A new thought on acceptable gun control.

[Atypical Liberal]

Many of you have seen my postings here and know that I am ardently pro-second amendment.

For some time I have advocated a system of universal licensing, similar to what Illinois has, with the exception of making it an opt-out system rather than an opt-in system, so as to preserve anonymous firearm ownership and prevent a government registry of firearms.

Basically, everyone who applies for a driver's license or state-issued ID would automatically be run through NICS and issued and FOID unless they choose to opt out.

Then private sellers are required to record the FOID information of buyers for 10 years. Failure to do so in Illinois is a misdemeanor. Perhaps harsher penalties can be applied if it turns out that the gun was illegally sold and resulted in a death or injury.

I would like to append an idea to this idea.

No issued FOID would be valid unless stamped and activated by a psychiatrist after a psychological evaluation.

The state would issue them "blank", after passing the NICS check, but the card would not be "activated" and valid until the holder went to the psychiatrist of their choice and got an approval and had their card stamped in some way.

Perhaps, to prevent infinite shopping around for a "yes" vote, each time you go to a Psychiatrist for an evaluation if you fail your card is likewise punched to indicate a failure - 3 failures and you can't keep looking for a Psychiatrist to say yes.

I will support this because though it puts an increased financial burden on gun owners it will preserve anonymous firearm ownership and still not create a government registry of firearms.

[gejohnston]

1. I think a standardized test would be better

because the shrink might disapprove because of philosophy or fear of getting sued if he or she got the diagnosed wrong. IIRC, Finland pondered the same thing after the Jokela school shooting. Don't know if they did nor not, but they decided to comply with the EU min age of 18 to buy a gun. Finland law was 15. Since the killer was 18, it really didn't matter.

[Atypical Liberal]

3. You would get multiple chances to "pass"

I think a standardized test would be better because the shrink might disapprove because of philosophy or fear of getting sued if he or she got the diagnosed wrong.

I proposed multiple chances to "pass", so you could get second opinions, perhaps from more "friendly" shrinks.

Perhaps a standardized test of some kind is the answer. It prevents "gun friendly" shrinks that pass everyone.

Though you raise a good point about shrinks that don't want to pass anyone out of fear of liability if someone they pass goes on a shooting spree.

[Clames]

2. I don't support this.

Basically forces every gun owner to undergo an arbitrary psych eval, puts increased financial/logistical burdens on a system ill-equipped to handle even the current work load in a proper and timely manner (our current system is a joke and adding millions more is a good idea?), and there is zero evidence that such a system would have any effect in stopping such mass shootings.

[Atypical Liberal]

4. We must do something to try and weed out the lunatics.

What do you suggest?

I'm not being snarky, I'm very serious.

I cannot in good conscious continue this current course and think that we have done enough.

I'm willing to step up and sacrifice to make it happen, if it can work and make a difference.

[Clames]

12. I think you are looking for a solution to a problem that is more vast than you understand.

Psychological problems are not a light-switch phenomena, there is no clearly defined battery of questions that would yield an answer. The processes behind these things can build up over years with a subtlety that even the best trained professionals sometimes fail to piece together and the cases they do solve can take months to years to puzzle together. There is no such thing as an effective law for this, that is a simplistic way to attack a complex problem. It takes the people who live closest to the gunman to make a difference.

[Atypical Liberal]

15. Yes, the vagueness of human psychology is worrisome.

Maybe there is no good way today to identify dangerous people.

[Common Sense Party]

5. What psychiatrist is going to want to stick his neck out?

If I'm a psychiatrist and I stamp John Doe's gun application saying I interviewed him and found him sane and competent, and then Mr. Doe goes berserk, my career and license are toast.

Something needs to be done about the crazy folks, but I just don't think this will work.

[Atypical Liberal]

7. It works in Canada, right?

Don't you have to be interviewed before you are allowed to own a gun there?

[Common Sense Party]

10. I honestly don't know. I don't live in Canada.

If so, are the psychiatrists somehow indemnified if they judge someone competent and he later kills?

[Atypical Liberal]

11. I don't know, either.

I don't know how this can be made to work. Maybe indemnity is it? But how many will do a good job screening if there are no consequences?

[Clames]

13. Canada does not do psychological screens.

Application, training, and a criminal background check/waiting period. It's a fairly simple process.

[gejohnston]

14. no

I don't know of any country that does. I do remember reading that Finland pondered a standardized test.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/information/lic-per-eng.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_and_Acquisition_Licence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_testing#Public_safety_employment_tests

[jeepnstein]

6. A doctor's slip to exercise my Constitutional Rights?

You've simply got to be kidding. There aren't enough psychiatrists in the country to see all the gun owners. Oh, and that shrink would be putting his license on the line by signing off on anything. So basically you want to ban arms for all but those who are able to pay a doctor enough to make signing off worth his while? How very progressive.

