Everybody should not have the option of getting a gun

I am not saying guns should be banned or something like that, simply I believe there should be some rules that have to be met before getting a gun permission:

1) People with mental problems should never be allowed to get a gun. Any disorder, which could have anger management issues, like ADHD, should also not be allowed to own a gun. Also people who have mental problems that need to be dealt with prescription drugs. Full mental evaluation from government facilitated mental hospitals should be done first. Private practicioners should not be counted.

2) Drug addicts should not be allowed to have a gun - common sense

3) People with criminal record should not be allowed to have a gun - common sense.

4) I believe the financial stability of a person should be considered somehow. Most criminals in the world have started out due to financial difficulties. The first thing that comes to mind (which would not be require much extra tests or paperwork) would be education, as uneducated people are more likely to fall into financial difficulties (especially when they are not very intelligent, which often (not always) uneducated people tend to be) , which could lead desperate people to criminal world. At least high school education should be required if not higher education (I would prefer the latter personally). Although there might be better ways to consider or predict the likelyhood of a person falling into financial trouble and doing something illegal to get out of it. Intelligence seems too harsh to be considered, as IQ-test does not predict that much. Maybe someone can suggest something for it?

Recheck every couple of years is needed.

I personally do not believe these are even "strict" rules. Rather soft to be true. After mental, criminal, educational and addiction records are evaluated any person can get a firearm. Criminals and people with mental issues/addictions should never have an option of obtaining a fire-arm legally...

reply to post by Cabin


An interesting post......that won't leave more than a handful of guns in private ownership
according to your points 1 - 4 ?

Quite right too, in my humble opinion. They are lethal, and serve only one purpose.....

( Waiting patiently for a tirade of abuse from people who definitely shouldn't own guns.)

Originally posted by Cabin


4) Uneducated people should not have the option of getting a gun - uneducated people are more likely to get into financial difficulties, which could lead to criminal activities often. Most criminals in the world are criminals due to financial difficulties. At least high school education should be required if not higher education (I would prefer the latter personally).

Even though its "educated" people that have been running this country into the ground and have just about bankrupted the country. Same folks have access now to tank, nukes, fighter jets.....oh lord.

reply to post by Cabin


Uneducated people...It doesn't mean you are stupid...Heck some of the most dumbest people I have ever met hold a degree.
The rest I agree with.

I doubt anyone would disagree with that. The problem WOULD BE abuse of those laws. The reason our mental health laws are so lax is because the laws were abused. This would be no different. Piss your neighbor off? Sucks to be you. Getting a divorce? Sucks to be you. I see a whole lot of problems with the abuse of such legislation.

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith
reply to post by Cabin

 

Quite right too, in my humble opinion. They are lethal, and serve only one purpose.....

And that purpose is protected by the bill of rights. Strange isnt it?

I think to vote, one must pass a test on the constitution.

I would agree with number one on the list, provided they can be proven mentally incompetent to own a firearm. Even that though, is going to be the subjective opinion of some anti-gun psychoanalytical sociopaths.

Otherwise, I think everyone of age should own a gun that wants one. No government regulations. No exceptions. A right is not a privilege. It is a right, guaranteed by the constitution. Additionally, the more citizens that are armed and packing, the more polite your society becomes.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by Cabin

 

Uneducated people...It doesn't mean you are stupid...Heck some of the most dumbest people I have ever met hold a degree.
The rest I agree with.

I agree that is probably the most controversial point. I thought for quite a time how I would write it.

I understand many people do not have degrees and are still extremely smart. Although on average people who have weaker educational level tend to have more financial trouble.

I know that most of the criminal world has started due to financial problems. Nearly all low-level criminals start in order to live from something.

Probably educational level should not be counted in, although financial stability should be considered in somehow as most of the crimes are commited due to financial difficulties. I simply though educational level might be one way to consider consider financial situation in, another way would be some kind of intelligence test. Intelligent people, whatever their education tend to do better in life and are far less likely to commit a crime, although it is hard to define intelligence as required IQ would be too strict rule for obtaining gun permission.

reply to post by Logarock


Logarock, i never could understand the bizarre American " Right to bear arms " according
to the constitution.

But then I wouldn't " Get it " being British ,

Originally posted by Cabin
I am not saying guns should be banned or something like that, simply I believe there should be some rules that have to be met before getting a gun permission:

1) People with mental problems should never be allowed to get a gun. Any disorder, which could have anger management issues, like ADHD, should also not be allowed to own a gun. Also people who have mental problems that need to be dealt with prescription drugs. Full mental evaluation from government facilitated mental hospitals should be done first. Private practicioners should not be counted.

