The perspective of a US cop on gun control

[Kamakazie Sith]

SALT LAKE CITY — Officer Anonymous, should gun owners have to pass a psychological?

There have been many stories recently of shootings involving persons with mental problems. Most of the major mass shootings seemed to have the suspects suffering from some mental illness. I often wondered if there should be a mechanism put in place as part of the gun-purchasing process that verifies the mental health of the person purchasing the weapon. Yes, I realize I'm talking about guns again, but I just love the comments and arguments!

Officers have to go through a stringent hiring process that includes a psychological examination. The same is true for federal agents. After these tests along with backgrounds and numerous other hiring steps, we are trained how to use a firearm and when to use it appropriately.

In this state, however, you too can carry a gun in an open carry setup just like law enforcement as long as you have the lofty qualifications of being of age and not convicted of domestic violence or a felony. This is where the gun advocates stomp and shout that I would like to take away guns and have the government control your lives. … I'll wait for the stomping of shoes and gnashing of teeth.

Now that the yelling and writing of letters to the editor are done, I'll continue. I'm merely suggesting an additional step to the firearm purchasing process. Now it may not be a quick step, but why are you in a hurry to buy a gun? Last-second Christmas gift? Forgot an anniversary and the wife really needs that pink Walther P22?

I suggested this idea in one of my lively gun debates, and the person I was arguing with stated that would just be another way “they” could control who purchased guns and who couldn't. They continued with “they” making it more difficult to overthrow said government. I was fairly certain this person wouldn't pass a psychological.

I do hear the “overthrow government” argument more than I think I should. I imagine this person saw "Red Dawn" one too many times and thinks his AR-15 and Desert Eagle are going to stand up against a tank or a drone firing Hellfire missiles. Wolverines!

The vast majority of gun owners are completely sane and responsible people and yes, why punish the many to stop the few? Isn't it worth another extra step to prevent mass shootings, murder-suicides and other horrible gun crimes? I am planning on purchasing a gun in a short time and would be happy to be the test case. It would be a bummer if I didn't pass.

We see no problem in tracking purchases of cough medicine and other ingredients in meth labs, but don't you dare monitor how many guns I own.
We gun owners seem to be so afraid that at any moment the government can swoop in and take all our guns that we squash any ideas involving regulating the sale, manufacture and enforcement of guns. We see no problem in tracking purchases of cough medicine and other ingredients in meth labs, but don't you dare monitor how many guns I own.

Since I've already got people in a lather, why don't we have a database that shows guns owned by what person? People always argue that cars are much more dangerous than guns, yet we have to register our cars. It would be good to know if a person just got out of court and immediately attempted to purchase a gun. Registering guns would also hold owners responsible who sold their guns to criminals in the black market.

The common argument is that the criminals don't have to follow the laws, they get guns through other means. Well, if every gun is registered, we will know where they got it. I have been looking back through a few of the recent shootings, and most of the suspects appeared to have obtained and possessed the guns lawfully.

In Utah, we have had many individuals walking around with open carry weapons around malls and theaters. Should I still feel safe and hope you are a sane person? If you are that person, should you really be offended if police approach you with guns drawn?

Gun owners are shooting themselves in the foot by not assisting in thinking of new ways to prevent these horrible crimes from happening. They should do this instead of regurgitating the same statements that more people should carry, an armed citizen is a safe citizen, and cops aren't always around so you've got to protect yourself. Would you say that to the family of one of the victims from the Aurora shootings?

I would like to see who can offer me the best explanation on why we shouldn't require a psychological and registering your gun purchase.

Source

*** I should have posted this in the gun control thread ***

[Aaron MkII]

Whose going to pay for it? A psycholgist or psychiatrist can run you 160$ an hour (canada obviously, ymmv).

Though the NRA should be all over it, join the NRA and get to see a subsidized shrink, or something.

[Thanas]

It is a good argument - and the costs could easily be hoisted upon the state. I mean, it is the one who is wanting that step, so let it pay for it.

[TheFeniX]

There have been many stories recently of shootings involving persons with mental problems. Most of the major mass shootings seemed to have the suspects suffering from some mental illness. I often wondered if there should be a mechanism put in place as part of the gun-purchasing process that verifies the mental health of the person purchasing the weapon. Yes, I realize I'm talking about guns again, but I just love the comments and arguments!

