Letter from VA raises questions of intent

[Gunplummer]

The last couple years when going to the VA I was asked numerous times if I was suicidal. The nurse would slip it in a couple times and the Doc would too. There is some kind of 24 hour suicide hotline. This came about because of the high percentage of suicide among Vets. Maybe there is a lot of gun related accidents in Vet's homes?

 

[tirod]

Firearms are one of the preferred methods of suicide. So is locking yourself in a garage with your car running, or taking certain medications - which might even be prescribed.

The anti gun bias is evident, the medical profession is "full of it."

Private physicians do have a need to know about your potential disposition, if just to cover themselves. The insurance company is going to ask if they thought you were despondent and what did anybody do to prevent?

Family and spouse might, too. It's meant to be helpful, for some reason people who don't consider suicide think it's a bad thing. And for those who do see it as a potential solution, the overall consequences aren't usually well thought out.

Ya know, you might change your mind about it a week later. But - you can't.

As for trying to cross match gun owners in the population, it could be done easily enough thru hunting license purchases and applying for a CCW. If you were one of the 20 million + trained in the service you'd "be on the list." After all, you were trained to operate a real live full auto assault rifle. So it's not the VA wanting to know if you are a gun owner - every step of the process gets you on that list.

You have to be well informed up front and work at it to not be a known gun owner. Think about it.

 

[rebs]

I have a couple friends that use the VA hospital here and they say it is top notch. They go there for medical, dental, hearing, vision and get their prescriptions filled. They say they never had a problem and have never been asked anything about owning firearms.
I went there once for dental work back in the 70's one time, I got up out of the chair and never went back. The dentist was a complete azzwad.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Private physicians do have a need to know about your potential disposition, if just to cover themselves. The insurance company is going to ask if they thought you were despondent and what did anybody do to prevent?

If what you say is correct -- it shouldn't be.

If I go to a doctor because I have a cold and a fever, I'm there to be treated for a cold and a fever. Whether or not I may be feeling sad because my pet dog just died is irrelevant. It seems to me that, once a doctor starts poking into things that are extraneous to his/her area of expertise and unrelated to the reason for the consultation, he/she is opening him/herself up to liability far more than preventing it.

Let's say I go to a GP because I have a fever and a runny nose. The PA who sees me before the doctor asks if I feel depressed. I'm tired of the sniffles and the fever (accompanied by a throbbing headache), so I say "Yes" and the PA dutifully checks a box on the form. Then the doctor comes in, listens to my lungs, determines that I don't have pneumonia (which was my worry), and sends me on my way with advice to take aspirin, drink more water, and take lots of Vitamin C.

A week later I find out that my wife has been having an affair with the guy I thought of as my best friend. I am devastated, I can't deal with the double betrayal, so I kill myself.

So some lawyer for somebody (maybe my life insurance company) pokes around and finds out I visited a doctor a week before I offed myself. They get the doctors' records and see the box for "Depression" checked. They sue the doctor, because he "knew [the victim] was depressed and failed to take appropriate action." To protect against this, even if you explain that you're just down because you're (a) tired of the cold and (b) your faithful dog died yesterday, the doctors try to play psychologist, or they refer you to a psychologist or psychiatrist, or they report you to NICS as being unsuitable to have access to firearms.

All that for what? A GP isn't a psychologist or a psychiatrist -- he or she is a General Practitioner. Treating me for a cold doesn't require their getting inside my head. Wouldn't life be simpler without that silly check box on the form? Then, if I kill myself a week later and my insurance company comes around because they learned I saw a doctor a week before, the doctor can just tell them I came in because I had a cold and wanted to be sure it wasn't pneumonia -- which it wasn't. End of story, and no check box to suggest the doctor ignored something he/she isn't qualified to deal with anyway.

 

[44 AMP]

for some reason people who don't consider suicide think it's a bad thing.