2) Drug addicts should not be allowed to have a gun - common sense

3) People with criminal record should not be allowed to have a gun - common sense.

4) Uneducated people should not have the option of getting a gun - uneducated people are more likely to get into financial difficulties, which could lead to criminal activities often. Most criminals in the world are criminals due to financial difficulties. At least high school education should be required if not higher education (I would prefer the latter personally).

Recheck every couple of years is needed.

I personally do not believe these are even "strict" rules. Rather soft to be true. After mental, criminal, educational and addiction records are evaluated any person can get a firearm. Criminals and people with mental issues/addictions should never have an option of obtaining a fire-arm legally...

OK first off,

1. What is to stop the government from defining even more "mental illness"? Conspiracy theory syndrome is the latest mental illness to be declared. That puts a good deal of people on the "no guns" list. And how do you expect government hospitols to assess the entire population when they cannot even take care of the troops returning home?

2. Almost the entire American population is on some kind of SSRI, ADHD medicine, anti-anxiety, anti-depressant, etc etc. So what do you define as a drug addict? How do you know who is a drug addict? Can you tell just by looking at them? Or maybe you want to give them a urinalysis? One, I consider that a major invasion of privacy, and two, there are many ways around a urine test.

3. What kind of criminal records are you talking about here? If I get caught stealing a pair of tube socks from Walmart would that negate me from owning a firearm for the rest of my life?

4. Well that counts out about 90 percent of the US population. Some of the best hunters and fishermen I have ever seen never even made it through high school. So who declares who is uneducated in your scenario? Let me guess....

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith

But then I wouldn't " Get it " being British ,

It has nothing to do with being British...
You just don't get it.

reply to post by Cabin


I agree with your top three in theory, however, education should not be a requirement. In fact you state that the uneducated are more likely to commit crimes so shouldn't have guns. I find your entire notion of #4 distasteful.

My real problem with all of this is registration which is inevitable with universal background checks. History has seen this time and time again and registration inevitably leads to confiscation. The Government implements their agenda incrementally with seemingly reasonable small steps. I believe this is why so many are opposed to giving them that first inch.

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith
reply to post by Logarock

 

Logarock, i never could understand the bizarre American " Right to bear arms " according
to the constitution.

But then I wouldn't " Get it " being British ,

Its quite simple really. How many times has the mainland US been invaded in its history? How many times has Britain been invaded in its history? Even Hitler said that an invasion of the continental US was impossible because "Everyone is armed."

Not to mention since record numbers of Americans are trusting the government less and less I don't want them to be the only ones who are armed. Like I said, quite simple to understand really even for a firearm free Brit.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior

1. What is to stop the government from defining even more "mental illness"? Conspiracy theory syndrome is the latest mental illness to be declared. That puts a good deal of people on the "no guns" list. And how do you expect government hospitols to assess the entire population when they cannot even take care of the troops returning home?

Sever mental illnesses + illnesses, which have a symptom of anger issues or lack of emotional control over oneself.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
2. Almost the entire American population is on some kind of SSRI, ADHD medicine, anti-anxiety, anti-depressant, etc etc. So what do you define as a drug addict? How do you know who is a drug addict? Can you tell just by looking at them? Or maybe you want to give them a urinalysis? One, I consider that a major invasion of privacy, and two, there are many ways around a urine test.

ADHD should not be able to get a gun, most disorders that require medicines should not be allowed, as usually mental medicines are used to control emotions better. Also different mental medicines tend to have an effect, that after not using for a while symptoms are stronger than at first. Some disorders can be cured with medicine and after cure gun can be gotten, some can not.

Overally I meant prescription mental drugs and any offical drugs (meth, coc aine and so on). Many companies, require drug tests or medical tests every once in a while, so I personally truly do not have any problem with it.

For example, I can not get a drivers licence, if at first I have not given in the medical paper with blood analysis, which shows that I have no conditions that could make me a liability for the other drivers. For example, having glasses or contacts, is written on our driver licences.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
3. What kind of criminal records are you talking about here? If I get caught stealing a pair of tube socks from Walmart would that negate me from owning a firearm for the rest of my life?

I do not know US system that well. Here are minor and major offenses. Major offense is an offense that can lead to jail time and which is not deleted from your profile. Minor offenses, like jaywalking or small theft, are deleted from your profile after 2.3 years, and at least on official paper you are clean, so when you go and ask for the paper of your criminal record (many companies require from applicants) then it is a clean sheet. Major offense should not be allowed to have a gun.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
4. Well that counts out about 90 percent of the US population. Some of the best hunters and fishermen I have ever seen never even made it through high school. So who declares who is uneducated in your scenario? Let me guess....

