Would it make a difference if potential gun owners were given a "psychological" test?

2015-10-04T16:41:24-04:00

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/19/16588357-anger-violent-thoughts-are-you-too-sick-to-own-a-gun?lite

Ok...so since people kill...not guns kill...People kill with guns...Currently people are checked to see if they've had any mental issues, mental instability or been institutionalized....but what about the people who are coo coo, but don't have a record.

Should some sort of psychological testing be devised and given to potential gun owners to see if they may be or have the potential to be crazy or maybe go out and do something crazy?

Many employers give a "psychological" test to potential employees to weed out the ones who they believe would not fit in or would not treat a customer the way they should be or any other number of reasons.
With psychology these days....they can devise a very specific test that would show ...hey, it would not be good such a good idea to give this guy a gun....maybe there would be a secondary back up system for those who don't pass....and if they fail the 2nd test...then they should definitely not be given a gun.

The tests devised these days are super accurate. It's amazing how these tests can pin point things. These type of tests are not developed over night...they take a few years to device, put together, tested and re tested before they are used.

Here is how I see it.
There are professional companies who specialize in these tests. They are hired by huge mulit million and multi billion dollar companies. They have nothing to do with the US government or obama care.
The test would be kind of like or just like at the police academy, a person who wants to become a police officer has to take one of the psychological evaluation...because lord knows we do not need a off the wall police officer....it's the same basic concept...we don't need people being able to get guns if they are coo coo....I can't believe that people are so stuck on their 2nd amendment rights that they cannot see that this type of thing just makes it a little safer....If someone fails the test, then they can make an appointment with a

I'm just trying to come up with some ideas that may be able to help stop crazy people from killing.

SO IF ANYONE OUT THERE CAN COME UP WITH A BETTER IDEA, then please by all means present it.

Anger, violent thoughts: Are you too sick to own a gun?

If there’s one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on, it’s that mentally ill people should not have access to firearms.But as lawmakers rush to restrict that access in the wake of recent mass shootings, mental health experts w

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2015 4:42 PM

2015-10-04T16:42:04-04:00

Nope.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 4 at 2015 4:48 PM

2015-10-04T16:48:27-04:00

Psychology/Psychiatry is as much an art as it is a science. It's powers of prediction are notably lacking. Just look at the incidence of recidivism among parolees who have been declared by "experts" as fit for return to polite society. Also, look at how the opinions of such experts were abused by despots and tyrants to imprison political malcontents.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Oct 4 at 2015 5:02 PM

2015-10-04T17:02:48-04:00

How about this; I think that newspapers should have to have all their stories vetted by some government agency BEFORE they get published and that the government should have the final say on what gets published and what doesn't. Ditto for all preacher's sermons. Seeing a problem here?

The right to keep and bear arms, like the right to freedom of speech, religion and the press, is a RIGHT, not a privilege. As such, it is not the burden of the person who would exercise a right to justify that exercise but on the government to prove why that right should be infringed.

What I would support is the following; returning to the old standard of psychiatry with regards to a person being a potential danger to himself or others as a reason for involuntary commitment rather than the 'imminent danger' as it is today and an absolute requirement that such a diagnosis be immediately reported in the national criminal instant background check system.

In answer to your question, I don't think it would make much difference at all. Mass shootings make up less than 1% of all shootings annually and the bulk of shootings happen in inner cities by people who don't get their firearms legally anyways.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Oct 4 at 2015 5:04 PM

2015-10-04T17:04:14-04:00

LMAO!!! Nope... Just more funds for someone to pay and an extra step for you to take and end up with a weapon anyway...

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2015 5:04 PM

2015-10-04T17:04:47-04:00

One of the questions asked when applying for the purchase of a firearm:

11. f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination board, commission, of other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself of to others or are incapable to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution? (See instructions for question 11.f.)

Every firearm I've purchased has been scrutinized by a background check after filling out the ATF Form 4473 (5300.9). If you have been added to the NIC (National Information Center) your application will be denied. Sure they applicant can lie, so the question that should be asked is, are the determination boards, commissions, of other lawful authorities properly adding mentally defective people to the NIC?

