Gun control

[overpowered]

[thesameguy]

In a literal sense, sure, but in a practical sense of course that works - in the same way that a medical condition can prevent you from getting a driver's license. You are diagnosed, doc phones the DMV, you lose your license. Happens all the time, temporarily (say, drugs) and permanently (say, epilepsy).

[Jason]

With proper licensing I don't see the problem. I don't agree that anyone should be allowed to go buy a gun and leave it to the police to tell if it was legal. Licensing should check criminal and medical background on an annual basis and keep a record of who owns what. Unfitness to carry a license should be communicated via doctors where need be without going into medical confidentiality.

That might be hard to do with HIPA compliance laws.

Actually it would be in direct conflict with HIPAA

It is something to be considered though, some sort of way to know mental health status before handing over a firearm to someone.

[21Kid]

Actually, that's a simple scenario. A properly planned decapitation strike would render the the chain of command useless and possibly give an invading force long enough to gain a foothold. I mean it would require a seriously well planned strategy and we're unlikely to face a threat but it's not entirely impossible, BUT it's like when someone says 'what could private firearms ever do against a state backed military' and precisely ignores Iraq,Afghanistan and Vietnam, places where partisan armies have pretty much rendered standard military useless.

Across all levels of defense? The many branches of military and each subset, national guard, county and local police? There's no way to dismantle our current defense fast enough for no one to notice. And even then, you think the people that are trained to handle these situations would just sit around and let our citizens fight to secure us?

So basically Red Dawn?

[21Kid]

I'm referring to the morbidly stereotypical German efficiency, of course.

What atrocities did your imagination dredge up?

He's basically saying we lack a robust rail system here.

Technically, we have a rail system. It's just a hundred years old and obsolete.

Come'on Hyperloop!!!

[Godson]

Across all levels of defense? The many branches of military and each subset, national guard, county and local police? There's no way to dismantle our current defense fast enough for no one to notice. And even then, you think the people that are trained to handle these situations would just sit around and let our citizens fight to secure us?

So basically Red Dawn?

Essentially it could happen in a less populated area. As spread out as Montana or the Dakotas are, if it was done fast enough and spread out, it is plausible. This is based on the difficulty we have had in dealing with the mid east. Russia included with those difficultues

[Rikadyn]

Essentially it could happen in a less populated area. As spread out as Montana or the Dakotas are, if it was done fast enough and spread out, it is plausible. This is based on the difficulty we have had in dealing with the mid east. Russia included with those difficultues

Actually now that I've thought about it a bit more, I don't think it'd be tactically winnable at all regardless of the source.

I think the real problem would be a concentrate effort on a mid-size major city. While being spread out makes it tactically difficult, as the shape of the battle is amorphous, in an urban environment, you'd be hamstrung with the idea of collateral damage being entirely unacceptable. Also as much as they like to think it, I wouldn't rely on the cops for anything in a situation like that accept for them to suddenly start shooting everyone and anyone (more than usual). A civillian rebellion would be able to at best slow the capture or provide a resistance (ala french resistance) to occupation. Partisan battles are never great things to deal with...

[Godson]

Yeah. I was meaning from the point of initial insurgence. I should have stated that.

Tsg has pretty much hit all points of why I am frustrated, leaving me with nothing to add.

[LHutton]

Actually it would be in direct conflict with HIPAA

HIPAA?

[thesameguy]

HIPAA is a Federal ruleset which defines standards for storing and transmitting "PHI" (personal healthcare information). It's a fairly complex ruleset, but at the end of the day serves a couple simple purposes - namely ensuring that stored medical data is well protected, and ensuring that medical data is securely transmitted.

In this example, a gun store couldn't just ring a hospital and say "Tell me about my applicant" as HIPAA would prevent that interaction. However, someone wishing to buy a gun could fill out a release that allows a gun store to obtain those records as the owner of the medical records (the applicant) is at liberty to disclose his or her own records to whomever they wish. Where things might become complicated is what happens to that data, because typically (but not necessarily) the gun store would then be responsible for keeping those records safe. Of course, the easy solution is that the gun store would simply dispose of the records immediately following the transaction.

There are obviously issues with a scenario this simple, but that's how HIPAA figures into it.