I believe the main reason most consider suicide a bad thing is religious training. Christianity has taught for nearly a couple thousand years that suicide is a mortal sin. Not only is it "throwing away" God's gift of life, but it is the one sin you cannot ask forgiveness for.

Note that in our laws, suicide is NOT a crime (kind of pointless to punish the dead), but attempted suicide is.

As to the "Doc" asking questions they have no business asking, I agree in principle, but one must look at their side of the street, as well. Its not all just because of an individual or institutional bias against gun ownership. The bias is there, absolutely, but its is not the sole reason. The real valid reason, which that bias is wrapped in like a "cloak of invisibility" is actual concern for our health.

People lie. People lie to their doctors. Sometimes on purpose. Be aware that the docs notes include MORE than just your answers to their questions. They include notes on your physical appearance, AND your perceived mental state at the time of the visit.

And these notes (which you have no control over, or input on) DO form part of their diagnosis. These notes, which can be entirely the personal opinion of the DOC (nurse, PA, etc) become part of the "professional medical opinion", and are accepted as true and accurate without any independent review or confirmation.

Suppose, for instance, you are up in the woods cutting firewood. You've been camping a couple days, working getting the winter wood cut. You drop a piece of log on your foot. Hurts like heck, swells up, trouble walking, etc. You head to the Doc/emergency room to see if its broken.

You show up in dirty, torn clothes (work clothes to you), maybe you haven't had a bath/shower in a couple days (or more?), you hurt, you are not your usual charming self, and not willing to suffer fools gladly.

You get ticked when they ask if you own guns, or are depressed, etc. (After all its none of their business, what the heck does that have to do with my FOOT! for pete's sake!, etc.)

What might get put in those notes that you don't see?
"patient does not exhibit normal interest in care of appearance."
"patient became agitated and uncooperative when asked questions".
etc.

Things like this, taken alone (and they will be by anyone/everyone looking at the record, because the record does not explain that your side of the story). could "indicate the presence of mental illness".

Reality doesn't matter, their perception of reality can become YOUR reality, without your input or control.

Those "cracks" in the system that everyone talks about the truly mad slipping through, can get some of us who aren't mentally ill stuck in. Because of someone else's opinion.

It shouldn't happen, but it does, to some people, sometimes. Actual errors I can accept, but this kind of thing can be made to happen by people more concerned with their personal views of what is needed to protect society than with the care they are being paid to give their patients.

(sure this situation is hypothetical, and a "worst case", but it is not outside the realm of possibility)

 

[HiBC]

IMO,the greatest cadre we have for the preservation of shooting is our Veterans.
Yes,people do come home from war with all sorts of wounds and scars...but then again,our post-war Veterans have done a whole lot to build the USA.
One little example,the 10th Mountain Vets who built the ski industry.

I'm not a Veteran.

Today,with a prevailing absence of the Father,a lack of locale Uncles and Grandparents ,older males to assist a young man to "grow up",there are plenty of 30+,40+ yr old folks who are in adult bodies,but not grown ups.

They have the emotions of a child or adolescent or a teen.

There are a number of ways Life can "grow a person up".

IMO,Military Service generally transforms folks to adulthood.If nothing else,a Vet knows "Life is not all about me"They have a proven capacity to overcome emotion,including fear of death,and function.And they might endure death and destruction for the soldier beside them.They know life is not fair.Delayed gratification skill is required.
Parenthood can also be a process to transform people to adults.
The shooting sports can be a means to pass something on,from older adults to those becoming adult.Trust,responsibility,discipline.Those go along with a young person learning to shoot,if it is done right.

I see plenty of folk who are non-Veterans who have achieved years,but not maturity.These are the folks who cannot see themselves as owning the self control to be armed.They still think their woulded inner child is cuddly,rather than a tantrum controlling a 200 lb body.


They project their own fears onto other folks.Recall the journalist/media tendency to project a monstrous stigma on "The Vietnam Ex Green Beret"

If I had to bet on who had the discipline,self control,maturity,wisdom,and ability to cope with hardship..a Veteran ex Special Forces troop would be top of the list.But,those with Tyranny in mind might have reason to discredit that character.

