Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Jan 19, '13 at 1:48pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,262 posts

Are we talking about regular check ups or check ups necessary to own a gun? I'm talking about regular check ups that aren't being done to own a gun.
are your regular checks that already happen. or regular checks that are done to see if the person should still be allowed to have a gun?

Can you even name situation where you wouldn't be allowed to have a gun because a doctor doesn't see you fit enough to do so?

i wouldn't give a gun to someone whit parkinson. or somnambulism. or
some other kind of disorder that could make it risky.

Unreliable? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, but autism doesn't make people violent or psychotic.

one of those things i dont know the right words to describe. thats why i didn't try. sorry.

I can see the problem with crimes, but if someone wants to kill themself and no one else, I would let them. Freedom of choice.

if your going to give that option, then you have to defend euthanasia. not gun controle. suicide is illegal in many countries.

The seller should be smart enough, and if not, he needs only give a little quiz.

right... you really think this is enough? why dont we just drop them across country like it happens in africa? GUNS FOR EVERYONE!!!!

But we usually don't put idiots in charge of practical things where the needed criteria is bloomingly obvious.

you dont know truckers then. xD

but it's not something that should be reported to the government
a government organization hands out the driving license. they dont hand out the license if you did not pass the examine once.
i dont think they actually get to know the rapport of the test. just if they pass it yes or no. same can be done whit guns.

A check up will not determine if someone is going to use their gun to commit crimes or suicide.

a psychological test can determine suicide ideas.
a background check on friends, family and home/school/work surroundings can determine a risk that it will be used in a crime.

99.99% of people who get a check up to own a gun will pass.

then there is something wrong whit the checks.

It's just not worth the time, money, and resources.

think of the jobs that open up.

Unless we actually have a problem with the aforementioned people obtaining guns and doing harm with them, the checkups should be out of the question.

the checkups is part of the bureaucracy pain that can keep people from buying a gun. whitout them we might just aswell change nothing.
 

Posted Jan 19, '13 at 3:19pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,266 posts

Knight

a psychological test can determine suicide ideas.
a background check on friends, family and home/school/work surroundings can determine a risk that it will be used in a crime.


People who are depressed aren't necisarily going to commit suicide. If a depressed person goes out of their way to get tested so they can buy a gun to kill themselves with, they will not act suicidal while being tested.

Tests can't reveal intentions.

Requiring people to go through tests before they're allowed to buy a gun would be as useful as the TSA, and that's to say, not useful at all.

As I said before, the only thing rarer than people with aforementioned issues are people with aforementioned issues trying to buy a gun. It's such an uncommon occurrence that we really don't have to worry about testing people to buy guns.

We tell someone they need to be tested before they buy a gun. All they have to do is not talk about killing anyone and they pass. Let's be honest, we might as well hand them a piece of paper and ask, "Do you plan on killing yourself or others?" and have a check box yes or no.

think of the jobs that open up.


I'm guessing you're pulling my leg.
 

Posted Jan 19, '13 at 4:33pm

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,855 posts

Precisely. How can some idiotic check up prevent bad people getting guns? That argument has more holes than Swiss cheese.

 

Posted Jan 19, '13 at 4:42pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

Unless we actually have a problem with the aforementioned people obtaining guns and doing harm with them, the checkups should be out of the question.


I was thinking that it would just be a one time thing when applying for a gun permit. Not constant checkups.

The criteria that would prohibit someone from owning a gun would be so ridiculously rare, it's a non-issue. Anger issues is the most common, but even people with anger issues are seldom committing crimes.


Even so, I think it's better to be safe than sorry. Simply having the procedures in place will reduce the amount of guns out there, since people won't want to go through with it unless they really want to own a gun.

I agree that it's not the legal gun owners committing crimes, but it is still a small factor from them as well.

What we need is better control over the illegal guns out there, for the most part.

I realize that term is what many Americans use, however I do infact find it offensive, I would prefer if you used something along the lines of hadicapped.


Offensive or no...that's what's in the DSM. I don't think the word itself is offensive, although it can be used in offensive ways.

Perhaps I'm not following, but how does one know if someone is reasonably stable to own a gun if there is no primary background check.


Pretty much where I'm at. Guns aren't harmless toys for anyone to go out and buy. Freedoms or no, if you want to own one, you should acknowledge the danger they pose in the hands of someone who will misuse it and go through the system for the good of the whole. Sure it's annoying, but so is getting a driver's license (which is a whole other thing I'm not going to rant about here).

People who are depressed aren't necisarily going to commit suicide. If a depressed person goes out of their way to get tested so they can buy a gun to kill themselves with, they will not act suicidal while being tested.


Was more of thinking risk factors, such as previous suicide attempts and bipolar disorder. Not a stupid question, "are you depressed" or something.

That's like asking if someone lies...

Tests can't reveal intentions.


But background checks can reveal things about people, such as their judgement, tendencies to get into violent situations, how responsible they are, things like that.

Requiring people to go through tests before they're allowed to buy a gun would be as useful as the TSA, and that's to say, not useful at all.


TSA is a whole other matter. There's millions more people every day that they have to process than a one time background check.

We tell someone they need to be tested before they buy a gun. All they have to do is not talk about killing anyone and they pass. Let's be honest, we might as well hand them a piece of paper and ask, "Do you plan on killing yourself or others?" and have a check box yes or no.


We have different ideas of what said test/background check includes then. A pitiful excuse for bureaucracy like that I would argue against too.
 

