First off, i am a strong proponet of second amendment rights, being a firearm owner myself. I do however believe that there should be more regulations controlling who can purchase them. The shootings over the past year at virginia tech and at northern illinois have made me think that maybe there should be a mandatory psychological evaluation required to purchase a firearm.

Both shooters purchased the firearms used legally, as far as i understand. It seems to me that any qualified mental health professional would be able to determine that these people were not mentally stable and were not intending to use these weapons for recreational purposes.

would these measures be unconstitutional? Are conditions for firearm purchase like this feasible, or have they been thought of and tried before? I could not find any information relating to mental health and gun control.

discuss

2/25/2008 2:39:50 PM

TSB?

there area a few threads in there....

2/25/2008 2:41:49 PM

I kinda agree with you...

I mean go to any gun show and you'll be able to point out at least a dozen people that make you nervous knowing they have firearms

2/25/2008 2:42:45 PM

/message_search.aspx?type=topic§ion=4&searchstring=gun&username=&usertype=match&sortby=date&sortorder=descending&page=

2/25/2008 2:43:23 PM

^sorry about that, didn't think to look at the soap box, i'm no tww pro. searched the other lounge threads and thought this was separate

2/25/2008 2:51:10 PM

its all good

2/25/2008 2:52:15 PM

you have to go through a background check to get a gun... if you have a history of mental illness you cannot get a gun.

Would your supposed "solution" stop the first time psycho? Perhaps that's what these folks were? They both had clean records...

2/25/2008 2:52:19 PM

i think more critical than a criminal background check would be a psych evaluation by a licensed professional

i honestly think that if each person looking to purchase a firearm was evaluated, more of these shootings could be avoided. These people have to be going through a lot of inner turmoil and anguish to be at the point where they are going to go on a shooting rampage. i would be shocked if a trained clinical psychologist would not see the instability in these people the majority of the time.

2/25/2008 2:57:12 PM

Quote :

"you have to go through a background check to get a gun"

not at gun shows in VA. there was a law being backed in the state house, but failed in the state senate. you don't have to get a background check at gun shows here.

2/25/2008 2:59:01 PM

Quote :

"i honestly think that if each person looking to purchase a firearm was evaluated, more of these shootings could be avoided. These people have to be going through a lot of inner turmoil and anguish to be at the point where they are going to go on a shooting rampage."

The problem that I have with this is that you have now given decision making ability to a group of people who is not, in any way, accountable to the public and whose professional organization, the American Psychological Association is on record as saying: "The American Psychiatric Association recommends that strong controls be placed on the availability of all types of firearms to private citizens."

I'm not saying I have a solution yet, and I see where you're coming from, but I'm not willing to ceede that much legal power to a private organization.

2/25/2008 3:04:05 PM

Quote :

"if you have a history of mental illness you cannot get a gun. "

No.

If you have been committed to a psych ward, you're not allowed to get a gun. Technically. Never mind that many states don't release that data.

A history of mental illness itself doesn't mean you can't have a gun. There are provisions in place to have someone declared unfit to own a gun, but it's not an automatic thing. If it were, it would be that having ever been diagnosed with something as simple as minor depression 15 years ago would mean you can't legally have a gun. Or post-partum depression. Or OCD. Or a phobia. Or an eating disorder.

Wanting to eventually own a gun, but having been committed to the psych ward when I was 12 and 4 times after that, I am not legally allowed to own a gun. I've looked into this, and having had the childhood I did and seen some of the crap I've seen...by god, I shudder to think of how some of the people I was in with may have turned out. It's a good starting point, but there just isn't the manpower to allow for things to be decided on a case-by-case basis. You can't require every potential gun owner to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. I see both sides of the argument.

And even if you could, it's easy to fool a professional whose never met you before (FFS, I did it enough as a kid, and it's especially easy when they're overworked...which they often are when working in a public capacity), and just because nothing's wrong when a gun is purchased doesn't mean that would change.

2/25/2008 3:04:08 PM

^^i definitely agree with you on giving them that power, i had not heard of them making a statement to that affect.

^i know the logistics behind this type of regulation would be near impossible, and i know what a difficult and demanding field it is having a sister as a social worker and a close family friend as a clinical therapist, just throwing it out there as an idea. like i said, i don't know if this has been discussed/attempted before. i know this type of regulation would not prevent people from purchasing guns, and then years later commiting crimes, but these people purchased these weapons almost immediately prior to using them in these shooting sprees. i realize some people could get around this, but i believe the majority would show tell-tale signs

2/25/2008 3:15:32 PM

you cant control me

2/25/2008 3:18:42 PM

i know a couple of people that have mental conditions that legally own firearms

2/25/2008 3:27:27 PM

Quote :

"i think more critical than a criminal background check would be a psych evaluation by a licensed professional"

Licensed by whom? Presumably, some level of government.