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Oct 4 at 2015 5:15 PM

2015-10-04T17:15:36-04:00

If the "psychological" test was standardized and administered by an independent group with no government ties then it may be reasonable Sgt Kelli Mays.
The test would need to be focused on mental illness including inability to recognize reality from insanity, not being able to discern good from evil behavior, habitual illegal drug use, etc.
The test should never include political affiliation questions, etc.
The "psychological" test should not be administered to all potential gun owners only to those who exhibited signs of mental illness including drug use at time of purchase.

Response by MSgt Manuel Diaz made Oct 4 at 2015 5:16 PM

2015-10-04T17:16:28-04:00

I recon that test could also be used to determine who will mug you, and who will commit adultry, and drive thru a red light ... they can't tell where to draw a line for what is normal kinky or crazy... much less tell who when or why someone will snap because they didn't win the lottery before the rent was due, somewhat like when someone decides to commit suicide. Could be a new wave of suicide to not die alone and maybe have someone else pull the trigger

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Oct 4 at 2015 5:25 PM

2015-10-04T17:25:14-04:00

You can't even have people committed. Or see there medical records. And who would administer this test. And who would make the determination. And how long would you have to wait?

Response by Sgt Ken Prescott made Oct 4 at 2015 6:29 PM

2015-10-04T18:29:58-04:00

"Should some sort of psychological testing be devised and given to potential gun owners to see if they may be or have the potential to be crazy or maybe go out and do something crazy?"

Depends. How much do you trust government agencies to not behave badly?

If you trust your government to never behave badly, you've obviously never dealt with the Department of Veteran Affairs.

I might be willing to accept this sort of testing, IF the standards are objectively known and available, the results are reliably reproducible, and if 18 U.S. Code § 242 (violation of civil rights under color of law) was a capital offense, go directly to the firing squad, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 4 at 2015 6:30 PM

2015-10-04T18:30:32-04:00

How many "False Positives" would we get, and how much of a burden would it place on Law Abiding Citizens?

Violence is UNCOMMON in the US. IT IS UNCOMMON IN THE US.

Let's get that straight right now. ALL VIOLENCE. Not just "Gun Violence" but ALL VIOLENCE, is Uncommon in the US. You are STATISTICALLY SAFE IN THE US.

The Media is painting a picture to make it appear more dangerous than it is. The TOTAL number of gun deaths per year is less than 30,000k in a population of 320,000,000.

Over half of that is SUICIDE. Again, over half of that suicide. Suicide will not be stopped with gun control. Look at all nations, even those with extremely strict gun control, and you can see that. All that changes is "method." This isn't meant to be cold, but to point out the realities of the situation.

The "Mass Shooting" (Mental Health) issue is extremely rare Statistically, and blown out of proportion for a country the size of the US (4th largest in the world).

Could we institute a Psych Screening? Sure. Would Law Abiding Citizens be denied even though they are not a danger, and even though it won't actually affect statistics. Yep. Not worth the effort, and will adversely affect the Rights of our Citizens.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2015 6:43 PM

2015-10-04T18:43:57-04:00

Yes I think there should be a psych test. I have taken ones before that are multiple choice and like a hundred questions ( I was bored on watch and there was one by my console) it asks pretty standard questions. I don't know how it would determine insanity or other mental problems but I'm sure a psychologist would. I don't think it would be that hard to implement. However if someone wants to pass the test they could fake it I think. Let me know your thoughts on this!

Response by PVT Robert Gresham made Oct 4 at 2015 7:04 PM

2015-10-04T19:04:55-04:00

Sgt Kelli Mays I am afraid that as logical as your suggestion may sound, in practice it would just not work. If a person with mental issues wants to get their hands on a gun they will get a gun through legal, or illegal, means. Even some of the strictest gun laws in the country (Los Angeles and Chicago) are not able to stop the flow of guns, even automatic weapons, to those who can afford them, and wish to procure them.

There was reportedly a bill at one time, introduced by Senator Diane Feinstein, which would have precluded all Vets from owning guns, based on the supposition that they all suffer from PTSD, and therefore are mentally ill. Hoax letters were sent to thousands of Vets (see below). Once the gate is open is something like this, where does it end?

Veterans Gun Seizure Hoax Debunked...Somewhat (updated)

Stories about "new letters" or a "new law" are total bunk. The law that authorizes gun seizures for those "adjudicated mentally ill" was passed in 1997 but nothing was said about it for over 15 years.

