But leaving it in the hands of someone else to decide I'm unfit based on their opinion - no thanks.
so the government, state or otherwise, using the private sector to distinguish ones sanity is not wanted because the government makes mistakes. I would say as is the human condition to be flawed but to each their own. Having said Dr. label others beforehand and enforcing the same diagnosis that was made before trying to purchase a gun is acceptable, but asking for that diagnosis at time of purchase isnt? To me thats basically arguing that we should be fighting for convicts and mental patients rights to own guns as well, because they could have been wrongly accused or diagnosed which im sure has happened. The answer isnt no laws and the answer isnt a billion laws and neither of us are really proposing either. if you take the bill of rights at face value i dont know how you can distinguish between regulating for some but not others and saying im the one on a slippery slope for saying there should be a stricter screening process.
JAB I see your point and I think it's well intended.
Let me ask you this. If I or someone fails an evaluation whether it be slightly fail or totally fail, but the person performing it misunderstood what I was saying, what recourse would I have?
Along with a psych eval. and criminals are those the only things you'd want to determine if someone is fit?
Like I said, we're not going to convince one another.
You favor more governmental intervention.
As a Libertarian, I do not.
Since 1996, less folks are killed by guns per capita than any other time in our history, all the while there are more guns than ever in circulation.
Since 1996, the number of states which allow concealed carry went from zero to 46 2012. The violent crime rate per capita in these states is vastly lower than in states which have stricter controls.
Since 1996, the overall crime stats for the nation have been in a steady decline across the board with violent crime being amongst the largest drops.
So no, we do not need any more laws and there's a strong case to be made, as numerous Economists have made, that more guns equals less crime.
I wouldnt even say all mentally unstable. Its very possible one could be bi-polar or depressed but medicated and completely normal. Id say the psych eval would allow those that are diagnosed and properly medicated to still own even. And yes i dont think the current laws against convicts would hurt.
I haven't taken the concealed carry course here in NC yet, but I'd imagine there is something on there that would cover something like that.
But for simple ownership, I would say that passing a driver's test, doing the things necessary to keep a license, getting up everyday and going to a job, paying your bills, owning a home etc. passing a background check is enough proof that you're a mentally competent person to own a gun and keep it in your house.
A real scare to those who want to control humanity: It's believed that 1 in 25 people in the world are sociopaths. People who are by definition uncontrollable.
That's 1 in 25 people who are incapable of feeling guilt, shame, or empathy, and chances are you'll never know who they are. They are masters of charm and deception. Makes you wonder how many politicians are sociopaths.... Seriously.
So let those who want to legally obtain weapons obtain them with little limitation. There's nothing to the government could ever do to stop those who want to do harm. They are deranged but calculating, if there is a will they will find a way. Taking guns out of our hands only makes us vulnerable to those who can and will harm us by any means necessary. Even without the help of guns.