Gun opinion should or shouldn't?

Question

I'm just seeing what other people think. I think every person triing to aquire a CCW should need to at least get a simple phych questionnaire, and I think every sane American should have a firearm. And last I think the government needs less say in the world of firearms.

If your just gonna answer that guns are dangerous and that they kill ppl. Don't answer cause guns are only a mechanical device that requires a human to load it, chamber the round, and then pull the trigger. So just don't answer.

Answer 1

Every person?...... No - Not really..... Some folks are not comfortable with firearms.... Some aren't responsible enough and some folks are just plain clumsy.......



Don't misunderstand..... All my family members own firearms as well as most of my friends....... But lets be real here..... You and I know enough goofballs in life where I surely wouldn't feel comfortable with them owning a firearm.......



I surely believe in the Second Amendment and council regular folks to exercise that right to own a gun....... But the reality is there are enough drunks, druggies, wishy washy people and clumsy folks around that I surely wouldn't want them armed......

Answer 2

Lime Green's comments about the DSM and psychology in general are very true- psychology is an incredibly inexact science. Do you want to be labeled as having a psychological disorder because one person sees one of your behaviors as being evidence, while others might not? Yes, there have been strides in the field, but not to the point where I'd trust my freedom to them.



Every sane American should have a firearm? Does that include sane Americans who knowingly and willingly commit crimes? You don't have to be insane to commit a crime; simply lacking a moral compass can do that. Sanity is a very tenuous, undefined concept anyway.



The government needs less say when it comes to firearms? Yes, and no. Yes, they should have less say in what firearms are restricted or not restricted. No, the Federal government should not have less say in who may own a firearm. I'm quite content with felons not being allowed to own firearms, and I definitely don't want a bunch of 13-year-old kids owning Glocks.



Sounds like you're just trolling, honestly. Maybe not, but if you are, go away. We don't serve your kind here.

Answer 3

No, and your first answerer has a good point. My Co worker just shot his leg with a Kimber Pro Carry 2 .45 acp! He's a real "Man about town" and was a bit tipsy and board. So he thought it would be fun to point the gun around his house, then when he went to put it back in his pocket BANG. Went in below the knee and came out by the ankle. Doctors said he clipped 2 arteries and is probably going to be loosing his foot. Everybody at work feels horrible because we were nicknaming him Peg Leg... That stopped real fast after the latest news from his doctor.



So yeah some people who can legally own a gun shouldn't if they don't have enough control over themselves to know when to stop drinking or when not to have a gun handy like when your drunk. But I believe the Government should not be the one to judge it.



If a Psych check is done and backed up by the Government, especially this administration or heaven forbid Bloomberg's New York. Everybody in this country would be "Questionable" enough to be denied. Now making your background check do a psych history check may be a different thing, but still it could be iffy.

Answer 4

Problem is, people can pass a psych questionnaire one day and be nuttier than a peanut butter crunch with extra nuts in it a month later. And don't forget the people that can pass a doctor administered psych eval, and still be nuts at the time of taking it. Then what?



I'm all for those that want guns to own them, and those that want CCW permits to apply for them. I do not EVER want what happened in Australia to happen here in the USA. While Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms, we here in America do, so their current gun ban, is something I would NOT want to ever see happen here in the USA.

Answer 5

The government should have less say,but sane Americans have to have a firearm and you have to ask the government for a CCW? Sounds like more government control to me.

Answer 6

The problem with requiring a "simple psych questionnaire" is that somebody has to score it and make a decision. That person may be biased, wrong, or not your friend. Also, psychiatrists are terrible at predicting things like who's going to commit suicide: there's a huge volume of medical literature to prove it. They decide on things like that not because they're good at it, but because there's nobody else.

Answer 7

Here's my problem with your assertion: Psychological evaluation is NOT an exact science; It is based heavily upon the OPINION of the evaluator.