You mean like the VA Tech shooter who was declared mentally ill, except for some bullshit about him deciding to be treated as an outpatient meant they couldn't report him to the background database. Maybe fix that stupid fucking loophole?

Now that the yelling and writing of letters to the editor are done, I'll continue. I'm merely suggesting an additional step to the firearm purchasing process. Now it may not be a quick step, but why are you in a hurry to buy a gun? Last-second Christmas gift? Forgot an anniversary and the wife really needs that pink Walther P22?

What an asshole.

The vast majority of gun owners are completely sane and responsible people and yes, why punish the many to stop the few? Isn't it worth another extra step to prevent mass shootings, murder-suicides and other horrible gun crimes? I am planning on purchasing a gun in a short time and would be happy to be the test case. It would be a bummer if I didn't pass.

Yes, stop Gun Crime because gun crime is important. Fuck fighting crime, just fight gun crime. People honestly think criminals or the soon-to-be criminal says "Well, I got a gun, now I can commit crimes" or "Man, I can't get a gun, no crime today" rather than "Ok, I need to perform X illegal activity, what do I have available to accomplish this with?"

Must be be right because mass murders don't happen in countries with restrictive gun control.....

Since I've already got people in a lather, why don't we have a database that shows guns owned by what person? People always argue that cars are much more dangerous than guns, yet we have to register our cars.

God fucking damn: no you don't. This guy is a cop?

It would be good to know if a person just got out of court and immediately attempted to purchase a gun. Registering guns would also hold owners responsible who sold their guns to criminals in the black market.

Yea, unless criminals are too stupid to file off serial numbers. Oh, and we already are held responsible: even a private seller can't sell to someone he has reason to believe wouldn't pass a background check. It isn't my fault the government can't enforce it's own laws.

I would like to see who can offer me the best explanation on why we shouldn't require a psychological and registering your gun purchase.

They don't fucking do anything because saying guns cause crime is like saying spoons make you fat. Stop trying to waste more of my taxdollars on your bullshit feelgood legislation and do something that actually fights crime. Shit, just take the millions you'd waste on your database and psych evals and hire more cops, train them better, and pay them better.

[His Divine Shadow]

We have something similar here in Finland after the last law change, the test is a joke and frankly should be removed as soon as is possible, utter waste of already stretched police resources. I have strong doubts that a single test could really detect anything.

[Aaron MkII]

A lot of these issues won't come out without seeing a doctor for a long period of time. Dangerous people don't often meet the movie stereotypes. I have PTSD and I'm fairly confident that I could cover anything objectionable up long enough to get an OK.

[Losonti Tokash]

Fenix: Texas doesn't require you to register your car? That doesn't make much sense.

[TheFeniX]

A lot of these issues won't come out without seeing a doctor for a long period of time. Dangerous people don't often meet the movie stereotypes. I have PTSD and I'm fairly confident that I could cover anything objectionable up long enough to get an OK.

The VA tech shooter was under a lot of psychiatric care before the age of 18. None of that could be used to deny him a firearm due to his records being sealed when he turned 18. I don't think you'll find many fans of firearms who thinks a person should be in and out of therapy from the age of 8 and then turn 18 and be able to buy a rifle. That shit needs to change, but America already fights to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

The article writer in the OP just wants to force the average person to prove they aren't nuts through some stupid psych exam any crazy/idiot could pass rather than using records that already exist. I can't think of a single multiple-homicide like these mass shootings that didn't have numerous warning signs before the attacker finally snapped.

Fenix: Texas doesn't require you to register your car? That doesn't make much sense.

There are states that do? I'm required to register a vehicle to be driven on public roads. But just buying one? No.

[Spoonist]

What are you on about fenix? Scaremongering, why? Lets look at what he said:

I often wondered if there should be a mechanism put in place as part of the gun-purchasing process that verifies the mental health of the person purchasing the weapon.