That was the hardest point to explain. I rewrote it in OP. Financial stability should somehow be considered in, so that people in extreme financial difficulties could not have guns, as financial difficulties often lead to illegal activities for easy money. Education might be one solution for it, although some exceptions could be added to the law, like certified hunter/fisherman without having the required education, can get a hunting rifle (or something like that). That point of financial security should be considered, but I do not know the best way for it.

Originally posted by slowisfast

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith

But then I wouldn't " Get it " being British ,

It has nothing to do with being British...
You just don't get it.

To be honest most countries do not get it, as constitution and rights are not taken that seriously in most countries. To be honest, I have never even read the constitution here and do not know what rights I have . I simply take things logically, basically all of my rights and no-rights are simply a matter of common (moral) sense. If I might be dangerous for the society, then I would not fight for my right to own a gun, even if the constitution said otherwise...

Originally posted by Cabin
I am not saying guns should be banned or something like that, simply I believe there should be some rules that have to be met before getting a gun permission:

1) People with mental problems should never be allowed to get a gun. Any disorder, which could have anger management issues, like ADHD, should also not be allowed to own a gun. Also people who have mental problems that need to be dealt with prescription drugs. Full mental evaluation from government facilitated mental hospitals should be done first. Private practicioners should not be counted.

2) Drug addicts should not be allowed to have a gun - common sense

3) People with criminal record should not be allowed to have a gun - common sense.

4) I believe the financial stability of a person should be considered somehow. Most criminals in the world have started out due to financial difficulties. The first thing that comes to mind (which would not be require much extra tests or paperwork) would be education, as uneducated people are more likely to fall into financial difficulties (especially when they are not very intelligent, which often (not always) uneducated people tend to be) , which could lead desperate people to criminal world. At least high school education should be required if not higher education (I would prefer the latter personally). Although there might be better ways to consider or predict the likelyhood of a person falling into financial trouble and doing something illegal to get out of it. Intelligence seems too harsh to be considered, as IQ-test does not predict that much. Maybe someone can suggest something for it?

Recheck every couple of years is needed.

I personally do not believe these are even "strict" rules. Rather soft to be true. After mental, criminal, educational and addiction records are evaluated any person can get a firearm. Criminals and people with mental issues/addictions should never have an option of obtaining a fire-arm legally...

edit on 4-4-2013 by Cabin because: Edited the 4th point.

1. This is already on the books, so to speak. If a court (you know since we have the right to defend ourselves in one) deems one mentally incompetent the will no longer be able to purchase/own a firearm.

2. Already a law. Even for a simple possesion charge, you lose the right to purchase/own a firearm. They even ask you this question on the NICS application (addict/user of illegal substances).

3. Already a law. Felony convictions remove your right to purchase/own a firearm. That is is main purpose of the NICS background check.

4. Absolutely ridiculous and somewhat elitist. Since when do basic human rights become contingent on education level or financial status? Would this apply to the right to free speech? How about fair trial or illegal search and seizure? Privacy? Religion? Discrimination? Voting? I can understand your thinking that gun violence comes from those in poverty or without a high level of education, however, the issues then become poverty and education . . . not restricting the rights of those that don't measure up to some subjective bureaucracy.

Originally posted by Cabin

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior

1. What is to stop the government from defining even more "mental illness"? Conspiracy theory syndrome is the latest mental illness to be declared. That puts a good deal of people on the "no guns" list. And how do you expect government hospitols to assess the entire population when they cannot even take care of the troops returning home?

Sever mental illnesses + illnesses, which have a symptom of anger issues or lack of emotional control over oneself.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
2. Almost the entire American population is on some kind of SSRI, ADHD medicine, anti-anxiety, anti-depressant, etc etc. So what do you define as a drug addict? How do you know who is a drug addict? Can you tell just by looking at them? Or maybe you want to give them a urinalysis? One, I consider that a major invasion of privacy, and two, there are many ways around a urine test.

ADHD should not be able to get a gun, most disorders that require medicines should not be allowed, as usually mental medicines are used to control emotions better. Also different mental medicines tend to have an effect, that after not using for a while symptoms are stronger than at first. Some disorders can be cured with medicine and after cure gun can be gotten, some can not.

