People should not posses any guns at all. Because although they say they have the right to protect themselves, by having a gun you have the chance of violating other people physical integrity. Or the other way round, other people with no guns need to be safe and that can be guaranteed to a great extent if nobody else has a gun. I think that people with no guns rights should prevail over a few who have them.
I believe in gun rights for mentally stable people only. Mentally ill people do not have the right to own guns. Hello Columbine? Checkmate. I said hip hop, hippy to the hip hop, you don't stop, rock it to the bang bang boogey up jump the beat, now what you heard is not a fake, but the real Sitara queen b,
The government must have control over who carries a gun, because not all people are apt to have one. When someone gets a gun, for the sake of the safety of our society, we need someone to check those people to make sure they won't one day flip out and kill everyone around them.
The reason I say "not a strong yes" is what kind of test will this be, how reliable, how easy to fake or cause misdiagnosis? Could not people against the ownership of guns make it look like pretty much everyone is a kook? One thing I think would be a good idea, however, is for everyone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, have that on some sort of record. It would not be accessible to employers, etc. But could only be used concerning gun ownership or if the person should ever be questioned, arrested, etc.
Unfortunately, we're our own worst enemy. People who buy guns for protection are the same people who may experience depression and cause chaos later. The illegal gun argument is bad. Its like saying we should not make laws because most crimes are going to be done illegally, in fact lets make all crimes legal so people won't do them. If you have a legal license to drive, why would you get upset when effort is made to stop illegal licenses. Unless you have an illegal license your argument seams hypocritical. The sale of weapons have to limited to only certain institutions. No more second and third hand reselling of weapons. Make the original buyer of the weapon responsible for what is done if the weapon is lost or sold. I believe every state should provide metal detectors for event areas that hold large number of people for events. Or make it a requirement to wear something to indicate to everyone you are carrying a weapon. This way I can make a determination if I want to attend the event that could possibly threaten my life. The psychological test is to determine when the person state of mind changed to use the gun for purpose other than what it was purchased for. So when I say a psychological test I do not mean you pass fail. I mean you sit in front of someone just to talk about your problems and the means for solving them. In my experience people usually indicate bad decisions much longer before they make them. Everyone has bad events in their life, but some people choose to handle these events in a way that encroaches on the rights of others. Instead of filling the prisons with these people, where everyone nationwide gets to pay for their food and shelter, wouldn't be better to require preventative work. Not a test but a requirement to speak with a professional. Not pass or fail, just a document showing line of thinking. No one can determine what to do if we do not have understanding of what the person or persons are going through that caused them to make bad decisions. To say to keep it as it is or there is no answer, means we did not spend enough time creating a solution. The people who say no psychological test, are the same people who do not have a solution. Why is there an age limit on gun purchasing? Obviously there is a psychological guideline for responsibility and recognizing the gravity of a person's actions. How many adults exhibit the same childlike issues? Who are selling these illegal guns without checking for dishonorable discharge of military, prior imprisonment, people with restraining orders, illegal aliens, etc? If we can track how the gun was given to this person, safe guards can be put in place. In order to provide the most effective solution, proper testing is needed. That is what is behind the psychological testing.
When you look at Japan who has insane laws for owning an obtaining a gun and the US where its simple to get one. You see by just statistics as they have about 18 deaths a year to the US having 300,00+ per year. They have had no recent mass shooting where we have too many just this year.
End game : Ban gun ( impose death penalty for owning a gun or smuggling and trafficking gun )
Criminal harder to find gun to do crimes , criminal organisation less threatening (drive by shooting ) .
Easier to run from a knife fight rather than a gun pointing at you .
Under federal, and certain state laws, it is required that anyone who proves to be mentally ill, to remain ineligible to be granted a firearm permit and will thus be refused a permit upon application. Thereby, this goes to show the reasoning as to why mentally ill may not be fit to uphold the responsibility of possessing a firearm. If psychological evaluations were to be done during the application process to obtain a firearm permit, and during firearm permit renewal, the threat posed would be minimalized. The second amendment should not be infringed, however, in cases such as the present in which the actions of those with a mental illness is not guaranteed, it becomes a better option to opt for psychological testing and verify that the individual is able to withhold such a responsibility.
The psychological testing would just be a simple inconvenience. The minutes that a person loses to gun-violence surely must equate to more minutes than it would take you to do a simple test. If freedom is the issue, consider the victim's freedom to live and pursue happiness. It won't fix the problem. No singular thing will EVER fix the problem. We will always fight and kill until the very last of us. It's worth it though, in my opinion, if this minor, tedious thing saves even a single innocent life.