Posted Jan 19, '13 at 5:04pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,262 posts

We have different ideas of what said test/background check includes then.

if they think the questions are straight and all only takes 10 mins. then i understand they think it wont help. that would be just stupid and ofcours 99% will pass such a test/background check.
 

Posted Jan 19, '13 at 5:20pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,266 posts

Knight

Even so, I think it's better to be safe than sorry. Simply having the procedures in place will reduce the amount of guns out there, since people won't want to go through with it unless they really want to own a gun.

I agree that it's not the legal gun owners committing crimes, but it is still a small factor from them as well.


To suggest it's better to be safe than to be sorry is to assume the means of being safe are acceptable. I believe the means are unacceptable. It's not worth bothering people about to maintain this extra tiny amount of safety.

Pretty much where I'm at. Guns aren't harmless toys for anyone to go out and buy. Freedoms or no, if you want to own one, you should acknowledge the danger they pose in the hands of someone who will misuse it and go through the system for the good of the whole. Sure it's annoying, but so is getting a driver's license (which is a whole other thing I'm not going to rant about here).


I'm okay with background checks. Guns shouldn't be sold to ex convicts or people with a violent criminal record.

I'm just concerned with how the government gathers information and the criteria they set.
 

Posted Jan 19, '13 at 7:04pm

Getoffmydangle

Getoffmydangle

151 posts

@noname
you asked a few pages ago why doctors would report if someone's family members had guns.
The answer is because when a doctor suspects that someone poses a danger to themselves or others, part of the assessment is to determine 'access to lethal means.' Obviously, guns in the home represents access to lethal means. That is why they would have to ask, then doctors become mandated reporters and have to report this information to the authorities. Thats just the way it is. Its whats known as 'limits of confidentiality.'

In response to your skeptisim about a check up or evaluation of some sort as a gateway to gun purchasing: what about if it included a drug test?

Also, you mentioned anger problems and crimes. Crimes are very, very frequently committed by people with anger problems. Not all people with anger problems commit crimes, but crimes are committed by people with anger problems. If you need proof of that, even though it seems incredibly common sense to me, look at the mental illness rates in youth and adult penal institutions, its overwhelming. And personally, I have worked with a lot of parolees, and they are an angry angry bunch.

 

Posted Jan 19, '13 at 7:14pm

Getoffmydangle

Getoffmydangle

151 posts

A huge part of the gun control problem in this country is black/grey market and illegal gun sales. Politicians funded by the NRA wrote legislation to completely declaw the AFT (bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms). The ATF has had the same number of agents for a really long time despite an exponential growth in their job duties. They currently have enough staff to check up on gun retailers once ever 17 years! The ATF hasn't even had a full-time director is 6 years. Thanks republicans and the NRA.
Ironically, it is the NRA and those same politicians they funded, who are now saying, in an effort to prevent any further gun control measures, that we should simply enforce the existing laws and not write new ones. However, it is the legislation THEY wrote that IS CURRENTLY preventing the existing laws from being enforced!
Its just a game to them. Meanwhile tens of thousands of people in this country are shot and killed every year.

 

Posted Jan 19, '13 at 7:20pm

Getoffmydangle

Getoffmydangle

151 posts

What we need is some common sense!
Lets start with this: There is currently no federal law prohibiting the sale of firearms to people who are intoxicated! Who besides the NRA and cletus (the moonshining redneck from the simpsons) would object to that?!
C'mon man!

 

Posted Jan 19, '13 at 8:27pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,266 posts

Knight

you asked a few pages ago why doctors would report if someone's family members had guns.
The answer is because when a doctor suspects that someone poses a danger to themselves or others, part of the assessment is to determine 'access to lethal means.' Obviously, guns in the home represents access to lethal means. That is why they would have to ask, then doctors become mandated reporters and have to report this information to the authorities. Thats just the way it is. Its whats known as 'limits of confidentiality.'


If a doctor honestly believes a patient or another person is in danger for one reason or another, it would be appropriate for the doctor to break patient confidentiality.

If the patient doesn't seem to pose a threat to themselves or anyone else, there is no reason the doctor should inform the government as to whether they have a firearm or not.

In response to your skeptisim about a check up or evaluation of some sort as a gateway to gun purchasing: what about if it included a drug test?


I don't think there are enough people who use drugs that would result in extreme acts of violence to warrant a drug test. Of course, if someone has a criminal record for hard drug abuse (such as meth), then I'm okay with them being refused their right to buy a gun.

Also, you mentioned anger problems and crimes. Crimes are very, very frequently committed by people with anger problems. Not all people with anger problems commit crimes, but crimes are committed by people with anger problems.


Yes, anger issues can resort to gun violence. But, what would testing these people accomplish? Let's say we do test everyone, what do we do with the people who have anger issues? Do we refuse them the right to buy a gun? If we allow people with anger issues to buy guns, then it would be rather pointless to use the test as a means of keeping guns out of angry people's hands. If you believe people with anger issues shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun, then allow me to remind you that most people with anger issues don't kill people.

What we need is some common sense!
Lets start with this: There is currently no federal law prohibiting the sale of firearms to people who are intoxicated! Who besides the NRA and cletus (the moonshining redneck from the simpsons) would object to that?!
C'mon man!


How often do intoxicated people buy guns and go on a shooting spree the same night? Is it really an issue worth addressing? If it is, then I would agree that we should prohibit intoxicated people from buying guns.

The problem with gun deaths stem from gangs. Such a large portion of gun crimes are criminal on criminal.
 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!