One more thing to consider:Certainly we have empathy or the teachers at Columbine or Sandy Hook.They experienced horrific trauma.
A roadside bomb goes off,or an ambush or sniper..our troops experience similar trauma.
But they do not have the luxury of the appropriate care those teachers might get.
Our troops have a Mission.They Soldier on.They load up what is left of their buddies,or themselves,and function.The next day,they do it again,and again.
John Prine wrote a song.Bruised Orange..."My heart's in the icehouse"
There is a certain amount of "stuff" that gets locked in a box.Frozen in a block of ice.It does not really go away.That would be "delayed stress"

Maybe something like holding a new born child melts that block of ice...and a man ,or other folks,may not understand why holding a baby makes him crumble .


Trigger locks?.For myself,monkeying around inside a trigger guard,particularly under stress,seems like a bad idea.

 

[R.Ph. 380]

Found a use for mine

I was cleaning up the reloading room recently and came up with a goodly number of gun locks. Since I have no use for them, I took them to a friend who owns a Pawn Shop. The ATF requires each and every gun in the shop to always have a trigger lock and to go out the door with one on them. Figured I could save him from having to buy a few anyway.

Bill

 

[indie_rocker]

I'm the original poster of this thread. Just received another letter from the same VA. Again asking about gun locks. Why is the VA so concerned about the quality of my firearm security? I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything like that. But they just seem to be overreaching their boundaries with this campaign, or whatever you want to call it.

 

[TXAZ]

I'd submit a slightly different spin: The current administration has showed numerous instances where information was misused or turned against citizens. Further, it's not clear the letters indicate any limits on their use of collected information.
As such, I would not consider providing any information nor response.

(You could sell them on ebay for someone that wants to chance it

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

There is no way on God's Green Earth I would respond to that letter. No way, no how. They don't have any valid reason for that inquiry.

Beyond that, if you really wanted one, gun locks are literally free and about as common as stones. I've seen gun shows with buckets of them for the taking. Probably any of your friends who own guns will have a 1/2 dozen they don't use (unless they're like me and just throw them away). Hell, I'll mail you one if you want it. My dad has several.

 

[indie_rocker]

Post 49 and 50 sum my thoughts up exactly.

I didn't respond a year ago and won't respond here. If they had a bucket at the front desk at the VA and said, "if you need a few take a few," I would give it thought, even though trigger locks are not a part of my current firearm security system. But I'm not about to put my name on a piece of federal government document saying I am requesting 1-4 gun locks for personal use.

 

[rickyrick]

I had to refamiliarize myself on this thread....

I dropped out of the VA system a few years ago due to VA shenanigans .... Nothing firearm related, but I parted ways with them.

I wouldn't respond either; as others have stated, there's plenty of ways to get a lock without submitting to data mining.

 

[5whiskey]

I was called to muster years ago when I was in IRR. Goodness at the questions. According to them I drank WAY to much. I told them them the truth... That I would drink a six pack on average of 1 to 2 nights a week. That earned me a 2 hour special counseling session. I've been been through the law enforcement hiring process since then. I told the truth there (knowing there would be a polygraph), and no one found issue with my answers. The lesson? Don't disclose such matters to this federal government.

Be prepared to be asked by a hospital if you have firearms if you have a baby. I think I was asked that when enrolling my kids in school. I want to say it was a census question in 2010. I usually lie and say no.I don't like lying, but if I put "no comment" or "none of your business" I may as well answer yes.

 

[44 AMP]

Be prepared to be asked by a hospital if you have firearms if you have a baby.

I think a proper response would be "ah, gee, no, I don't have any for the baby! I thought I had a few years yet! But, since you insist, I'll go shopping for some tonight!



Drives 'em nuts when in the space marked "race" you write "human", too!