There are a vast amount of people in the US who own a gun. The issue is who is mentally stable enough to have one and who isn't. I fully believe we should be allowed a firearm but in order to obtain one you should have to go do a test to see if he or she is indeed able to own a firearm. I do disagree with owning an assault weapon. However a shotgun or pistol is fine. Say if we were allowed to carry openly in most states imagine how many lives can be saved. For example look at all those shootings that have happened if someone at sandy hook did indeed have a firearm I am well sure they could have ended the assailant right there as well as with the college campus shootings. As a rule when entering a public building such as a mall, movie theater, and or any other highly populated building those who have a firearm must distribute it to a firearm holding center. As for the testing to see if a person is well fit to own a gun it should NOT be a one time test but in fact a constant check up to see the gun owners mental stability if he or she has had a decrease in mental health.
There is no such thing as being "psychologically" fit enough to carry a gun. Guns inherently constitute a means to harm and kill; nobody with any mental stability at all would ever want or need or desire to carry a gun. PERIOD. For ANY reason, ever. GUNS are the reason our entire world sucks as much as it does - and no one with any sanity would argue otherwise.
How far until the boundaries for crazy go too far and everyone is suddenly incapable of owning a gun? Besides, not all crazy people shouldn't own a gun, only the violent crazy should be banned. Furthermore, tests shouldn't just be given, only if a person received mental help and their therapist said that they should not own a gun, they should not be allowed to own a gun.
More idiots who ignore facts.
>95% of all murders with guns are with illegally bought guns. The people selling those illegal guns aren't unstable either. Besides, they likely got the guns in illegal ways too... But if they didn't, than they'd start to. If you can't handle a gun, they won't give you a license.
People who KILL don't buy guns LEGALLY.
I don't support this because I'm not too trusting of the government when it comes to defining "mentally healthy". Mentally healthy and unhealthy is a touchy thing, and I don't think the government should determine what that is. What the government should be doing is taking the names of everyone put in an institution in the past 15 years and putting them in the NICS so they're flagged when they try to buy a gun. Oh, and not under-funding mental health institutions would be nice too.
The problem I see with the argument is that the government can determine a citizen is "psychologically unfit" and from there deny a person their rights without due process. For me, I see a danger in allowing a psychologist as an agent of the state play the role of judge and jury. Even many psychologists say there are frivolous new additions to the DSM-5. People take comfort in imagining these are the people that would throw feces at other people when in reality something as trivial as an anxiety problem will suddenly be grounds for dismissing your constitutional rights. I think a strong case can be made that the threat is grossly exaggerated...Words like paranoia and phobia come to mind.
Although some may believe that creating a test would decrease the violence rate in America, that is completely inaccurate. Every person who kills will obviously be advised to plead mentally unstable because then he or she does not have to go to jail which is why everyone just assumes that all murders are crazy, but I believe that they all know what they are doing. I find it very hard to believe that those people killing others do not know what they are doing. If they know how to work a gun, they know what they are killing. A person who is going to kill could just as easily pass a psychological test as a person who wants a gun to hunt. A test would not decrease crime rate, people's morals and knowing what's right from wrong will.
Guns are very dangerous in general. It doesn't matter if you are mentally ill, retarded, or stupid. If they were to carry a gun, they might randomly shoot any innocent person. But if a person who passed a psychological test were to carry a gun, that person would only use it for self-defense but also for evil causes.
The people who carry a gun and have passed a psychological test can be a person who is evil and will use it for non-righteous purposes. There are those who have used guns for mugging, to rob people, and to shoot for revenge. Guns can be used in the wrong hands even for those who passed a psychological test. In conclusion, American citizens should not carry guns at all, mentally ill or not.
When purchasing your firearm, who's is going to be getting this psych evaluation done ? You would ether have to pay a ridiculous amount of money to get one done or the government would have to create a new platform and who is going to fund that? The tax payers ? I don't that would ever pass.
No, the Second Amendment says that the right of the people to own firearms shall not be abridged. It does not say that the right to own firearms shall not be abridged unless the person cannot pass a psychological exam. The founding fathers had their reasons for wanting guns freely owned by everyone.
Considering most guns used in these violent crimes are illegally bought and sold, how could the institution of this be helpful at all? Also pertaining to those that say no, just to get the point across that guns are bad, I would like to point them to the recent study by the Harvard Journal of Law over Gun Control, which states that all crimes are no perpetrated by your ordinary gun-owning law abiding citizen but rather by those that have already committed other crimes. In the case of the criminals however, those are the true people that guns need to be kept from; but once again these guns wouldn't be to hard for them to find. All in all, I believe that whoever wishes to own a gun, should be able to. Except the criminals and those wit mental illnesses of course.