This can easily be done in a reverse way, like its done with cars.
ie the license.
If you get some specific medical conditions you are either barred completely from driving or you have to meet certain criteria. Like if you can't see without your glasses, you are not allowed to drive without them.The doc if they want can actually put in that your driving license should be revoked.
Same thing here, if you'd actually get a system that should help law enforcement why not look at something that is setup in a logical way instead of your certifiable (pun) scaremongering?

[Aaron MkII]

Supreme court will strike licensing down, and rightly so considering all the precedence.

[Losonti Tokash]

Well, part of the purchasing process is taking the title into the DMV to transfer ownership. I mean I guess you could buy the car and then just sit on the title and not do anything with the car itself but that seems silly.

[TheFeniX]

What are you on about fenix? Scaremongering, why? Lets look at what he said:

I'm scaremongering when the article posted compares legal gun purchasing to people who brew meth....

This can easily be done in a reverse way, like its done with cars.
ie the license.
If you get some specific medical conditions you are either barred completely from driving or you have to meet certain criteria. Like if you can't see without your glasses, you are not allowed to drive without them.The doc if they want can actually put in that your driving license should be revoked.

That would be great except blind people can buy cars. Prepare to shit bricks: blind people can buy guns. Being blind doesn't remove your rights to property.

Well, part of the purchasing process is taking the title into the DMV to transfer ownership. I mean I guess you could buy the car and then just sit on the title and not do anything with the car itself but that seems silly.

Titles exist for a separate reason for things like housing, cars, and boats. Namely, they tend to be quite expensive and also can have multiple owners or ownership in lieu (I think that's it) where you technically own your house/car, but the bank has the title because you owe them money on it. That said, a title is not a legal requirement to owning any of them, but as time goes on you find fewer and fewer properties like this that aren't titled and not transferring the title on a vehicle once you've bought it is just as stupid as not keeping track of a firearm (or anything expensive you bought/sold) serial once you've bought/sold it.

Now, if you're talking about public use of a car or firearm, I can't speak for other states, but in Texas: I have to give explicit permission for the State to go through my medical and criminal history and show that I'm competent with a firearm to prove I'm capable and reasoned enough to carry one in public. Just like how a driver's license and insurance proves I'm responsible enough to operate a vehicle on public roads.

But, based on the statistics, I trust a CHL holder with a pistol a fuck-load more than I trust any asshole with a driver's license.

[Kamakazie Sith]

There have been many stories recently of shootings involving persons with mental problems. Most of the major mass shootings seemed to have the suspects suffering from some mental illness. I often wondered if there should be a mechanism put in place as part of the gun-purchasing process that verifies the mental health of the person purchasing the weapon. Yes, I realize I'm talking about guns again, but I just love the comments and arguments!

You mean like the VA Tech shooter who was declared mentally ill, except for some bullshit about him deciding to be treated as an outpatient meant they couldn't report him to the background database. Maybe fix that stupid fucking loophole?

Absolutely. That loop hole should be fixed.

What an asshole.

Damn, Fenix. A bit sensitive. Haha

Yes, stop Gun Crime because gun crime is important. Fuck fighting crime, just fight gun crime. People honestly think criminals or the soon-to-be criminal says "Well, I got a gun, now I can commit crimes" or "Man, I can't get a gun, no crime today" rather than "Ok, I need to perform X illegal activity, what do I have available to accomplish this with?"

Not sure why you think this person is suggesting focusing on just gun crime.

Must be be right because mass murders don't happen in countries with restrictive gun control.....

I couldn't agree more.

God fucking damn: no you don't. This guy is a cop?

Are you being deliberately dense?

Do you honestly think he was talking about purchasing a car for the purpose of never driving it on the road? If so, very good. You are a masterful nitpicker.

Yea, unless criminals are too stupid to file off serial numbers. Oh, and we already are held responsible: even a private seller can't sell to someone he has reason to believe wouldn't pass a background check. It isn't my fault the government can't enforce it's own laws.

This isn't true in every state. Like Utah, for example.

They don't fucking do anything because saying guns cause crime is like saying spoons make you fat. Stop trying to waste more of my taxdollars on your bullshit feelgood legislation and do something that actually fights crime. Shit, just take the millions you'd waste on your database and psych evals and hire more cops, train them better, and pay them better.

