Psych exams for gun purchases

[jackflash]

I have personal experience with the professional mental health community. Most of them are mentally ill themselves. I have a mentally handicapped son. When he was little they told us (me and my wife) that our son would need to be put in an institution. I found out that teachers for mentally handicapped students were mostly marking time until their pensions. as well. Long story short, he's now 35, has a job and a daughter who is a straight A student. I would NEVER trust any of them to come up with a mental assessment of anyone.

Leo 123 speakum truth!

 

[Leo123]

People should need to pass a psych exam in order to vote.

If you don‘t qualify to own a gun, then you can’t vote.

have personal experience with the professional mental health community. Most of them are mentally ill themselves. I have a mentally handicapped son. When he was little they told us (me and my wife) that our son would need to be put in an institution. I found out that teachers for mentally handicapped students were mostly marking time until their pensions. as well. Long story short, he's now 35, has a job and a daughter who is a straight A student. I would NEVER trust any of them to come up with a mental assessment of anyone.

 

[YoursTruly]

Except that it's un-Constitutional.

Would we suggest mental health tests to exercise any other Constitutionally guaranteed right?

Guaranteed right for whacko's who kill 19 kids.

 

[fncceo]

Guaranteed right for whacko's who kill 19 kids.

Guarantee the rights of any American don't get removed without due process.

Our country has struggled for more than two centuries to prevent that from happening.

 

[YoursTruly]

Guarantee the rights of any American don't get removed without due process.

Our country has struggled for more than two centuries to prevent that from happening.

We've been struggling for the wrong reasons, IMO. Mass shooting are getting a lot worse. I'm so pro life that I don't even hunt. I would if it was a matter of self preservation. Nor would I have a problem drawing down on someone who's about to kill an innocent person. In preservation of the innocent.

I'm a sane guy. And would have no problem taking a psych exam. If I were to fail it, I'd get another test from a different psychologist. Someone who wasn't so left leaning, who was anti gun. Maybe even a couple of them to prove the first one was bias and should not be giving psych exams. If a psychologist has a long record of denying folks, it'll be recorded and looked into and adjusted.

The conspiracy is that all shrinks are leftist anti gun liberals. That's not even close to being accurate. Some, yes. All, no.


Lot's of scared people commenting on this thread. And some "surface level thinkers" who aren't really pro life.

 

[fncceo]

I'm a sane guy. And would have no problem taking a psych exam.

A psych exam isn't a math exam. Whether you pass or fail depends more on the person evaluating your answers than the answers themselves.

I don't care how sane you are, there is no way you can guarantee with 100% accuracy you would pass or fail one. The process of evaluating the questions is just too subjective.

Any overzealous anti-gun advocate would consider it his moral duty to fail as many applicants as he could.

If a test were standardized (as would be a minimum legal requirement) there will quickly become a ready market in videos and pamphlets on what to say to pass such an exam. There already is a market for such things to help people pass police psych exams.

 

[sparky]

I'm a sane guy. And would have no problem taking a psych exam. If I were to fail it, I'd get another test from a different psychologist.

well that's the thing Truly

you're asking for some entity to define sanity ,normalcy

a rather sisyphean feat , considering our national gestalt ....

~S~

 

[Canon Shooter]

So, I was thinking (Oh noooo. Here he goes again)
If the right came up with a law that states one must pass a psych exam in order to purchase a gun, what should applicants be disqualified for.

Why doesn't the left come up with something? Last time I checked they were in control of Congress.

But, I'll play along.

You want someone to have a psych eval before they can buy a gun? Fine.

I want you to have one before you vote.

I want you to have one before you exercise your 1st Amendment.

I want you to have one before you exercise your 5th Amendment.

I want you to have one before you get, or when you renew, your driver license. Hell, that one'll be easy because you have no Constitutional right to a driver license.

Would you be willing to undergo psych evals for those?

 

[BluesLegend]

Fine, then illegals have to pass a psych exam otherwise they are immediately deported, deal? Psych exam to get an abortion? Psych exam to mutilate yourself in a gender change surgery? Psych exam to register as a Democrat?

 

[B. Kidd]

Did you vote for Obama twice?
Does AOC make sense to you?
Are there more than two genders?

If so, then no gun for you!!

 

[Rigby5]

The times are uh changin. If the right doesn't do something about the lefts newly attempts to dismantle the 2A, the red flood coming in Nov. won't be much more than a small wave.

The right better do something besides ignore this situation that's upon them. Speaking from a political strategy stand point, if the right tries to ignore this gun violence issue, they won't gain near as many seats.

