But that seems entirely sensible. People who want to own nuclear bombs are also dangerous. EDIT I can't believe I replied to him AGAIN. Agh.
I'm okay with individuals paying. You want the damn thing then pay for it. Nobody ever said a gun needs to be cheap. Edit: You mean like buying a permit to protest? That is a financial barrier as well. By the way, mental health is covered by most insurance companies and thanks to Obamacare there's no excuse not to be covered.
But the question is how much would it cost. Permits to protest are allowable as long as they aren't priced at such a level to make it burdensome on exercising the right to assemble. It's one thing to charge a $50 fee to reserve a place on public property. It's another thing entirely to charge a $50000 fee for the same thing, in order to prevent most people from being able to hold a gathering. In the same way, requiring a psych evaluation would not be an allowable restriction if it were meant to substantially burden the right to bear arms.
Well, considering the gun fools are paying over $2,000 for a damn gun already I don't think they need to worry too much about a 'barrier'. You could consider the price of a gun to be a financial barrier if you want to get real anal about that. And a psychiatrist without insurance costs 250-500 a session hardly a burden to own a penis enlargement tool that you're forking over a grand for already.
Not every gun costs that much. The most expensive gun in my collection cost me $950. My revolver (which is the most accurate, and perfectly functional for daily carry or home defense) cost me $250. Some handguns can cost as little as $100 or so. A Mossberg 500 pump action shotgun (good for either hunting or home defense) can be bought for $200-300. My hunting rifle cost me about $250. Compared to those prices, a $250 evaluation would be a significant burden.
Yeah, you're at a real financial disadvantage. I'm sorry, that was mean. What I meant was that if you can plop down 950 for a gun then an added 250 is not a 'barrier'. Don't worry, after the evaluation you'll get your murder machines.
I think the issue that you guys aren't discussing is that if the government is involved, or something goes so far as being required by the government, it's going to be half a donkey at best. See, this is where knowledge of actual procedures comes into play, because every person who fills out the paperwork to buy gun is subject to a mini-psyche evaluation at the time of purchase through the form. It already has a section which acts as a psyche profile for prohibited behaviors. If a potential gun purchaser answers affirmative to any of the questions, then the sale is denied. The answers are then compared to what is reported to the national background check, and if there is any discrepancy, then the sale is denied as well. What it does is prevent the worst offenders from buying a gun, or those who are truly insane and don't recognize the intent of the questionnaire, but if one is savy or devious, then one could potentially fake it (assuming there are also no hits when the answers are verified against the background check) Any actual psychological screening that is required by the government, even if it's in front of a paid psychologist, is going to be basic and rudimentary at best. It would probably cover what is already asked on the firearm questionnaire anyway-probably walking in, talking 10 minutes with a psychologist, and as long as you didn't say you were going to harm yourself or others, then it would be passed. The other factors that would come into play: 1)I'm sure on one side, there would be an entire cottage industry of "gun permit" psychologists. Charge $100 to sign off on some government form, and each psychologist would rake in the dollars. 2)On the other side, I'm sure there would be all sorts of potential liability involved. If a psychologist denies someone, would they sue, or appeal? What if a psychologist passes someone, and they go off and shoot someone? Would there be "malpractice" protection? My point is that any of this is already covered by what prohibits someone from being able to complete a firearm purchase, and is why the most effective tool would be to increase the data reported to the background check itself, as long as such data is scrubbed.
And what about the person who can only afford $200 for a shotgun? Your fee would then be more than the cost of the gun. How is that not prohibitive (especially if you start tacking permit fees and so forth on top of it)?
Nah, it's about $80-$100 per session, without insurance. There are also several low cost alternatives... several universities offer low cost counseling. You could see a PhD student for about $25.
Because you can still buy it. Gun ownership is the only form of right that has a physical and commercial component to it. Nobody ever said you can get guns cheaply--just that you can own them.
Other than trying to make it more inconvenient for everyone to get a gun (rather than just focusing on people who are dangerous), what do you expect it will accomplish? If you are relying on a $25 session with a PhD student, how likely are you to actually catch people who are likely to be a threat? How will you keep what @Mr44 described ("gun permit" psychologists) from happening, especially with PhD students who need money? If your goal is just to reduce the number of gun owners by making it inconvenient, then it is unconstitutional. From the proposed measures so far, it would either be prohibitively expensive (and therefore unconstitutional), or easily bypassed (and therefore ineffective), or overly burdensome through excessive denials and/or appeals (which would also be unconstitutional).