Response by SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz made Oct 4 at 2015 7:11 PM

2015-10-04T19:11:04-04:00

By that assumption then we need to ban all knifes, maintenance tools, construction tools, pretty much anything we can grab on our "little hands" to harm anyone with it. BTW all rocks, stilettos, and bats need to get ban also.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Oct 4 at 2015 7:24 PM

2015-10-04T19:24:28-04:00

The question that I have about using a psychological test to determine who should have guns is who makes up the test and who decides who is crazy. Many liberals think that anyone who wants a gun is crazy and I think that liberals are crazy so which standard applies?

Response by TSgt David L. made Oct 4 at 2015 7:50 PM

2015-10-04T19:50:34-04:00

If we tested EVERY adult age (18+) for everything I would be in favor of a standardized test. That way folks who might drink and drive would be exposed. People who abuse significant others and children might be found out. Criminals who have ill-will could be outed as criminals should. Maybe we could start testing in grade school to ward off the progression of possible mental illness or criminal intent.

So what's the trade-off? Personal privacy? How much are you willing to give up? In addition to monitoring your emails and phones (and they do...), the NSA or any Homeland Security branch could randomly administer tests to folks at the liquor store to ensure they won't drink and drive. Or the students that may be/have been abused and want to harm their parents. The list of personal crime is endless.

I honestly don't have the right answer, but criminals who can still buy illegal drugs can and WILL find a way to cause harm to another human being. The method of harm is not the problem, IMO. The individual, and in part the justice system (not mandatory sentencing for the crime committed and early release due only to overcrowding) have to bear the responsibility. We don't sue or seek to ban Fords when folks are killed in a DUI/DWI accident. Right?!

Response by SGT Dana Williams made Oct 4 at 2015 9:04 PM

2015-10-04T21:04:13-04:00

This is a sticky one.It would depend on who created the test, it's parameters, and who would be conducting the testing. It's something that could very easily be abused.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2015 9:30 PM

2015-10-04T21:30:53-04:00

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Key word is infringed. Unless it is court ordered a psychological test is an infringement on your rights. The solution to the problem is promote access to mental health. It needs to be provided for the individuals who are mentally unstable and therefore can't afford it.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2015 9:53 PM

2015-10-04T21:53:17-04:00

And who gets to decide? To me it sounds like you want to restrict an individual's rights based on something they MIGHT do and not for what they have done. Please don't tell me after taking the same oath I did, you now want to take people's rights away for something they MIGHT do? As mentioned earlier, there is a form that is filled out for every firearm sold. If a person signs that form knowing the information provided is false, they have committed perjury, a felony under 18 USC 1621.

Response by Cpl Clinton Britt made Oct 4 at 2015 10:01 PM

2015-10-04T22:01:33-04:00

Its called the second amendment protection act

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 4 at 2015 10:08 PM

2015-10-04T22:08:31-04:00

It definitely would help the Psychologists financially. Who watches the Watcher? Just because someone earns a degree in the mental sciences does not make them the end all in this topic. How will these tests be validated as to their accuracy. I actually would like to see something that ties the mental state of someone that has firearms to the issuance of a license, there is sufficient evidence in most instances that prevent our stopping the nutcases. Primarily the Constitution and presumption of innocence.

Response by Cpl Robert Masi made Oct 4 at 2015 10:33 PM

2015-10-04T22:33:27-04:00

Psychology is not a real science. EVERYONE is considered to have psychological issues to some extent. To open the door for a 'science' that can find wrong in EVERYONE, is not a direction our country should be going.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Oct 4 at 2015 11:51 PM

2015-10-04T23:51:07-04:00

Sgt Kelli Mays - Rather than trying to determine which of our citizens should be allowed to own guns, perhaps a more effective direction would be to determine which of our citizens should be allowed to roam freely and which should be institutionalized. These mass shootings invariably involve people with serious mental problems, and guns are not the only way to kill a lot of people. Box cutters were sufficient to kill 3,000 people on 9/11, and pressure cookers were sufficient to kill 3 and wound 264 near the finish line of the Boston Marathon.