Yet, if you asked me whether I would prefer to be in a mixed room of psychologist-approved 'normal' people with weapons along with some random unarmed people, and a group fully composed of unchecked people with weapons.....I'd go with the unchecked folks without hesitation.

I've had people come into my home and be seriously frightened when they noticed I was carrying. A more rational response is the opposite - I'm much more afraid in a packed, small classroom where nobody is armed.

[Edited on February 25, 2008 at 3:35 PM. Reason : a]

2/25/2008 3:34:52 PM

Quote :

"I mean go to any gun show and you'll be able to point out at least a dozen people that make you nervous knowing they have firearms"

They have just as much right to be nervous about not having a gun as you do to be nervous about them having guns.

Quote :

"i think more critical than a criminal background check would be a psych evaluation by a licensed professional"

So it will end up costing $3,000 to buy a $200 gun.

I guess you think a killer is going to be deterred by not having a gun. People will just find a different way to do whatever they are going to do.

[Edited on February 25, 2008 at 3:42 PM. Reason : l]

2/25/2008 3:41:57 PM

^^

Quote :

"The practice of clinical psychology requires a license in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and many other countries. Although each of the U.S. states is somewhat different in terms of requirements and licenses, there are three common elements:[21] 1. Graduation from an accredited school with the appropriate degree 2. Completion of supervised clinical experience 3. Passing a written examination and, in some states, an oral examination"

this is who i'm talking about

Quote :

"Yet, if you asked me whether I would prefer to be in a mixed room of psychologist-approved 'normal' people with weapons along with some random unarmed people, and a group fully composed of unchecked people with weapons.....I'd go with the unchecked folks without hesitation. I've had people come into my home and be seriously frightened when they noticed I was carrying. A more rational response is the opposite - I'm much more afraid in a packed, small classroom where nobody is armed."

not sure what point you're trying to get at here

[Edited on February 25, 2008 at 3:45 PM. Reason : ^^]

2/25/2008 3:44:59 PM

Quote :

""I mean go to any gun show and you'll be able to point out at least a dozen people that make you nervous knowing they have firearms""

Well, that nervousness is completely unfounded, as mass murders only happen in groups of unarmed people. Period.

They may be irresponsible gun-owners outside of that gun show, and you may rightly worry about them outside of it. But inside the show they will not do a thing and you are not in danger.

What does that say? Maybe that the rest of society outside the gunshow should look a whole lot more like inside it. When everyone is armed, everyone is safe.

2/25/2008 3:47:01 PM

Quote :

"not sure what point you're trying to get at here"

I'm saying

Group 1: Some armed, some not. The armed folks have been checked by licensed psychologists.

Group 2: Everyone is armed, and none have been checked by psychologists.

I'm saying that I would feel far more safe in the company of group 2 than group 1.

The point is that society is safer when individual rights are recognized, rather than regulated.

2/25/2008 3:49:54 PM

Quote :

"So it will end up costing $3,000 to buy a $200 gun. I guess you think a killer is going to be deterred by not having a gun. People will just find a different way to do whatever they are going to do."

i don't think it costs $3,000 to get a psychiatric evaluation, but i could be wrong. the idea is that if this became mandatory, that it would be subsidized by the government.

i understand that people are going to do what they are going to do, but by regulating them purchasing firearms you can limit the number of innocent victims. it would be a lot harder to strangle or stab 30 people to death on a college campus, than to shoot them.

2/25/2008 3:53:33 PM

Quote :

"i understand that people are going to do what they are going to do, but by regulating them purchasing firearms you can limit the number of innocent victims. it would be a lot harder to strangle or stab 30 people to death on a college campus, than to shoot them. "

Remember, those 30 that died were unarmed because of the type of gun control you appear to like. If there was only one responsible gun owner in that classroom, the vast majority of those kids would be alive.

What could be a worse decision than to know there are these mass-murderer types out there who can get guns easily (legal or not), and then place large signs on the property, "NO WEAPONS ALLOWED!" And then, pack everyone into tight little bunches of unarmed people. This is lunacy.

There is one thing that all criminals fear: an armed target.

