Should anyone who purchases a firearm be required to undergo routine psychological evaluations?

  • First of all, insanity is much more common than the average person believes, and isn't considered in the field of firearms.

    About one in every four, an estimated 26.2%, of all Americans suffer from a diagnosable mental illness in a given year. To add to that, the Virginia Tech Massacre, April 2007, could've been easily stopped by any sort of psychological evaluation. A student named Seung-Hui shot and killed thirty-two people and injured an additional seventeen more. He was prohibited from buying a gun because of mental illness but somehow was able to pass two background checks and buy a gun from two licensed dealers. Additionally, on July 20, 2012, a mental unstable James Eagan Holmes shot and killed twelve people injuring a total of seventy civilians in the Colorado Shooting. He legally bought the guns from an online store. Of all the citizens in the US, 36% of them own guns and with more than a quarter of Americans suffering from mental disorders, there's a good chance that these people may be one and the same. And if psychological evaluations are made mandatory, no more shootings will be performed by the mentally unstable.

    Posted by: JAVC
  • Yeah, why not

    Of course there are the people who will say that bearing arms is a constitutional right, however, society as a whole will have more security knowing that people who have guns are more qualified than ever before. It is important that people who are wielding guns are not putting society in danger.

  • Yes, people who purchase a a firearm should be required to undergo routine psychoclogical evaluations.

    I believe people who purchase firearms should be required to undergo routine psychological evaluations. I believe there are a lot of people out in the world who have guns who are unstable. This would benefit the world as a whole, because it would cut down on all of the senseless killings around the world. A good example would be the recent shooting in Aurora, Colorado shooting.

  • Yes

    Firearm owners are subject to the firearm laws of the state they are in, and not exclusively their state of residence. Reciprocity between states exists in certain situations, such as with regard to concealed carry permits.In many cases, state firearms laws can be considerably less restrictive than federal firearms laws. This does not confer any de jure immunity against prosecution for violations of the federal laws.

  • Gun Owners Should Have Regular Psych Help

    Recent events such as the shooting at Virginia Tech and the Colorado movie theater massacre should have taught gun owners a harsh lesson. Not everyone in America needs to own a firearm. How many more lives will it take before something is done? The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. However, it's also illegal to kill a human being. When is life going to be held more sacred? Felons can't own guns and neither should psychos.

  • This should be common sense.

    Anything that forces someone to stop and think very hard about why they need a firearm is something I support. A psych evaluation would also hopefully screen some people who would otherwise have gone on to do something violent with the weapon they could have gotten. So long as the procedure is conducted in a professional environment and gun lobbyists are kept far, far away from the people doing the evaluations.

  • We need to end gun violence

    Anything that forces someone to stop and think very hard about why they need a firearm is something I support. A psych evaluation would also hopefully screen some people who would otherwise have gone on to do something violent with the weapon they could have gotten. So long as the procedure is conducted in a professional environment and gun lobbyists are kept far, far away from the people doing the evaluations.

  • It's almost illogical that this isn't law.

    If we have to get an eye exam and take a test to get a driver's license to qualify for the 'right' to drive, does it not seem like basic common sense that we'd have to prove we are mentally, medically, and physically capable of using a contraption that's only purpose is to cause destruction or death? I am not proposing a ban on guns, but those who want to own them should have to prove they are qualified.

  • It would help stop gun violence

    My headline says it. If people were required to have a psych eval to own a gun, it would help stop gun violence and gun related deaths. Too many times people who have had mental issues or anger issues are behind gun related violence and deaths. I think it would be a reasonable requirement that people should have background checks and psychological evaluations before they can own a gun.

  • Only if it's done very carefully.

    This is pretty much the only way to stop mentally ill people from getting guns. However, the evaluation needs to be done very carefully as to not create a backdoor registry and the applicant must never be denied based upon why they want to buy/own said firearms unless they have expressed a desire to kill.

  • Too intrusive and it won't help.

    While I believe the goal of keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is a reasonable one, I feel like this kind of thing would inconvenience far more people than it would help. The truly disturbed will have no qualms about illegally acquiring a gun, anyway, so all that will really happen is that well-meaning, law-abiding citizens will have their minds poked around at for no good reason.

  • Background Check ONLY

    I had to take my argument FOR Second Amendment before a judge since my township denied me my FID Card for taking anti-depressant 3 years prior (I was on sick leave applying for disability which took a toll of mental stress). I've never had any prior convictions, DWI, or malicious acts on my record. I am a female living alone and own (mortgage free!) my own house. Yet, still denied by local police due to anti-depressant pills and OUTGOING patient status when the statutes clearly target COMMITTED. The system is being raped! You have a right to protect yourself. I did not apply for assault weapons! I applied for a pistol! I've had to fork out $5000 (legal fees) to simply get a pistol purchase permit. This country is being led to the edge of a cliff.

  • Fix the current MH system & flawed theory here

    The current MH system is deeply and horrendously flawed, failing to properly support and treat the MH issues- ER type treat and street, followup is poor, cost prohibitive both for consultations and pharmaceuticals then the side effects are just awful for many. The industry puts out drugs without regard to side effects leading to poor adherence to treatment plan.

    Now for the whole theory of qualification of people as sane/insane with regards to gun ownership. The DSM is constantly changing, diagnoses added and removed. Depending on the edition you're diagnosed with through the years you can flux from stable to unbalanced and once the 'oh yeah s/he's crazy' label is affixed, removal is impossible. The records follow forever. Moreover, if you go looking for crazy you're sure to find it, whether it exists or not as it is sooooooooooooooo subjective to interpretation. Then comes the whole 'someone has to pay' mentality of the US culture that demands its pound of flesh to rectify wrongs done....Just you wait until the first 'yeah he passes the muster, give him a gun' that turns around and proves that wrong. Then NOBODY will be willing to pass anyone and we effectively disarm a nation by refusing to allow anyone to have a gun. Lastly, how often are you going to assess a person? MI strikes randomly and to previously perfectly sane individuals. Life, stress, genetic predisposition, trauma all influence one's tendency to develop a MI.

  • Empiric: It doesn't work.

    Read investigation report on Virginia Tech. As person who threatened with suicide, Cho Seung Hui was examined by both psychologist and psychiatrist. Conclusion from both: "Not dangerous to himself or others."
    Read investigation on Columbine. Both perpetrators were arrested year before massacre for car burglary. As juveniles, they got public work and probation instead of prison. Part of probation was counseling with psychologist. The whole year when they planned and prepared massacre they were under overview of psychologist. They fooled him so perfectly that two months before shooting, he suggested to commission that they should be released from program early, because they are fully corrected.
    And don't forget Charles Whitman, who went to psychiatrist - himself, on his own will - and TOLD him that he thinks about barricading himself in university tower with rifle and shooting people. And psychiatrist... Just didn't believe him.

    And after these and many other phenomenal failures, there's always come some dumbass and says "Well, don't know much about it, but it sounds good - let's try it, maybe it'll work."

  • It sets a dangerous precedent on who can get a gun

    I do agree that those that are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be SEVERELY criminally insane should have limited access to firearms. However, what defines mental illness change with the age. 50 years ago homosexuality was considered an insanity. Where do we cut off who should and shouldn't be allowed to buy firearms?

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.