Trying to fix the "gun problem" is focusing on the wrong target; it is the insane people that are at the heart of this problem.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 3:48 AM

2015-10-05T03:48:13-04:00

We see how well these psychological evaluations work on inmates who return to a life of crime. How about the police officers who get by on these psychological evaluations and go bat crazy. I just don't think it is a viable solution. You know there will be false positives and just cause havoc in someones life, then what? How about a national register of anyone with mental issues with the potential to do harm to themselves, family or friends. Then all firearm dealers could run the names through the data base. But that still won't stop the black market or maybe we should do a psychological evaluation on them!

Response by SPC Nathan Freeman made Oct 5 at 2015 3:50 AM

2015-10-05T03:50:54-04:00

Psychiatrists are already too busy and too over paid. Most are liberals who might discriminate based on a persons religion. Israel has a great plan in action. All of their teachers are armed and trained. No school shootings since 1974.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Oct 5 at 2015 6:40 AM

2015-10-05T06:40:22-04:00

Psychological testing for all is much like the TSA checking every passenger the exact same way. It might give a warm feeling to many but will likely do little in the way of protection.

First, you place way too much confidence and surety in "psychological" testing. It is not an exact science and is filed with nuance and ranges of potential etc. Companies use them to screen behavioral trends/decision making etc. not to determine if someone is clinically "unstable" or insane etc.

Which other rights would you be willing to forfeit at the completion of a psychological test? Would you give up the right to speak because it can be dangerous too, so can assembly, religion etc. Will we then move toward punishing people for potential crime with these tests?

This is a new way by the left to get the false science of psychoanalysis involved in stripping people they do no like of rights they do not want them to have. It is simply a bad idea under a false premise namely that you could create a test that could even remotely predict behavior in the future.

As Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS pointed out, we are being whipped into a frenzy by people that want us to be whipped into a frenzy. You are very safe in this country and there are far more dangerous things to protect people from than "mass shooters".

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 5 at 2015 11:10 AM

2015-10-05T11:10:03-04:00

Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws in the United States. Further, most of those carrying are street thugs that did not get a permit, nor will they ever. Here is the results for the current year. Do we need a test for this situation? What can be done to ameliorate this slaughter? I have many answers, but it wouldn't get Rahm Emanuel or his Police Chief reelected. Point being, the issue is not to stop law abiding citizens that want to own a firearm for any reason from being able to purchase them IAW existing laws, but to do whatever is necessary to control those that commit crimes. And, I for one, would be agreeable to some type of communications between law enforcement and mental health agencies when some is designated as a threat to the citizenry or themselves. Another would be to start finding those family members/friends that provide them with firearms or do not properly secure them of complicity to commit crimes.

http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings

Crime in Chicago -- Chicago Tribune

Find out about crime on your block, in your community, along your commute, and more.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 11:56 AM

2015-10-05T11:56:03-04:00

More horsehockey. BS to be exact..

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Oct 5 at 2015 1:35 PM

2015-10-05T13:35:03-04:00

I'm not going to go too far into this, but ANY system can be gamed. If you doubt this, and have been deployed, think back to the mental health assessment teams that await you when you got home. Waiting in that room, one goes in and another comes out. Soon everyone knows the "answers" to the questions that are going to be asked, and no one is found to be a risk. Three hours later, the BDE CSM gets a call that one of his Soldiers has killed himself. That Soldier was properly screened, passed with flying colors and is dead that night. A "test" will not in itself give a "pure" diagnosis of a condition where actions spread over time will. With that, some are going to make it through and others won't. A test of this sort would be a guideline for folks to follow, but it only works as long as the "answers" aren't known beforehand. If a politician's involved, this will be known WELL in advance to any and everyone. It shouldn't be seen as an "end all be all" rapid solution to an eroding value system with the youth of today.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 3:01 PM

2015-10-05T15:01:17-04:00

how about we pre-screen everyone!!! that will be awesome right? ... nope ...

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2015 3:44 PM

2015-10-05T15:44:15-04:00

I find that our individual liberties are being eroded directly proportional to the internet and resentment towards voters. Over-regulations of pain meds, what you can say, what you can wear on base, sanity, gun ownership, healthcare and where you can fly your flag. Any questions?

Response by SFC James Barnes made Oct 6 at 2015 9:53 AM

2015-10-06T09:53:53-04:00

lets do the same thing to drivers licenses so you know the person will be safe in a car...... Sarcasm.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 12:16 PM

2015-10-06T12:16:41-04:00

Sgt Kelli Mays, I concur. I believe this is very easy to execute if we could just get both sides to agree to it. I am a strong supporter of the second amendments “Right to Bear Arms”, but believe it is time to have a litmus test in order to not only purchase a gun, but to own and operate. Sort of like a license to drive or operate heavy machinery. We require a CDL for a commercial vehicles Class A Combination Vehicles over 26,000 lbs.; Trailers over 10,000 lbs.; Class B Buses, Trucks over 26,000 lbs. Trailers under 10,001 lbs.; Class C Under 26,001 lbs. Trailers under 10,001 lbs. These vehicles can all be very dangerous in the wrong hands. We require licenses for businesses, licenses to sell liquor, to operate large boats and ships, and licenses to ride a motorcycle. Why not a test with a resulting license to own and operate a hand-gun/ shot gun? I know that my kids have to take the hunters safety program and test in order to get a hunting license, what about a license just to use the gun itself?

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made Oct 6 at 2015 1:45 PM

2015-10-06T13:45:22-04:00

It would make a Great Difference because it would be a way to assess a Potential Threat!

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 6 at 2015 2:59 PM

2015-10-06T14:59:06-04:00

I have disqualified myself from gun ownership due to my wanting memory.

Response by Cpl William Domenz made Oct 6 at 2015 4:29 PM

2015-10-06T16:29:39-04:00

More control of the local or fed gov to determine if your rights are still available to you.... That would seems quite absurd - Check other countries stats below - we are ranked 9th. We are the only ones left that can still defend ourselves - imaging where we would be ranked if we lost that right. Imaging how many of these shootings would never happen if it wasn't for a gun free zone... Just my 2cents.
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Comparing Death Rates from Mass Public Shootings and Mass Public Violence in the US and Europe -...

1) In his address to the nation after the Charleston attack, Obama claimed:  “we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.  It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency.” Senator Harry Reid made a similar statement …

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 6:09 PM

2015-10-06T18:09:53-04:00

Everyone has the potential do something "crazy", it's just a matter of stimuli. If we are going to create an arbitrary test to restrict a person's rights based off of mental competency or their level of understanding, can we at least start with the right to vote?

Response by Maj Walter Kilar made Oct 7 at 2015 12:07 AM

2015-10-07T00:07:41-04:00

It is common misperception to those who do not own guns to assume that "anyone can easily purchase a gun". For comparison, in Australia it is much harder for "crazy people" (colloquial definition, not medical definition) to own a gun, because they are more willing to "discriminate" against would-be gun owners who have indicators not conducive to safe gun owners: divorce, handicapped family members, past criminals, past drug users, etc. In America, we have mental health experts worried more about proper application of the term "mentally ill" than they care about picking out the appropriate indicators that should legally discriminate against would-be killers.

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Oct 7 at 2015 11:21 AM

2015-10-07T11:21:22-04:00

I dont think this would be a good Idea as the VA system has a bad reputation of labeling vets with Anger management disorders too often. While in Virginia, I was homeless and had been picked up by the West Virginia Va, I was in a wheel Chair. When the guy came to pick me up he bitched that I was in a chair and that it changed things and that I could not go into the shelter they had on the current program they wanted to put me in and they had no room for a wheelchair bound homeless vet. He took me anyways and said they would think of something. When I got there I had several meetings with various people and was finally told I would bunk in the Drug rehab section for the night and it would be figured out where they would put me as a spot for me would not be open for two weeks.The next day I was told I would stay in the drug rehab housing and no I did not have to do any of the drug rehab classes as I wasnt on rehab. all was well for I think 3 days until I was stopped in the hall and asked where I was staying and why I wasnt in any classes. I tried to explain my situation but was told to shut up and quit lying and that all us druggies were the same...liars!!! I was escorted to the directors office and was threatened with expulsion if I did not adhere to the guidelines of the drug rehab program. I tried to explain and this just pissed the director off and he wound up calling the people I had named that had told me I could stay where I was. One flat out denied all of it and said he didnt know how I even wound up in the shelter, the other two wouldnt really say anything yes or no... Hell yes I was pissed, but I didnt throw anything or scream at them I tried talking to them but was constantly called a liar. My only recourse of action was to say F this, go to my room and pack my bag. I was met by armed Guards who wanted to take me back to the directors office but I refused and left the building , was picked up by a friend and taken to Dulles and flew back to Seattle. I later found out they had put in my records that I have major anger issues... So no I dont think this should be done or 3/4 of all vets would loose their weapons if they go to the VA.

Response by MAJ Ron Peery made Oct 8 at 2015 9:19 PM

2015-10-08T21:19:08-04:00

Sgt Mays, how about we start putting current laws to use? The NICS works pretty well, but people who have been determined by medical professionals to be mentally disqualified, or who have been self admitted to mental health facilities, or who are under a doctors care are NOT in the database. If they are not there, NICS cannot block them from buying a gun. But taking your suggestion a bit further, since some parents abuse their kids, why not require people to take a psychological test before allowing them to have a baby? Since some people drink and drive, why not require everyone to take a psychological test to see if they are incipient alcoholics? Should we also require tests if folks want to buy a knife, hammer, gallon of gas? Get real.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 3:28 PM

2015-10-09T15:28:25-04:00

You know what is the real problem with all the discussion about "gun control"? It is absolutely not within Federal's realm of influence. Any talk of any "procedures" from the Federal, I don't care it work like GOD like power, I will still oppose it. Do you know why? you can claim I don't trust the Federal government. It is human nature to corrupt for power and for own gain, and the antidote for it, is keeping the power as close as possible to the people. That is what the 10th Amendment is about. The further you delegate you power to, the easier it get corrupted. The first few years of the awesomely GODLY like gun control can turn in to dark and evil gun control in a few years. That is always the case, All the gun control is enforced by a government that sound reasonable, but when the government change into a evil bad one ... millions slaughter because none of them can defend themselves. The second is a fail safe switch ... it never nice and sunny about the 2nd, in fact it is down right bloody ...

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 3:30 PM

2015-10-09T15:30:57-04:00

The problems with this strategy are numerous. While I understand the desire to curb these senseless killings, restricting an individual's liberties is not the way to do it. As already stated, who would devise the test? Would there be an appeal process? How much funding would be required? What other program should get cut to support this one? Or would people be willing to accept a tax increase to support it? People could potentially outsmart the test. If a person has a propensity for certain behaviors but never displays them, is it fair to limit his right to own a firearm? As previously stated, try applying this idea to other liberties/rights and see how absurd it sounds. I fully admit that I don't have the answers, but limiting Constitutional rights based on someone's interpretation of a test is not the answer.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 3:46 PM

2015-10-09T15:46:09-04:00

"The tests devised these days are super accurate. It's amazing how these tests can pin point things. These type of tests are not developed over night...they take a few years to put them together, then they are tested and re tested before they are used."

I have seen this posted in response after response. Could we get some actual data on that? How do we know they are "super accurate"? Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Not trying to be rude, but links to studies or other evidence would help back up your opinion.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 4:17 PM

2015-10-09T16:17:45-04:00

IMHO, a psychological assessment is as valid as a STD test... its good at the time its administered, but conditions could change in an hour that would render it moot.

Response by CPO Andy Carrillo, MS made Oct 10 at 2015 12:45 AM

2015-10-10T00:45:10-04:00

I can see gangbangers and the mentally ill lining up to take these psychological tests to BUY a gun! Adam Lanza's MOTHER purchased guns for her mentally disturbed son. Criminals don't buy their guns at Wal*Mart, they steal them or get them from their cohorts. Or you can get them directly from the Federal government's Fast and Furious 'strawman' layaway program...BTW, which population already have a highly-documented condition related to stress and anxiety that is already defined as a mental disorder in the DSM V? Hint: it's not criminals.