So, I was thinking (Oh noooo. Here he goes again)
If the right came up with a law that states one must pass a psych exam in order to purchase a gun, what should applicants be disqualified for.

I know, I know. It's retarded. But doing nothing is the government allowing more mass killings. I get the point, because I'm pro 2A. Laws don't stop crime. Gun laws aren't going to stop mass shooting. I get all that. So I'm asking for some common sense here.

Me personally, I didn't mind getting a gun permit. In fact, I bragged about it when I first got it. Even thought having to get one, meant I was allowing the state government to infringe upon my 2A. But in the end, I'm still able to carry. I'm still able to put myself in a position to save lives if the chance arises.

So I'm thinking, the things that would disqualify someone from legally buying a gun would be the following. Please add your ideas.

1. Anyone with a record of violence in their recent history. Say 5 years. (per 911 calls or provable reports)
2. Anyone who's committed any sort of crime, using a gun. Whether it was fired or not. (holstered doesn't count as using)
3. Anyone with a history of mental disorders in the last 5 years. Especially those on mental meds to control their behavior.

One thing that needs to be highly protected are decent gun owners from false accusations. Decent gun owners pose no threat to society. In fact, in many instances, they've protected and saved many lives using their weapons. Those peoples rights should in no way, shape or form, be infringed upon.
People like Ramos, I could care less about their rights.



Let's dance.

Except that those restriction from legal gun purchases already exist and have existed for decades.

 

[Rigby5]

Guaranteed right for whacko's who kill 19 kids.

Certainly.
For example, you should not be able to torture or rape them.

But the important thing is that BEFORE they killed anyone, that they should be equal under the law, to anyone.
What you seem to forget it that the single most dangerous people to arm in a democratic republic, are mercenaries who provide power in return for money. That is the police and military. They are the ones who threaten the democratic republic the most.

 

[Rigby5]

We've been struggling for the wrong reasons, IMO. Mass shooting are getting a lot worse. I'm so pro life that I don't even hunt. I would if it was a matter of self preservation. Nor would I have a problem drawing down on someone who's about to kill an innocent person. In preservation of the innocent.

I'm a sane guy. And would have no problem taking a psych exam. If I were to fail it, I'd get another test from a different psychologist. Someone who wasn't so left leaning, who was anti gun. Maybe even a couple of them to prove the first one was bias and should not be giving psych exams. If a psychologist has a long record of denying folks, it'll be recorded and looked into and adjusted.

The conspiracy is that all shrinks are leftist anti gun liberals. That's not even close to being accurate. Some, yes. All, no.


Lot's of scared people commenting on this thread. And some "surface level thinkers" who aren't really pro life.

But that is pointless because the criminally insane know perfectly well how to appear perfectly sane.
You can never tell by a one time test.

If you want to tell who is dangerous, you have to provide public health care that allow people to share inner problems early on, so that the professional can gain the whole progression over time.

 

[YoursTruly]

But that is pointless because the criminally insane know perfectly well how to appear perfectly sane.
You can never tell by a one time test.

If you want to tell who is dangerous, you have to provide public health care that allow people to share inner problems early on, so that the professional can gain the whole progression over time.

Again, there is no 100% perfection when it comes to humans. No one is looking for perfection. Just trying to save lives.

This "Kill my kids but don't take my guns" attitude is just stupid.

 

[YoursTruly]

Certainly.
For example, you should not be able to torture or rape them.

But the important thing is that BEFORE they killed anyone, that they should be equal under the law, to anyone.
What you seem to forget it that the single most dangerous people to arm in a democratic republic, are mercenaries who provide power in return for money. That is the police and military. They are the ones who threaten the democratic republic the most.

Stop with the "democrat republic." We haven't been that since the lobbyist bought our politicians. That includes the NRA, big pharma, MIC etc etc etc Our politicians represent them. Not us.

 

[BluesLegend]

This "Kill my kids but don't take my guns" attitude is just stupid.

Taking guns from law abiding citizens accomplishes what? Certified evil school shooters are 1 in a million minimum, tell us how gun control will fix that. Now go work on the real problem, gun control will do jack shit.

 

[YoursTruly]

Taking guns from law abiding citizens accomplishes what? Certified evil school shooters are 1 in a million minimum, tell us how gun control will fix that. Now go work on the real problem, gun control will do jack shit.