Further, the DSM is NOT written strictly by psychologists -- it is written by a committee, many of whom represent financial interests (such as the pharmaceutical companies making psychotropics that now "just happen" to be cures for "defined disorders" -- see how that works?) and not medical ones.



Therefore, I assert that the entire psychological discipline is rife with potential for bias and abuse, and therefore should NOT be used to gauge whether or not an individual may exercise a civil right.



And I'll let you in on a little secret -- just becuase someone has a mental disorder does NOT automatically make them crazy. Some of us are actually BETTER able to work or live in certain environments BECAUSE of what could be classified as a "mental disorder".



Take my line of work for example. The kind of things Medics deal with on a daily basis would make most "normal, well-adjusted" people lose their lunch. They react "normally" to horror and pain and death. WE DON'T. We treat it as "Business as usual."



Some folks gain this perspective by acclimation, others are just "well suited for the job."



There are those who would say there's something WRONG with us.



But, as one of my old medic instructors pointed out: "Of COURSE there's something wrong with all of us! We react ABNORMALLY to situations every single day! We HAVE to, IT'S OUR JOB! But it takes a special kind of crazy to do what we do. What's wrong with us allows to do what's right. And that's part of why we do it."



So before you go trying to make a judgment call regarding sanity, understand that it's not that simple, and having a minor disorder, or even being bat-snot nuts about something may not preclude the exercise of the civil right of arms for self defense.



What I'm saying is, be VERY careful about recommending "requirements" based upon soft sciences -- they can be abused to the point of being the very discriminatory laws that gun control was originally set up to be (to disarm recently freed slaves -- go ahead, look it up.)



So while I agree that everyone should keep and bear arms to the best of their judgment, I disagree that the government should psychologically "evaluate" those before licensure -- for personal carry.



For professional carry, it's a bit different. The liability is different. Psych evals have been in place for those who carry firearms related to work for about 35 years now. And you know what? I'm going to say I'm not particularly impressed, considering how many situations I've PERSONALLY been in where someone who has been certified "sane" goes screwy, as in, "Hi, I'm here to take you to the Crisis Center" screwy.



Because the guy doing the transporting?



That was ME.



I've seen a lot of this stuff firsthand, which is a good part of the reason why my faith in psychologists and psychiatrists is pretty much in the toilet. Because they're perfectly okay with writing a diagnosis or a scrip and then leaving me alone to take care of the patient -- because they seem to think their answer is the entire answer for a very complex human being's behavior.



And I'll tell you from personal experience - THAT AIN'T SO.



"Why is he in restraints?" "Because you misevaluated him, doctor." "That's not possible." "Oh? I'll just let him out and you can evaluate him again without me and the five security guys here." "That won't be necessary..."



Yeah. No psych evals, please.

Answer 8

Psych tests are crap. Seriously. You do the questions then they need to be vetted by a psych anyway, so what it comes down to is 1 persons opinion on your sane-ness.



You really want to trust your right to a CCW to someone's opinion of you based on a 4 hour test and a 20 minute interview? I don't.

Answer 9

No, I don't think everyone having a ccw is a great idea. If we were in cowboy era, then yeah because there's no 911 and your gun is the only thing that's going to protect you.



With that said, I think this is difficult to answer without offending every person so all I'll say is I'm just glad not everyone is armed.

Answer 10

Even though some people may be sane when they purchase a weapon, it doesn't mean that they aren't going to use it responsibly. That's how gangsters and criminals do it. But either way, it will help. It's weird how the some of the worst shootings are done by mentally unstable people rather than organized gangsters. This is especially relevant to The Columbine Massacre and The Aurora Theatre shootings.

Answer 11

Owning a weapon is a personal choice. Forcing every american to have a weapon is no different than forcing them to plant a mandatory garden or force them to live in a brick house only.

America is about freedom of choice.

Answer 12

No. Government should not be able to tell you to carry a weapon or that you can't have a weapon. Should the government require everyone to drive a Yugo? same type of thing.