningly high rates of medical errors" resulting in death, disability, and unnecessary suffering south of the border. The Institute puts the annual death toll at the hands of doctors and hospitals as high as 98,000.
The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study yielded an even higher iatrogenic [human cause] death count. Extrapolating from hospital deaths in New York State, researchers found that as many as 180,000 Americans die each year from medical mistakes. That is about the same, the study's principal author wrote, as "three jumbo jet crashes every two days."
The response from the American Medical Association and the Centre for Diseases Control has been deafening by its silence. As an aside, it is noteworthy that the CDC paid 2 million dollars for the bogus Kellermann study, which claimed to prove that the mere presence of a gun increases the likelihood of its owner being killed by 43 times.
By comparison, the death toll from gun accidents is insignificant. Fatal gun accidents across the nation have dropped to just over 1,000 annually, a tiny fraction of the Institute of Medicine's tally of the carnage wrought by doctors and hospitals. Even if we throw in gun homicides and suicides with the accidents, the 40,000 total of firearm deaths is four and a half times less than the total dead from medical treatments gone awry.
Substitute "guns" for "medical errors" and the high priests of public health at the CDC would come to life with their familiar hue and cry for more gun control. Gun accidents have been on the decline for over 30 years and will soon number less than 1,000 per year. Like in Canada, gun safety education provided by private firearm owner groups in the US is mainly responsible for this. If the medical critics really did care, how could health-care professionals advance their stated goal of reducing gun injuries?
They could adopt time-tested methods of injury reduction from real firearm-safety authorities. Firearm organizations in Canada, like the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association, the Shooting Federation of Canada, National Firearms Association and the Ontario Handgun Association all have gun safety programs which have proven so effective that there is historically a total, accident-free, safety record on Canadian target ranges. Hunting organizations like the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters in collaboration with the Ministry of Natural Resources have produced hunter safety programs which have reduced hunting accidents to a trickle in Ontario.
Instead of supporting the Coalition for Gun Control under the guise of gun safety as they now do, medical organizations should actually work with the true firearm experts. Then the public could believe doctors' claims of concern for the safety of gun owners and their neighbors.
The question is not whether we should fear gun-owning citizens or scalpel-wielding doctors. Common sense tells us that we have nothing to fear from either. Just as we can be confident that health-care workers are generally capable people of good will, law-abiding gun owners, many of whom are health care workers are the same.
While leaders of organized medicine and editors of medical magazines use the emotional argument, "If it saves only one life," to call for the registration of all guns and the banning of handguns and assault rifle look-alikes, none of them have advocated doctor free zones or bars on hospital doors to keep potential victims away from physicians and surgeons. Or maybe, since doctors are already registered, all hospitals should be closed and doctors sent to rehabilitation centres.
While the havoc continues, we should reserve our fear for the medical hypocrites who try to manipulate our emotions with false statistics about guns for their personal political gain.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/sobrianj/mar00.htm
My doctor, as well as the marxist’s congress can kiss my ass.
But those numbers are not in the context of the mental health issue, which I believe the speaker was infering.
” “government mandated survey” “
I am not the one who said it, but when I have had to visit a new doctor, I have seen this form. I don’t know if it is mandated, but it is out there. I just write NOYGDB, on any questions not related to the reason I went to see the doctor.
I had that survey years ago. I answered "Suck", and told my doctor so. He was trying not to be amused.
He was One Of Us.
“not in the context of the mental health issue”
That is my point. Less than 2% turned down for purchase is not enough for Ms. McCarthy and the likes of her. They want MORE turned down. If her husband was not on a “gun free” train, he may still be alive.
C'mon cut Holliday some slack.
If I was dying from Pulmonary Tuberculosis (consumption) I'd be more than a little irked too. Then add a couple Colt 44-40 SAA's, whiskey, gambling and loose women to the mix and someone is gonna have a bad day.
;-)
If the loony does get put on the list, he may still be able to get a gun one way or the other. It wouldn’t be too hard to figure out which doc listed him. I wouldn’t want to be the doc.
If they are loony enough to be put on the list, should they be on the streets?
How about if I just say screw you instead.
You're supposedly a doctor, find the GD thing yourself.
Damned elitist.
Thank you. I’m not going senile yet.
What do you need a rifle for? If you don’t have the courage and steadfastness to use it when your forefathers would have used it then why bother with it? If you do have it, do you train with it to keep markmanship skills sharp and are you well supplied to use it. Do you keep yourself fit? In other words, do you have long sharp fangs or toothless gums.
Do our individual actions, not our words, tell everyone else that it really is all about hunting?
What about a patients rights to privacy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.