[Atypical Liberal]

9. Stimulate the economy?

There aren't enough psychiatrists in the country to see all the gun owners.

Hey, the firearm boom has been a bonanza for manufacturers, why not psychiatrists?

Oh, and that shrink would be putting his license on the line by signing off on anything.

Does this sort of interview and signoff not happen in Canada for firearm ownership also?

So basically you want to ban arms for all but those who are able to pay a doctor enough to make signing off worth his while? How very progressive.

I don't like it. This whole thing makes me sick!

But we have do do something to weed out the lunatics! Something that works!

We cannot sit back as gun owners anymore and just say, "Welp, some bad apples are just going to fall through the cracks!"

[gejohnston]

16. no, it doesn't happen in Canada

[NewMoonTherian]

18. Incidents like this weren't this common in the past.

Something has changed over the past half century or less, and it isn't access to guns.

We need to find out what is causing the mentality that results in these disasters and address it. The insistence on placing guns in the center of the debate is detracting from our ability to solve the real problem.

With regard to the new addendum to your idea(I like your original idea), there is vast potential for abuse, and no apparent remedy for people who are disenfranchised by it. If we're to seriously discuss it, more protections for gun rights have to be included.

I have a great deal of respect for you, and I know that your respect for the 2nd amendment isn't just rhetorical, as it is with most anti-gun posters. You understand the concerns that prevent us from trusting gun control measures, and that understanding may help us to make some kind of progress.

[socialindependocrat]

19. I agree with questioning why the increase in shootings also...

There have to be lots of data from shooters and agressive people to give some idea as
to what makes up an agressive personality and how to identify such a person.

I was thinking about ways to identify "contientious" people who would be "safe" to give a green light to.
I wonder how many people with NRA firearm safety certificates have comitted voilent crimes. And I wonder
how many NRA range officers and NRA sfaety trainers have comitted crimes with guns. The troube with this
is that if people found out all you had to do was get a Range Officer certificate you would be in the clear then
that would no longer work.

Actually, I think that psychological testing shouldn't be thrown out until it's looked into further. The trick with
testing is to ask seemingly innocuous questions that allow a person to answer in a unthreatening environment.
some people get excited about cretain things and others don't. It could be used as another potential indicator
of problems.

Lastly, there is a test that is given to identify potential career paths for young people. What they did was take
many , many people who were successful in a certain job and asked them to identifylies and dislikes about activities.
they found that people who were successful in certain jobs had similarities in likes. So, if you answered that you like
the same likes you would have a tendency to also be successful. I'm just saying that there re tests that can be
created so that there is an inability to "cheat" and give answers that you think are the "right" ones.

We have to start somewhere. One problem is that they keep killing the shooters. Still, I think there is a lot of info about
people in prison who are agressive or somehow have unstable personalities to make a start at finding indicators. I'd
be very surprised if the FBI or criminalists don't already have something or there are books in print.

Thoughts?

[GreenStormCloud]

22. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.

Violent people tend to get into trouble with the law fairly early and build criminal records. It is very rare (but not unknown) for a non-violent person to suddenly snap and go on a rampage. A clean police record is a very good indicator that a person respects other people and will leave them in peace.

[petronius]

8. I think the 'psych test' idea is much more easily said than done

It's one thing to examine a person who has shown evidence of unstable behavior and determine their competency, but even that I imagine requires a pretty extensive effort.

To take a random person from the street and declare them competent - with any hope of it being a fair and reliable determination - would require (I assume) multiple and thorough interviews and tests. I really doubt there are many psychiatrists or psychologists who would want to wade into that on a wholesale level...

[oldhippie]

17. How about a psych eval before being allowed to vote ......

We could weed out the right wingers and save a lot of time and trouble. I mean, after all, we don't want mentally defective people voting, do we?

[Kaleva]

20. Would a psychiatrist be held liable if he/she unintentionally let one slip thru the cracks?

[GreenStormCloud]

21. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.

No system is perfect. There will always be those who pass and then go bad.

In person visits to a shrink will result in lists of gun friendly shrinks being posted on the internet. It will be a huge money maker for those doctors.

Standardized tests will result in books on passing the test being published, complete with the test questions and answers. The test will be accused of having racial, cultural, class, ethnic, situational, etc. biases.

NICS relies on past behavior and is an excellent, although not perfect system.