Doctor: Do you own any firearms (or guns)?
Patient's CORRECT answer: NO. (thereby ending the discussion)
Patient's Incorrect answer #1: Yes. (inviting further intrusion into your private life, which must be reported to "The Authorities)
Patient's Incorrect answer #2: That's really none of your business. (the assumed implication being that you do have guns, which must be reported to "The Authorities")
Patient's Incorrect question: How is that related to identifying and treating the condition that brings me to your office today? (indicating resistance to the Emperor's Imperial edict, which would probably be reported to "The Authorities"
The obvious loophole in that idiotic requirement is that patients visiting a health care provider are not under any kind of oath to reply honestly. The downside (there is no upside) to such a requirement is, that people who need emotional/mental health help will be reluctant to seek that help for fear of being put on some obscure - but restrictive - "government list of (fill in this space with your favorite socialist label)". The potential harm of such a requirement is overwhelmingly plain - people who need treatment for controllable mental health issues will not seek such help, and their condition may deteriorate to the point that treatment may no longer be practical, or that they may have "an episode" in which others are injured or killed. Just my thoughts. Personally, I think anybody who submits such a blatantly ridiculous proposal is mentally deficient and a threat to others, and should immediately be placed on the aforementioned "obscure government list". Just sayin'...