No, I am concerned that mentally ill people who aren’t dangerous to others would deliberately avoid treatment which might help them, out of fear that seeking out such treatment might result in them permanently losing a right they care about.
You are aware that there is no definitive test for sanity? Psychiatry isn’t as advanced as a lot of people seem to think it is.
You raise some very interesting points in your post, NamelessKing. The transient (or in some cases cyclical) nature of much mental illness is one of the characteristics which make formulating effective policies so difficult. Another significant issue is that some of the most dangerous people, namely sociopaths, can seem superficially “normal” and be very hard to diagnose. But they are clearly people we don’t want to have access to guns!
So since I committed myself I can still buy a gun? Hmmmm…
(planning the weekend’s festivities) Who first?
C’mon, who do you think pays for such a test? We all do, but it’s to our benefit! This is one thing that perplexes me about such a discussion. If you’re sane, you’ll get your gun, just get tested. Look, I’m no mental health expert and would leave it to others to decide exactly how mental competency for owing a gun is determined. But a society that does its best to make sure the insane don’t get guns is a safer society. How anyone could deny this (I’m not saying this about you) is beyond my comprehension.
I honestly don’t know. That’s why I asked.
So you want people who don’t ever want to buy guns to pay higher taxes so that gun buyers can be tested?
You use the words “sane” and “insane”. Did you know that these are strictly LEGAL terms? The words have no clinical meaning. Legal insanity means that the person in question cannot distinguish right from wrong. Thus, a woman who drowned her infant child because she believed that he was Satan and that the Lord wanted her to kill him (this was an actual case) is legally insane.
The irony of this statement in a thread about gun control is staggering.
Nah. If I were actually arguing for stricter gun control, then there would be irony.
But not clinically insane?
There is no such thing as “clinically insane”! The Diagnostic Statistical Manual is huge book filled with psychological conditions and disorders. The word insane does not appear in it. The woman in question clearly has delusions and hallucinations. These and other symptoms would lead to a diagnosis. That diagnosis would also not include the word insane.
Absolutely. As long as I live in a country with such easy access to guns, I’m willing to pay a bit more in taxes if it can keep me safer. I still benefit indirectly.
As I said, I’m not qualified to decide who gets the guns and who doesn’t. But however you determine this, and speaking in general terms, I know there are crazy people and not crazy people. I’d like to see the guns kept out of the hands of the former as much as possible.
Is this not true?
(I know, insane has no clinical meaning. 
)
I think it would be a lot more in taxes. This is not eye, hearing and driving tests at the DMV. This would be a few hours of psychological testing at about $100 per hour.
Kindly define “crazy”.
Good point. You’d have to pay for the testing yourself.
Do you think there are people who are mentally ill and incompetent to own a firearm? If not, then I really haven’t nothing more to say to you specifically about psychiatric testing before gun ownership. If so, then again, I’m not going to say exactly what testing should be done because I am not qualified to do so.
So, you have to pay a few hundred bucks in order to exercise a right guaranteed by the second ammendment?
Yes, I do think some folks are a danger to others or should not own firearms for due to other psychological conditions. That tells me nothing about what you mean by “crazy”.
Sure. Obviously, some rights, like the right to drive an automobile, require us to pay monetarily for them in some ways. Just because the right to bear arms is granted its specific place in the Constitution doesn’t mean similar requirements shoudn’t exist for it.
I’ve made it clear I’m not going to provide definitions because I am not a psychiatrist. I could use another word to describe “other psychological conditions”, but you’d just ask me the same type of question again, right? But however it’s defined, we agree some people shouldn’t get to own the guns due to them, right?
I disagree. This past year, there was a huge ruckus over the requiring of ID to vote. I also don’t see the NRA (or the ACLU for that matter) rolling over on this one. In order to exercise a Constitutional right you must pay a few hundred bucks. To keep your guns, you must undergo periodic re-testing (as getting a ‘sanity stamp’ one year is no proof you’re still not crazy the next) at similar expense.
Wrong. I’m not asking you to spout industry jargon like somebody with a degree. I just want to know what you mean when you say “crazy”.
I’ve got no problem with periodic testing. Also, I say there’s nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the government for imposing some requirements on exercising the rights specifically listed there, nor on other rights we have due to legislation. But I’m not a lawyer…
Oh, like my paranoid-schizophrenic grandmother, perhaps. She was a perfect example of someone who should never have been, and thankfully never was, allowed to own a gun.
That’s why I think maybe the best option then is to simply make mental healthcare more available and the people who need it aware of it. I keep reading the left’s response to the last few years’ tragedies and a number of them have all the marks of crazy people with guns, but the discussion rarely seems to enter that territory and instead veers into what we should ban.
I’m no lawyer either. But, I see a difference between
You must be 18 years old to vote
If you are convicted of certain crimes, you lose the right to vote
and
If you, who have committed no crime and are a legal adult, want to own and keep a firearm you have to pay a large sum of money each year.
The thing is, most paranoid schizophrenics (not knowing your grandmother, I’ll take your word that she was an exception) are not dangerous. They are delusional. They hallucinate. But, they aren’t dangerous. Of those schizophrenics that are dangerous, the majority are only a threat to themselves.
It’s like nuclear powerplants. They only make the news when something goes very wrong.
If they want a gun, I’m assuming they’d pay for it. In order to meet the qualifications to have a gun, it is assumed that the party that wants it pays for it. The government doesn’t issue a gun at birth, despite the right to carry it, you are not forced to.
Speech is free. As is religion. If you cannot afford to go marching on Washington, or get an internet connection, then you don’t get to speak at the National Mall, or rant about your anti-government BS on message boards. If the religion requires you to tithe and you can’t afford it, you don’t get to belong to that religion. So yeah, if you can’t afford to be tested mentally, you don’t get a gun
I can see how some people may want to equate this with voting. In case there are any such people, let me stop you guys at the pass right now. Voting is a free exercise of a right. It is the basis of all other rights but more than that you don’t get any extra objects that have an intrinsic cost when you vote (except maybe a sticker). But even still, there are regulations. You get to vote only at a certain time. You can only vote for certain people based on where you live, and only once. Failure to adhere to those rules makes your vote ineligible. Its not a hard line to cross, just vote honestly and you vote will count. But people like you seem to think that any impediment to gun ownership is wrong. That’s insane. The government may allow you to have guns, but they have the power to regulate those guns and how they are used, or any other aspect they deem fit
Seriously, is this what you want your argument to be, talking about a fictional stamp?
Who says anything about it being permanent?
And yet there are tests for specific mental illnesses just as there are drugs for them and treatment. The determination that those who pose a danger to themselves and/or others is not a made up diagnosis, there are actually people who are dangerous to themselves and others. Those people rightly should be denied gun ownership. Just because it doesn’t cover the gamut of all humanity does not mean that it would not lower the rate of mentally unstable people owning firearms.
DrCube, earlier you mentioned incentives for people with mental illnesses who seek treatment. What do you have in mind?