I do agree. I responded to your post though because I pictured you pulling angry german gamer on this article.

[Thanas]

angry german gamer? Eh?

[RogueIce]

angry german gamer? Eh?

I think he's talking about this

Anyway I don't buy the 'prove yourself sane' thing to own a gun because, well, Aaron said it best:

A lot of these issues won't come out without seeing a doctor for a long period of time. Dangerous people don't often meet the movie stereotypes. I have PTSD and I'm fairly confident that I could cover anything objectionable up long enough to get an OK.

I mean, what are the standards to be declared "sane" anyway? It seems like one of those ideas that sounds good on paper, but good luck actually defining it in any way that's workable as actual law.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

In Pennsylvania, you do have to have the title to a car to legally own it, even if it just sits in your yard and is never driven. You might think of it as "your car," but legally, it belongs to whoever's name is on the title, and they are responsible for it.

[Aaron MkII]

You pay the state a fee for that?

[TheFeniX]

Not sure why you think this person is suggesting focusing on just gun crime.

The vast majority of gun owners are completely sane and responsible people and yes, why punish the many to stop the few? Isn't it worth another extra step to prevent mass shootings, murder-suicides and other horrible gun crimes?

And by majority (and stated in the Gun Control thread), he means upwards of 99.9% of gun owners. He honestly believes this shit will stop gun crime. And even if it was true, it does nothing to fight the underlying issue of why people are committing these crimes in the first place. Meanwhile, a sane modification of existing mental health laws would have prevented at least one mass-shooter from buying a weapon "legally." Whether this would have stopped his rampage or not is debatable.

What good would either the idea of gun registration or mental checks do to stop someone from driving his car into a crowded cross-walk or stabbing 10 people to death? Not a fucking thing.

I understand this whole "protect people under the age of 18 from themselves" by sealing certain stupid shit they did while under-age. But we're talking about a kid who never should have been allowed to play with scissors, much less a firearm.

Are you being deliberately dense?

Do you honestly think he was talking about purchasing a car for the purpose of never driving it on the road? If so, very good. You are a masterful nitpicker.

It's not my fault he doesn't understand the difference between private ownership and public property. It's actually an extremely valid point on my part. It's always brought up "we register vehicle ownership." The U.S. does not. He tries to play it off like being allowed to own a car is harder than a pistol: this is a blatant faslehood. And as I pointed out in my last post: being licensed to operate a vehicle is bullshit easy-mode compared to being allowed to carry a gun in a sane state like Texas.

Yea, unless criminals are too stupid to file off serial numbers. Oh, and we already are held responsible: even a private seller can't sell to someone he has reason to believe wouldn't pass a background check. It isn't my fault the government can't enforce it's own laws.

This isn't true in every state. Like Utah, for example.

From Here

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law.

It's a Federal Law: The BATF will kick your ass if they think you knew you were selling to an ineligible buyer. Same thing with Straw Buys at retailers.

I do agree. I responded to your post though because I pictured you pulling angry german gamer on this article.

I'm not really mad. Just kind of rolling my eyes hard when I found out it was an LEO bringing this weak ass shit. When I do a post like this, people assume I'm foaming at the mouth. In reality, think more John Stewart pointing out political stupidity with his incredulous comments like "Are you fucking kidding me?"

[Sea Skimmer]

You pay the state a fee for that?

22.50$ processing fee to the state, plus whatever the auto tag place wants to charge you for its trouble, a dealership will normally eat the cost itself. This is in fact because the PA car title transfer process is how the state forces people to pay sales tax on car sales, you have to pay it at the same time to transfer the title.

PA also actually charges for state firearms background checks, 3$ as I recall, though normally gun dealers eat that cost themselves. Private sellers do not have to run these decks so its not a blanket limitation on gun sales.

On the other hand PA had several dozen free firing ranges that have existed for around a century, until last year, when lack of maintenance funds finally forced them to start charging a yearly permit fee unless you already bought a hunting license.

[Aaron MkII]

Yeah I figured it was a sales tax thing.

For a fun comparison, it cost me 60$ to apply for my license in Canada.

Edit: but that gets me five years of "walk in, walk out", longest it's taken me is 30 minutes, because the store was busy.