US Surgeon General Declares Gun Violence A Public Health Emergency

[RAMCLAP]

Nobody believes these clowns anymore. Who gives a $%#^ what they say.

[splithoof]

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I wonder if the Chevron decision will help prevent the implementation of some of this crap. We have enough votes right now (I think) to stop most of the proposed legislation. So, if we hold ground in the house,
how'er they gonna implement these laws? Or is this really just about kicking, screaming, blaming and throwing tantrums?

It depends on what they do and under what auspices.

The point is that, legislatively, they can't do much; but, under the guise of 'public health,' they may be able to something.

Remember, Chevron was about 'bureaucratic interpretation' when a piece of legislation was deemed 'vague.' Public health proceeds, in large measure, as something separate or, at least, that's the way many want it on a number of issues...

Intrusions into medicine jeopardize patients and public health

government intrusions into medicine

This was something being espoused back in 2021... We Must Protect Our Public Health Agencies from Political Interference

The fact that some states have passed or are considering legislation that will severely undermine

It's the very reason they've been pushing the 'public health' angle and if you go back through the threads, you'll find a great detail of 'debate' over the veracity and necessity of 'limits' to the authority they currently have in that regard.

[Rickybillegas]

So far, as far as reading the news cycle, the most insidious thing they are proposing is pressuring Dr's to make inquiries to their patients about:

"Given that the surgeon general of the United States has declared gun violence a national emergency"

"do you have guns in your house?
do you have kids? How do you store your weapons?,
do you or your co-inhabitants have any mental health issues, past and present that would present a danger
having firearms in the house?," et.

I wouldn't be surprised if they start including these in their usual 6-7 page questionnaires.

What other types of crap do we think they can get away with in this new pronouncement?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

So far, as far as reading the news cycle, the most insidious thing they are proposing is pressuring Dr's to make inquiries to their patients about:

"Given that the surgeon general of the United States has declared gun violence a national emergency"

"do you have guns in your house?
do you have kids? How do you store your weapons?,
do you or your co-inhabitants have any mental health issues, past and present that would present a danger
having firearms in the house?," et.

I wouldn't be surprised if they start including these in their usual 6-7 page questionnaires.

What other types of crap do we think they can get away with in this new pronouncement?

Those questions have been on some insurance and some doctors' questionnaires for a LONG time. Until now, replies have been voluntary. Thus, one of the potential issues I see is that, under a 'public health emergency,' it could be deemed as 'mandatory' that one answer the question(s). In doing so, in theory, it would create an 'ethical crisis' for a doctor in terms of notifying authorities. Then again, as we saw with COVID, under the guise of 'public health emergency,' ethics vs. 'the law' becomes a loser for many doctors.

Short version: The 'insidiousness' isn't in what they are proposing, at the moment. It's based on what it can be turned into or used as.

[Rickybillegas]

And continuing that thought, I suppose what they would like to do (forget the constitutionality, what they would LIKE to do) if you answer the questions in a certain way,
the dr. could notify the authorities and they could conduct a search of your premises to verify 'safe conditions'.
I would think 'unreasonable search and seizure'. as well as 'patient confidentiality' would preclude that, but they might try to find a way around it?

[Rickybillegas]

Those questions have been on some insurance and some doctors' questionnaires for a LONG time. Until now, replies have been voluntary. Thus, one of the potential issues I see is that, under a 'public health emergency,' it could be deemed as 'mandatory' that one answer the question(s). In doing so, in theory, it would create an 'ethical crisis' for a doctor in terms of notifying authorities. Then again, as we saw with COVID, under the guise of 'public health emergency,' ethics vs. 'the law' becomes a loser for many doctors.

Short version: The 'insidiousness' isn't in what they are proposing, at the moment. It's based on what it can be turned into or used as.

I don't doubt what you say, but personally I've never been asked about firearms by any Health professional or health insurance. Being an old fart, I've been to a lot of dr.s of various specialties during the years.

[Rickybillegas]

Matter of fact, the only entity that I can remember that asked me about firearms was my homeowners, because the potential coverage required in the event of theft.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

And continuing that thought, I suppose what they would like to do (forget the constitutionality, what they would LIKE to do) if you answer the questions in a certain way,
the dr. could notify the authorities and they could conduct a search of your premises to verify 'safe conditions'.
I would think 'unreasonable search and seizure'. as well as 'patient confidentiality' would preclude that, but they might try to find a way around it?

That is the whole point of 'public health emergency.'

Remember the nurse who violated quarantine in regard to potential Ebola? It took several years to sort it out... Quarantined Ebola nurse settles case against Gov. Christie

In the mean time, what's happened with her reputation? What would happened with the 'seized possessions?'

Put another way, it's the very reason SCOTUS just said that a President's actions were entitled, at a minimum, to 'presumptive immunity.' It's the same thing as saying "presumed innocent until proven guilty." What the Left is seeking isn't so much 'a way around' confidentiality. It's seeking to create chaos, confusion, and fear so 'intimidation' can be used.

I don't doubt what you say, but personally I've never been asked about firearms by any Health professional or health insurance. Being an old fart, I've been to a lot of dr.s of various specialties during the years.

I've actually been presented those questions at the doctors' office and there are a number of threads on this; i.e., it's not just me. For example...

Kaiser hospital questionnaire asked if I had a gun(s) in home.

"Do you have any firearms in the house?"

When Doctors ask about your guns.



?

?

?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

One of the things which is amusing and/or concerning about today's Left is that they let their knickers show. Put another way, if you read or listen to them, they tell you what/how they're thinking and what they intend.



It (should) kinda makes you wonder (not) how the Left views other, Constitutional Rights when they don't agree with them or how they are exercised.

[Rickybillegas]

3 per 100,000 in 1950 to 144.3 per 100,000 in 1975

---

---

These increases in Europe were recorded mainly in the cities, and a similar pattern prevailed in the United States. Between 1960 and 1997 violent crimes known to the police in the United States shot up from 160.9 to 610.8 per 100,000

[Rickybillegas]

Statistics: Historical Trends in Western Society - The Post—world War Ii Crime Wave - Percent, Youth, People, and United - JRank Articles

[Sgt Raven]

^^^^^^^^

I watched a Thomas Sowell video recently and he brought up the difference in NYC crime stats between the 1965 & 1977 blackouts.
In 1965 crime dropped during the blackout and went up during the 1977 blackout.
He attributed it to a change in the general morality of the public.

This is a Colion Noir video on shootings in big Cities.