That's exactly what I'd like to avoid. How many times must I say it, "We can't have laws that restrict decent gun owners. But we need a system in place, backed by laws, that prevent mentally ill people from LEGALLY buying guns. The only way to reduce the threat is to force people to take some sort of legitimate psych exam before they're eligible to buy a gun.
I don't like that idea, but until the people of this country calm the F down and stop shooting everyone, I don't see any other way.
I can pass a psych test. Almost everyone I know can pass one.

Is it a 100% solution? Of course not. Nothing is, when it comes to humans. No one is looking for perfection. It's stupid to even think perfection can be accomplished.

The goal is to put the guns into the hands of decent people & reduce the amount of psycho's with guns. Psych exams can show signs of some mental or anger issues.

A decent psychologist could've spent 5 minutes with this Ramos dude and discovered there was something wrong. Just the fact that he was living with his grandparents, instead of his parents showed something was wrong. An interview with his parents, to get both sides of the story would've undoubtedly put Ramos on the no buy list.

Again, it's not 100%. No one is looking for perfection.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The times are uh changin. If the right doesn't do something about the lefts newly attempts to dismantle the 2A, the red flood coming in Nov. won't be much more than a small wave.

The right better do something besides ignore this situation that's upon them. Speaking from a political strategy stand point, if the right tries to ignore this gun violence issue, they won't gain near as many seats.

So, I was thinking (Oh noooo. Here he goes again)
If the right came up with a law that states one must pass a psych exam in order to purchase a gun, what should applicants be disqualified for.

I know, I know. It's retarded. But doing nothing is the government allowing more mass killings. I get the point, because I'm pro 2A. Laws don't stop crime. Gun laws aren't going to stop mass shooting. I get all that. So I'm asking for some common sense here.

Me personally, I didn't mind getting a gun permit. In fact, I bragged about it when I first got it. Even thought having to get one, meant I was allowing the state government to infringe upon my 2A. But in the end, I'm still able to carry. I'm still able to put myself in a position to save lives if the chance arises.

So I'm thinking, the things that would disqualify someone from legally buying a gun would be the following. Please add your ideas.

1. Anyone with a record of violence in their recent history. Say 5 years. (per 911 calls or provable reports)
2. Anyone who's committed any sort of crime, using a gun. Whether it was fired or not. (holstered doesn't count as using)
3. Anyone with a history of mental disorders in the last 5 years. Especially those on mental meds to control their behavior.

One thing that needs to be highly protected are decent gun owners from false accusations. Decent gun owners pose no threat to society. In fact, in many instances, they've protected and saved many lives using their weapons. Those peoples rights should in no way, shape or form, be infringed upon.
People like Ramos, I could care less about their rights.



Let's dance.

...shall not be infringed

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Except that it's un-Constitutional.

Would we suggest mental health tests to exercise any other Constitutionally guaranteed right?

Civics test for voting.

 

[iceberg]

The times are uh changin. If the right doesn't do something about the lefts newly attempts to dismantle the 2A, the red flood coming in Nov. won't be much more than a small wave.

The right better do something besides ignore this situation that's upon them. Speaking from a political strategy stand point, if the right tries to ignore this gun violence issue, they won't gain near as many seats.

So, I was thinking (Oh noooo. Here he goes again)
If the right came up with a law that states one must pass a psych exam in order to purchase a gun, what should applicants be disqualified for.

I know, I know. It's retarded. But doing nothing is the government allowing more mass killings. I get the point, because I'm pro 2A. Laws don't stop crime. Gun laws aren't going to stop mass shooting. I get all that. So I'm asking for some common sense here.

Me personally, I didn't mind getting a gun permit. In fact, I bragged about it when I first got it. Even thought having to get one, meant I was allowing the state government to infringe upon my 2A. But in the end, I'm still able to carry. I'm still able to put myself in a position to save lives if the chance arises.

So I'm thinking, the things that would disqualify someone from legally buying a gun would be the following. Please add your ideas.

1. Anyone with a record of violence in their recent history. Say 5 years. (per 911 calls or provable reports)
2. Anyone who's committed any sort of crime, using a gun. Whether it was fired or not. (holstered doesn't count as using)
3. Anyone with a history of mental disorders in the last 5 years. Especially those on mental meds to control their behavior.

One thing that needs to be highly protected are decent gun owners from false accusations. Decent gun owners pose no threat to society. In fact, in many instances, they've protected and saved many lives using their weapons. Those peoples rights should in no way, shape or form, be infringed upon.
People like Ramos, I could care less about their rights.



Let's dance.

Let's not