Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Medscape Poll

  1. #1
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    here nc

    Medscape Poll

    this is an password protected article w/poll presented to medical professionals in the medscape psychiatric and mental health professionals and ancillary readers:

    quote: Eight medical societies and the American Bar Association have released a call to action to reduce firearm-relate injury and death in the United States. They note that physicians are often witnesses to this type of trauma, and that new policies should be imposed without violating the Second Amendment. Their statement was published online February 23 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
    “Firearms are the second-leading cause of death due to injury after motor vehicle crashes for adults and adolescents," according to the statement. The organizations also outlined specific recommendations to prevent injury and death from firearms."

    Here is the poll presented to Medscape subscribed mental health providers/readers:

    Which of their recommendations do you think should be enforced? (Select all that apply)
    1. Criminal background checks as a universal requirement for all gun purchases or transfers of ownership.
    2. Eliminate state and federal mandates interfering with physician free speech and the patient–physician relationship, such as laws preventing physicians from discussing a patient's gun ownership.
    3. All persons who have a mental or substance use disorder should have access to mental healthcare, as these conditions can play a significant role in firearm-related suicide. However, the statement warns against broad inclusion of all persons with any mental or substance use disorder in a category of persons prohibited from purchasing firearms.
    4. Recognition that blanket reporting laws requiring healthcare providers to report patients who show signs of potentially causing serious harm to themselves or others may stigmatize persons with mental or substance use disorders and create barriers to treatment. The statement urges that such laws protect confidentiality, do not deter patients from seeking treatment, and allow restoration of firearm purchase or possession in a way that balances the patient's rights with public safety.
    5. Restrictions for civilian use on the manufacture and sale of large-capacity magazines and military-style assault weapons, as private ownership of these represents a grave danger to the public.
    6. All of the above
    7. None of the above

    i quietly and unceremoniously pointed out in my comment their poll appeared to be extremely self serving, biased and emotionally based tripe and did not relate in any shape or way to the premise stated in the lead in of the article.

    it would be interesting to see who truly sponsored the initial statement in the "Annals of Internal Medicine"

    Last edited by solus; 03-07-2015 at 10:27 AM.
    "He who pays the piper calls the tunes..." (OBE as Grape called melody!!)

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  2. #2
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA

    None of the above

    Have not logged on there in some time. Got tired of the nonsense.

    My answer? None of the above. In fact, simply mind your own business, people.
    There is no rational restriction, law or "mental health" program that would prevent those who want to harm others from doing so.

    I am a mental health professional... I also carry a gun. I teach armed self defense. Smelling salts available.

    Anyone who actually wants to harm innocent people is certifiably "mentally ill." That can very seldom be determined before the person actually attempts such harm, however. When it is attempted, the person needs to be completely restrained from harming others by judicious self defense. The possible, might, maybe and panty wadded fear of some people without actual harm is not enough reason to do so. None of that can be effectively or rationally controlled by government or any "laws."

    There are many, if not most who are called "mentally ill, who have considerable trouble with their mental, emotional and physical health," but have zero desire to harm innocents. Laws restricting them from owning the tools to defend themselves merely create a large body of helpless victims for those who do want to commit murder, etc.

    There are very few effective, ethical ways to prevent suicide. Trying to restrict the possession of guns by "law" is pretty obviously pointless. If you want to die, why would you care about any law? Why would not having a gun stop you from using any other method you could find to end your pain?
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts