Posted on Oct 4, 2015
Would it make a difference if potential gun owners were given a "psychological" test?
15.7K
148
149
5
5
0
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.
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.
Posted in these groups: 
Gun Control
2nd Amendment
Gun Control 2nd Amendment
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 54
14
14
0
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.
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.
(14)
(0)
Sgt Ken Prescott
MAJ Ron Peery - Easier said than done, because the same people screaming about crazy people getting guns roadblock anything that would release information on mental illness outside of the medical community.
The point is that these people do NOT, repeat, DO NOT want to fix the actual problem. They want to inflict pain on you until you accept their "fix" to what they claim the "problem" is.
The point is that these people do NOT, repeat, DO NOT want to fix the actual problem. They want to inflict pain on you until you accept their "fix" to what they claim the "problem" is.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Two comments, the second amendment does NOT give you the right to own a firearm, it prohibits the Government from infringing on your right.
Second rights are not privileges and any right can be taken from you by due process of law. (a court order after a trial) Restricting rights via a psychological exam is blatantly unconstitutional.
Second rights are not privileges and any right can be taken from you by due process of law. (a court order after a trial) Restricting rights via a psychological exam is blatantly unconstitutional.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
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?
(7)
(0)
MAJ Ron Peery
I down voted you for making the assumption that these tests can weed out all the bad apples. They don't. And for being willing to sacrifice my rights (and yours, and everyone elses, to be "a little safer." I honestly feel safer in a community where I know everyone carries a gun than I do in places like Chicago, or DC, or Kansas City.
(1)
(1)
Sgt Kelli Mays
MAJ Ron Peery - and I voted you down for assuming they cannot help...since it has not been tried yet, you have no idea if THEY WILL OR WILL NOT help. How very negative of you...IF THINGS ARE NOT EVER TRIED then we will NEVER KNOW IF THEY WILL EVER WORK....and besides I never said or indicated all of the bad apples...I just asked I wonder if it can HELP?
Seriously, THIS IS NOT A REASON to give me THUMBS down....
Seriously, THIS IS NOT A REASON to give me THUMBS down....
(0)
(0)
Sgt Kelli Mays
MAJ (Join to see) - This I have no answer for...but the point is....if it has not been tried then we'll never know these answers.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Ron Peery
Fair enough on the down vote. What I wonder, on this thread and others, is why you and others are so willing to apply this kind of nonsense to the hundreds of millions of gun owners who are no threat to anyone, but will not do what is necessary to control the people who are a proven threat. Inconvenience gun owners? So what? Make gun owners take tests? Sure. Make it prohibitively expensive for gun owners to exercise their rights? Why not? But when it comes to putting the records of people identified as a threat on the NICS, well, that's a violation of doctor/patient privilege. Before you start making new rules, and messing with folks rights, why not at least try to make the current system work?
Oh, by the way, how much would your idea cost?
Oh, by the way, how much would your idea cost?
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
Sgt Kelli Mays
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?
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?
(7)
(0)
Sgt Kelli Mays
yes...I know these questions are asked. Psychological testing can be specifically made for a specific issue/thing. It could filter out potential bad risk candidates for gun owner ship.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Sgt Kelli Mays, " Psychological testing can be specifically made for a specific issue/thing"
If written with an ideological agenda in mind, do you think that the testing could be used to deny private citizens in general from owning guns?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
If written with an ideological agenda in mind, do you think that the testing could be used to deny private citizens in general from owning guns?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
(3)
(0)
MAJ Ron Peery
Capt Seid Waddell - You mean like the VA declaring anyone with problems managing their money as mentally defective?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google