There are 100 million firearms in the US, at least, and unless you plan on confiscating them all - the black market will always be readily available for murderers like this. That is unchangeable, and it is just plain denial to believe you can keep weapons away from crazy people in the US. Disarming the victims does no good.

Do you place a sign outside your house saying "This is a gun-free zone"? No? Why? Because it would invite every criminal on the block. Same thing goes with college campuses.

[Edited on February 25, 2008 at 4:05 PM. Reason : a]

2/25/2008 4:01:30 PM

I think the argument here is that criminals =/= emotionally disturbed individuals.

2/25/2008 4:03:42 PM

imo, the point is, all it would have taken in these cases was a psychological background check, not a whole new exam.

In most cases, that is against the law now. Its a simple, cheap and easy change, that would prevent people with a history of mental instability from legally obtaining firearms

2/25/2008 4:06:37 PM

Quote :

"In most cases, that is against the law now. Its a simple, cheap and easy change, that would prevent people with a history of mental instability from legally obtaining firearms"

But, it would not prevent anyone with a history of mental instability from obtaining firearms, which is the only question that matters. Criminals, by definition, do not mind doing things illegally.

And like I said, with 100 million+ firearms in the US, it is simply not possible to keep anyone from getting a gun.

[Edited on February 25, 2008 at 4:10 PM. Reason : a]

2/25/2008 4:09:42 PM

i'm pretty sure you can not blame the fact that these people that were killed were unarmed on my theoretical idea for gun control. nothing i am suggesting would "theoretically" have prevented any of them from purchasing a gun, they made a choice not to purchase one or chose to follow the rules and not be carrying them on their respective campuses.


no, there will always be a black market for firearms regardless of the regulations controlling their sales. i'm suggesting that there are ways to make it more difficult for someone who is psychologically unstable to purchase a firearm. currently, the only thing stopping them is a criminal background check and a history of being committed to a mental institution as ambrosia added.

2/25/2008 4:10:31 PM

Quote :

"or chose to follow the rules and not be carrying them on their respective campuses."

And following the rules got them killed. The rules are the problem.

2/25/2008 4:12:13 PM

Quote :

"But, it would not prevent anyone with a history of mental instability from obtaining firearms, which is the only question that matters. Criminals, by definition, do not mind doing things illegally. "

well, it's silly in the first place to think that we can ever end illegal possession....it be just like the war on drugs.

all a total gun ban would do is keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

2/25/2008 4:15:08 PM

my point is that those people would not have been in any danger had the shooter not had a weapon to fire on them with. if you address the problem of the psychologically unstable shooter, then it doesn't matter what the rules are about carrying on campus.

2/25/2008 4:15:42 PM

Peakfan is making a reasonable point. American society, largely until the 1950s, was a geographically stable society. You knew most people in your town and most of them knew you. You weren't going to let the town nutjob get his hands on a gun. This self-regulating system has dissapated with the mobility of modern society. The question becomes, how do you make it as difficult as possible for mentally unbalanced people to obtain firearms?

2/25/2008 4:19:43 PM

Quote :

"i don't think it costs $3,000 to get a psychiatric evaluation, but i could be wrong. the idea is that if this became mandatory, that it would be subsidized by the government."

The actual cost isn't that important. The point is that it would be a huge waste of money. Where do you think the government gets it's money? If they are subsidizing it then the people who don't want any guns are picking up the bill for those that do. It's just a poor use of money all the way around.

Quote :

"it would be a lot harder to strangle or stab 30 people to death on a college campus, than to shoot them."

If it weren't for guns these people might have dabbled with explosives which could have done a lot worse.

I personally think our society is better off with guns in the hands of good/normal people. Placing ridiculous limits on them will only affect the good people. The criminal/psycho world will get theirs either way.

2/25/2008 4:48:11 PM

2/25/2008 4:56:50 PM

Quote :

"my point is that those people would not have been in any danger had the shooter not had a weapon to fire on them with. if you address the problem of the psychologically unstable shooter, then it doesn't matter what the rules are about carrying on campus."

ah yes because laws would stop him from obtaining a firearm. that or maybe he would have just made a bunch of pipe bombs instead and taken out more people. more regulation is definitely the key to safety

2/25/2008 5:08:41 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

2/25/2008 5:16:13 PM

Quote :

"If they are subsidizing it then the people who don't want any guns are picking up the bill for those that do. It's just a poor use of money all the way around."

you think those people are willing to pay so they are more confident that they won't be killed in a shooting rampage by an unstable person?