Response by CPL Randy Bautista made Oct 10 at 2015 1:20 AM

2015-10-10T01:20:45-04:00

I don't want to sound rude or imply that you are by some mean incapable of reason, but as a society we cannot control n individual. We take steps to avoid major events/ protect the majority, but the same way some people care to hurt others and go out of their way to truly help their environment. You have people you want to hurt people. Rape other, destroy the innocence of a child, kill and love doing wrong to others. Guns themselves have nothing to do with the equation. The same as a car has nothing to do with a drunk driver. A gun is the same thing as a hammer a tool. In a child's hand a toy, and in an evil person hand it's still a tool. A means to an end. We need to stop looking at guns as the problem because all we are seeing is people making choices and the consequences attached to it. I agree with you that there are step we can still take but looking at it from a gun control issue is not the answer. This anti bullying movement is a step in the wrong direction we are creating victim out of our children instead of teaching the to stand up and fight. Yes fight not to start them but to hold their ground. Teach them that you don't always win they have to learn to deal with disappointment and failer just the same. The world is a hard place let's start by building strong people to live in it

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2015 3:20 PM

2015-10-10T15:20:18-04:00

No. What would be next? People scream when you say drug testing and welfare in the same sentence. Perhaps we should develop a sanity test for all the moronic politicians and if they fail they should be locked up. If someone is going to do something, a test, law, etc will not stop them. The criminals are still going to get guns, explosives, etc. The only people who are being punished for this is the law a biding citizen. Stop blaming the object (gun, flag, etc) and hold people accountable for their actions.

Response by Cpl Damon Hines made Oct 10 at 2015 5:17 PM

2015-10-10T17:17:38-04:00

We need to be more into the resent discharged. Watch them close! No shit! Take care of our brothers and sisters.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Oct 11 at 2015 5:29 AM

2015-10-11T05:29:26-04:00

Umm, no.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Oct 11 at 2015 9:55 PM

2015-10-11T21:55:42-04:00

Should people be given a psychological test to drive a car as well? Or perhaps in order to bear and raise a child so many of them are abused? How about to own a dog (so many of them are mistreated)?

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Oct 12 at 2015 7:35 PM

2015-10-12T19:35:45-04:00

I'm all for "Well Regulated". Hell I am even for the Argument for Guns for Home Defense and Hunting which is more based on the Magna Carta than on the 2nd Amendment. What I am not for is the BS Spewed by the NRA which I consider a Terrorist Organization right up there with the IRA.

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2015 3:22 PM

2015-10-13T15:22:31-04:00

Seeing how I'm more likely to die from a doctor, or even a hammer for that matter according to evidence by the FBI, guns are not an issue. I am a huge gun guy, love them. People blame guns because they want to blame something, anything. now when it comes to being killed by a doctor who gave you the wrong meds, or too much, it never goes to news because people see the pro's in doctors. same with a hammer. It's purpose is it hit things, its a tool. people dont see the negative because its just a tool. A gun is a tool, people just think its meant to kill human beings. It's not the case, I carry every day, even a 5 minute trip to walmart I holster my pistol, I have a right to defend myself and my family. Theres not such thing as gun violence, only violence.

Response by SSG John Erny made Oct 16 at 2015 10:21 AM

2015-10-16T10:21:26-04:00

The 'right' of the 'people' to 'keep' and 'bear arms' shall 'not' be 'infringed.' Heller vs. DC has settled that argument. The reason the founding fathers put the #2A in place was to guard against tyranny by the government.
"Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary, depending on the study's population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Gertz show between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year."
Defensive gun use. (2015, July 31). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 14:20, October 16, 2015, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defensive_gun_use&oldid=673990392

Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Defensive gun use (DGU) is the use of a firearm in self-defense or defense of others. The frequency of defensive firearms incidents, and their effectiveness in providing safety and reducing crime is a controversial issue in gun politics and criminology.[1]:64 Different authors and studies employ different criteria for what constitutes a defensive gun use which leads to controversy in comparing statistical results. Perceptions of the number of...

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Oct 17 at 2015 2:05 AM

2015-10-17T02:05:07-04:00

When you require a psychological test before granting a driver license, then maybe.
When you require a psychological test before granting a marriage license, then maybe.
When you require a psychological test before granting a pilot license, then maybe.
When you require a psychological test before granting a teaching license, then maybe.
When you require a psychological test before granting a law license, then maybe.
Or, doctor, nurse, policeman, fireman, postman, need I go on.

But, on second thought, never. ("...congress shall make no law...")

Response by SGT Richard H. made Oct 30 at 2015 1:58 PM

2015-10-30T13:58:35-04:00

Then the next step is what? Annual psych tests to KEEP your firearms? It sounds alot like just another mechanism to erode the rights outlined in the Constitution.

What if we all just read, understand, and abide by the Constitution?