Overally I meant prescription mental drugs and any offical drugs (meth, coc aine and so on). Many companies, require drug tests or medical tests every once in a while, so I personally truly do not have any problem with it.

For example, I can not get a drivers licence, if at first I have not given in the medical paper with blood analysis, which shows that I have no conditions that could make me a liability for the other drivers. For example, having glasses or contacts, is written on our driver licences.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
3. What kind of criminal records are you talking about here? If I get caught stealing a pair of tube socks from Walmart would that negate me from owning a firearm for the rest of my life?

I do not know US system that well. Here are minor and major offenses. Major offense is an offense that can lead to jail time and which is not deleted from your profile. Minor offenses, like jaywalking or small theft, are deleted from your profile after 2.3 years, and at least on official paper you are clean, so when you go and ask for the paper of your criminal record (many companies require from applicants) then it is a clean sheet. Major offense should not be allowed to have a gun.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
4. Well that counts out about 90 percent of the US population. Some of the best hunters and fishermen I have ever seen never even made it through high school. So who declares who is uneducated in your scenario? Let me guess....

That was the hardest point to explain. I rewrote it in OP. Financial stability should somehow be considered in, so that people in extreme financial difficulties could not have guns, as financial difficulties often lead to illegal activities for easy money. Education might be one solution for it, although some exceptions could be added to the law, like certified hunter/fisherman without having the required education, can get a hunting rifle (or something like that). That point of financial security should be considered, but I do not know the best way for it.

edit on 4-4-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)

OK, do you really think that drug testing people will keep guns out of criminal hands? Do you really think meth and crack dealers buy their guns legally at WalMart? They cant even keep drugs out of the prisons, so how are they supposed to keep ilegal weapons off the streets? LOL! The vast majority of violent crimes committed in the US there are no firearms involved. And like I said, if you rule out people that are on medication that is a great majority of Americans. You can't get a drivers license over there if you wear glasses or contacts? seriously? And they make you take a blood test? What country are you in? You may see nothing wrong with it but I consider drug testing (even for jobs) to be a major invasion of privacy. And like I said above, there are many ways around drug tests.

Here in the US we have minor offenses also. But we also have the three strikes rule. I recently read an article where a man in Florida was sentenced to 25 years because he stole a package of socks at Walmart. It was his third strike. Over here we have the prison industrial complex full of mostly non violent drug offenders. Going to jail here does not mean you are a violent gun toting criminal. And your record stays with you seven years but will always say what you got arrested for no matter how much time has passed if you are taking a background check.

So you also are saying that poor people are more likely to shoot others?

I am on disability and make less than 1000 bucks a month. I would say I fit your profile of low income. Should I go turn in my rifles and shotguns because I can shoot someone because I am so poor? LOLOLOL

And who is going to license these hunters and fishermen? Let me guess...the government.

You are putting entirely too much faith in a corrupt government that gets worse by the week.

Maybe you should learn a bit more about American society and culture before making a bull___p thread like this.

Lets entertain the notion for a second that somehow magically every gun in the world is gone. Like when Superman gathered all the nukes and threw them into the sun. Are you really naive enough to think that people will stop killing each other when they feel like it?

I think they should pass a law where everyone must be armed. That would be a much more polite society.

There is a small little problem with this approach, the U.S. Constitution, 2nd Amendment, does NOT have these restrictions in place. However, if the country chooses to go through the formal process of repealing or modifying this constitutional amendment, then we have something to work with.

Also, many of the terms used in your recommendation:
- People with criminal record (what type of record? This must be specific. How about a shoplifting offense, speeding tickets, etc...?)
- Uneducated people: (What determines "uneducated" here? A college degree? An IQ test?, etc...)

The "uneducated" are not only the ones getting into financial difficulties you know. I'll bet a good part of Wall St. at one point or another have gotten into BIG financial difficulties. What happens if you are financially stable today, and you qualify, but tomorrow you lose everything on the stock market and are on the street?

It is not an easy topic to solve, when we have the ultimate rule of law, our Constitution, that cannot be side-stepped by simple laws being passed.

I appreciate your efforts, but considering the death toll from automobiles alone is orders of magnitude worse than gun related deaths, perhaps those rules should be applied there first as a trial?

For those UK citizens in here that are trying to convince the American citizens to change their culture surrounding the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution, I point you to this rant I created that is a counter-request of mine to the UK citizenship. It is meeting an equal amount of resistance from the other side. I welcome anyone here to chime in on this rant as well.

I believe the U.K. citizens should repeal/defunct the process of the Royal Prerogative