 

[Don P]

As to the "Doc" asking questions they have no business asking, I agree in principle, but one must look at their side of the street, as well. Its not all just because of an individual or institutional bias against gun ownership. The bias is there, absolutely, but its is not the sole reason. The real valid reason, which that bias is wrapped in like a "cloak of invisibility" is actual concern for our health.

We are dealing with this here in FLA. Back in the Supreme court and why the doctors are continuing to push and fight about this is puzzling. Doctors put up a fight about this thinking they have the need to question patients about guns, safety. I say hog wash. In my opinion if the doctor is NOT a firearms enthusiast what can he possibly tell me about gun safety other than his opinion which is probably based on the liberal medias viewpoint. I feel that its not any doctors ******* business as to if I own firearms and has ZERO to do with my health care. How does getting treatment for a cold/flu circle around about guns??? I see doctors that collect and shoot and during the visit we chat about firearms. That I can respect and enjoy, BUT the doctor that wants to dictate to me about guns can kiss the old dupa!!!!

 

[ATN082268]

Drives 'em nuts when in the space marked "race" you write "human", too!

The government wants all the information on race that it can get its micromanaging mitts on. Since everyone is now required to have health insurance, this is a huge area to mine for all kinds of personal data. My guess is if you leave the section on race blank or leave an answer which does not reflect your color, the person administrating the form will fill it in for you.

 

[Mike Irwin]

No way would I touch that offer.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

As to the "Doc" asking questions they have no business asking, I agree in principle, but one must look at their side of the street, as well. Its not all just because of an individual or institutional bias against gun ownership. The bias is there, absolutely, but its is not the sole reason. The real valid reason, which that bias is wrapped in like a "cloak of invisibility" is actual concern for our health.

I disagree.

The real reason is that the CDC and a couple of major anti-gun physicians' groups are actively working to make gun ownership into an epidemiological issue. The dictionary definition of Epidemiology is "the study of how disease spreads and can be controlled." Guns are not a disease. "Gun violence" (which is not "violent guns," it is violence when committed with guns as the implement of choice) is not a disease.

Maybe violence is a medical issue but, if so, it is a psychological/psychiatric/sociological issue, not an epidemiological issue. It's unlikely we'll ever have a vaccine against violence. we certainly can't prevent violence by putting hand sanitizers on every street corner and encouraging people to use them. We can't prevent violence (gun, automotive, or other) by washing our hands before eating.

Look up statistics on ways the most people lose their lives in the U.S. every year. Why aren't physicians butting into how we drive, or how we use our bathtubs and our swimming pools? The answer is because they are more interested in getting guns away from the populace than they are about curtailing violent behavior.

 

[nstoolman1]

The only vet left in our household died on the 14th. He was 77. Buried him with honors at Riv Nat Cemetery. Any letter like that would get mailed back with a single piece of paper with these words typed on it.

He's dead and won't need the locks. Thanks for your sudden concern.

 

[Skans]

Look -- there is a [real or perceived] issue with veterans committing suicide and/or acting out violently, supposedly as a result of PTSD. The .gov has been widely criticized for not "doing more" to address this "crisis." I admit and agree that it's a problem, but the VA doesn't have the resources or the skills to address the problem appropriately, so they have adopted a typical .gov one-size-fits-all approach: Screen everyone for signs of depression (whether or not it's related to PTSD), and treat everyone who admits to ever having felt sad like a walking time bomb. So it's very likely that anyone who ever says, "Yeah, maybe a little" when asked if they feel depressed today is VERY likely to be reported to NICS and become a prohibited person. No formal diagnosis, no adjudication, just innuendo from an "authoritative source." And it's like the terrorist no-fly list ... once you're on it, it's nearly impossible to get off it.

There should be a Bill-of-Rights for all citizens entering into the armed services which guarantees them the right to seek treatment for PTSD without having their 2A rights affected or being placed on some list that prohibits them from buying guns. The kind of stuff the VA does simply ensures that some people who could benefit from PTSD treatment wouldn't touch it with a 100-foot pole.