the thing is, i'm not talking about criminals, i'm talking about mentally unstable people who up and decide that the world sucks and they are going to kill a bunch of people in response. yes, any of these people could have gone and bought some fertilizer and made bombs that killed hundreds of people, but that takes time and planning. what i'm talking about is control to deter psychologically unstable people from impulsively buying guns and shooting people

i believe that everyone who has a desire and is mentally stable should own a gun, like i said, i am a firearm owner, but that doesn't mean i'm not concerned about who else can purchase one

2/25/2008 5:39:35 PM

if somebody really wants to go on a shooting spree, they are going to get a gun one way or another

besides, who cares about being concerned about who else can purchase a gun...its the people who cant purchase guns legally who are already buying them illegally in the streets who want to use a gun more often than not that we should be more concerned about

2/25/2008 5:59:05 PM

^ wait, are you suggesting a logical solution to illegal gun violence? How dare you. Next thing I know you'll start quoting the myriad of unreported stories of folks preventing crime through legal private firearm ownership. And that's just not fair to the criminals, how will they practice their profession safely if they always have to worry about getting shot?

2/25/2008 6:39:55 PM

Nah, dude. The Bill of Rights is totally multiple choice

2/26/2008 12:21:07 AM

eh, the entire Constitution isn't worth the paper it's printed on, as best as I can tell.

2/26/2008 12:31:49 AM

schools are drug free too.

maybe we should get rid of that as well.

when drugs are illegal only the drug dealers have DRUGS!!!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAAARRRGGGGGGGGGG

2/26/2008 8:33:15 AM

Ending the war on drugs actually is a fucking great idea, by the way, given how much money and how laughably unsuccessful it is.

As for gun control, either we stop getting our panties in a wad every time something like this happens or we come up with ways to stop giving loonies weapons. Yea, maybe homeboy could have gone to downtown detroit and gotten the same arsenal, but thats unlikely.

2/26/2008 10:31:33 AM

Just checking. Did you say it was unlikely that he could go to downtown detroit to buy his arsenal because he would have been robbed at gun-point if he tried? Or were you discussing something other than just how fucked up detroit is?

2/26/2008 12:20:39 PM

for supposedly a free country we sure do ban a lot of stuff and/or want to ban stuff

online gambling
guns
cigarettes
marijuana
certain kinds of liquor
"offensive" content on cable tv

2/26/2008 12:25:15 PM

half of those have fatality rates associated with them, the other half are stupid and shouldn't be regulated.

2/26/2008 12:29:59 PM

Well I mean

My in depth research

by which I mean watching the movie 8 mile

Showed me that a white guy surviving in urban Detroit is unlikely

Unless he has mad rapping skills

Which this kid doesnt.

2/26/2008 12:50:58 PM

lmao

2/26/2008 1:38:35 PM

Quote :

"The question becomes, how do you make it as difficult as possible for mentally unbalanced people to obtain firearms? "

Don't let mentally unbalanced people into society. I know this is an unpopular opinion in this day and age but simply put, if you are worried that a particular person is not capable of using the rights that they have while a free person then they should not be a free person. PERIOD. It's the same problem I have with "registered sex offenders" and the like. Either a person is capable of being a functioning member of society or they aren't. If they're not, then lock them up or get them a baby sitter, if they are then leave them the fuck alone.

2/26/2008 5:42:24 PM

^
while I agree with you in regards to sex offenders, (who have actually harmed people)

there is really no connection between "mentally different" people and violence, gun or otherwise

that's just bigotry, PLAIN AND SIMPLE

and your suggestion that tens of millions of americans should be jailed because they aren't mentally "normal"

is a fucking insult to the entire anti-sanism / mad pride movement

and a clear indicator of your rampant and ignorant disregard for everything that is good and decent

fuck you sir

you should be ashamed

2/26/2008 6:25:35 PM

To be fair, he did say:

Quote :

"Either a person is capable of being a functioning member of society or they aren't"

Which is very, very true.


Now, he did fail to stipulate that said members of society must not only function, but function well, legally, and in manner that doesn't harm others.

2/26/2008 6:32:31 PM

he said

Quote :

"if you are worried that a particular person.......[something, anything, terrorism even]......then they should not be a free person. PERIOD"

worried?


worried?

2/26/2008 6:37:10 PM

Pretty sure he didn't mean it literally

Seeing as how there'd have to be processes you have to go through to get someone committed/removed from society, and one person's worry alone isn't enough to remove someone from society.

OH WAIT
THERE ARE SUCH PROCESSES

2/26/2008 6:38:38 PM