I think you deleted both of your posts because I don't see one. That's a good question. I just found out about SPECT imaging, so I don't know, but my argument is contingent on the premise that we have or are capable of developing this science to the precision required to counteract human error. No, because legal gun owners aren't the problem. I'm not advocating that SPECT imaging be used as an end all be all method, but as a valuable tool used within the context of each case. Even without thorough knowledge of the method, I can see it's limitations: you could argue a healthy child is capable of bearing arms through SPECT imaging. But if every citizen were required to see a psychiatrist along with SPECT imaging periodically throughout their life, law enforcement can better predict who is most likely to seek guns illegally. Again, as I responded to Rucker61, my argument is always contingent on a level of proficiency (assuming it's attainable). I'm afraid I'm not familiar with those restrictions, I'll answer you after I research them.
Well if legal gun owners aren't the problem haven't we already gone a long way in identifying those who aren't healthy enough to own a firearm? Now, that's not to discourage new ideas.
No, because gun owners are a minority. "A Pew Research Center survey conducted in February found that 37% of households had an adult who owned a gun" http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ricans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/ I don't think the survey by Pew Research takes into account whether the owner is legal or not, so the percentage of legal gun owners is probably much smaller; therefore, we can't know who is unqualified for gun ownership unless they had interest and attempted to own a gun legally. Furthermore, I'm using guns as an example, but SPECT imaging could help with the general well-being of a person. With a psychiatrist, not only can potential criminals be identified, but it could also be prevented with proper treatment (whatever that entails). It could also be used to increase the overall performance of individuals, but that's going off topic.
A survey is devoid of scientific accuracy and does not prove anything, except the number of individuals who are willing to answer in such a manner when subjected to random, invasive questions about sensitive topics. The results cannot be independently reviewed for accuracy, so all responses must be taken at face value as there is no way to demonstrate otherwise.
Well why not start with the genetics solution, ala CRISPER tech... you know, the Gattaca narrative; discrimination at the point of birth?
The Pew Research survey fails to take into account the overwhelming majority of gun owners who wouldn't answer questions about having guns coming from someone they didn't know calling them on the phone. Figure maybe one in ten would be dumb enough to answer such questions honestly. So, take that 37% of households and realize it is a completely fanciful number parroted by gun control advocates because it enables them to pretend the majority of the country doesn't disagree with them.
I think that years from now that's the direction the kind of thing you're talking about will go. In fact, it seems the psychiatrist in the video you showed is headed there already. However, I see too many civil rights problems standing in the way of what you're talking about. "A Pew Research Center survey conducted in February found that 37% of households had an adult who owned a gun" What!?! You mean there are people who don't want one of these?
Pretty, but Nope. I prefer guns I can shoot without it costing me a fortune. I one had an Iron frame Henry with late Civil War Provenance. I never once shot it. Unloaded (pun intended) it for a sizable down payment on a house. Later got brass frame replica in .45 colt I could shoot, but other than the fun factor, I had no real role for it.
Brain scans only tell us about certain abnormalities. They can't be used to predict behavior. It would be a futile expensive thing that would produce no significant results. That's what I get so ticked off by anti-gun folks. You have almost no knowledge of technology and how the real world works.
What would you be looking for on the brain scan? You need to show us scientific evidence about what brain scans tell us.
I figured the only ones whom wouldn't want to disclose their ownership of a gun would be those whom own them illegally, but I've never owned a gun so I guess I wouldn't know. Regardless, you both make good points so consider my "evidence" redacted from the conversation.
It doesn't have to predict behavior, it can prevent behavior by providing citizens with the proper psychological support they need. With that said, how could you make such a blanket statement dismissing the merits of this science while it's still under development? Yes, people with completely healthy brains can cause great calamity, but I'd wager that someone with a damaged brain is more susceptible to violent behavior. The citizens whom commit mass shootings escape our radar because we don't take into account the biological differences developed with age. The video I linked displays many examples portraying the use of SPECT imaging. He tells you what they observe, what it means, and even gives you examples of recovering patients thanks to their technology.
Are you referring to this? It states, "By law, your health information can be used and shared for specific reasons not directly related to your care, like making sure doctors give good care, making sure nursing homes are clean and safe, reporting when the flu is in your area, or reporting as required by state or federal law. In many of these cases, you can find out who has seen your health information." According to this, HIPAA doesn't prohibit 3rd parties from using medical information, with reason and the owner's knowledge.
The above proposals appears to be little more than an easy to exploit manner of depriving individuals of their constitutional rights without the need for either due process, or open transparency. One would not need to demonstrate that a particular individual is actually a danger to themselves or others, nor even show that the individual has actually done anything wrong. All that would be necessary would be for some physician to simply claim the individual has some abnormality of the brain and such would be considered good enough. There is no standard physical makeup of the human brain that perfectly applies from one individual to another, meaning it would be quite easy for any physician who believes in practicing politics to claim that any particular individual is suffering from a brain abnormality of some sort.
Yes... just like the only people who want to keep their phone conversations privatre are those discussing something illegal...
I've owned a couple; including my great uncle's engraved Colt single action in .41 LC. I had one built on a S&W .45 and actually carried and shot it quite a bit.
Well, considering the prevalence of phone scams, which criminals have been known to use false "surveys" to try and ascertain when people are home and if they have anything worth stealing, as well as concerns about governmental malfeasance involving confiscation, most gun owners keep their ownership of firearms deeply private and don't broadcast their status as gun owners to very many people.