What about freedom of the press? It takes money to publish things (even online). And yet, the Supreme Court specifically held that government measures specifically meant to increase the cost of publishing a newspaper (i.e. a tax on ink and paper) are an unconstitutional infringement of the right to a free press.
PhD students are under direct supervision by licensed psychologists and psychiatrists and have to follow the same code of ethics.
FID, that's exactly my point. Because to have an impact, real psychological assessment takes place over multiple sessions. You're saying to make some sort of requirement to have a "professional" talk to someone in order to buy a gun, but that in itself, would be meaningless, because just like "lying on a form, " all the person would have to do is put on their best face for a couple of minutes and get the box checked. The process would really just mirror what already exists, and the practical result would be no different. You're tying the general requirement to the gun itself, when that is short-sighted. You have to move the focus away from the actual gun, and look at behavior prior to someone "being on their best behavior" at the time they want to purchase one. That's why the real deterrent has to be looked at in broader terms. For example, people convicted of domestic violence/battery are prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Terrorizing a spouse isn't dependent on owning a gun in any way, but it indicates a broader mindset related to violence, especially where guns could be misused. Ensuring that all courts everywhere report things like domestic violence convictions to the background check system would be 100x more effective than a vague requirement that all gun owners get a box checked off after spending $200 and talking with a psychologist for 10 minutes, because that is already mirrored by the gun purchase form itself, which is checked against the NICS database. In fact, here's the list of everything that will flag a person from being sold a firearm, as long as it is reported to the NICS database: A person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years. Persons who are fugitives of justice—for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant. An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year. A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial. A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States. A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection (y) (2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa. A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces. A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship. The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders. A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim. A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
The supreme court is wrong. Taxes are not financial barriers. Now if it was a 'freedom of the press' charge, say...$50,000 on each roll of paper and $100,000 for ink then you may have a point. As for psychiatric evaluations, I'm sorry to get too personal, but how many of them have you been through? I've been through a few because I have anxiety and depression issues. It's a little hard for a mentally disturbed individual to hide their symptoms.
You miss the point, again. Will they be as capable of determining whether someone will be dangerous? Is every session under direct supervision of the licensed psychologists at all times? Or will the psychologist simply review the case records after the fact? Additionally, you can follow a code of ethics to the letter, but that doesn't mean that you will make a better diagnosis in the end. Not only that, but just because they are required to follow a code of ethics doesn't mean that they actually do. Mass murders are relatively rare in the US. They have been in a fairly steady decline since the 1920s, even if there have been more high profile incidents. Unless you get a clear pattern of someone passing dangerous people off as not dangerous, it would be difficult to determine if someone was simply incompetent at making the diagnosis, or if they were acting unethically to get as much money as they could. Remember, there are two types of error in every filtering system (which is what you are basically proposing). Type I errors are false positives, where someone would be identified as a danger when they really aren't. Type II errors are false negatives, where someone who is really dangerous is identified as not. Only a small fraction of a percent of firearms (and firearm owners) each year are involved in the commission of a crime. Those are the people that need to be identified and prohibited from having firearms. And yet, it does no good to try and filter them out if your Type I rate traps more people than your actual targets. Similarly, if you have significant Type II errors (either through mistakes, because the person didn't give any signs in the evaluation, or because of unethical evaluators), then your filter is essentially useless. That, for example, is the problem with the proposal to block anyone on the "no fly list" from being able to buy a gun. There are so many false positives (including members of Congress who have been flagged) on that list that it winds up infringing the rights of more people than it legitimately blocks.
In that case, you would have no problem with a poll tax for voters? After all, a modest $5, or even $25 is not a real financial barrier to voting now, is it? (Heck, since you are so desirous to ignore Constitutional Amendments, let's just ignore the 24th Amendment while we're at it.) I've actually been through quite a few myself, from when I was under treatment for ADHD when I was younger. I've also been dealing with a therapist who has had to regularly evaluate my aunt (who has now been in assisted living for two years). In my aunt's case, she's provided regular and obvious signs of depression (to the point of repeatedly claiming to us that she wishes that she had died in her fall two years ago), and yet because she knows what answers the therapist is looking for, the therapist repeatedly says that there isn't a problem with her. However, as @Mr44 pointed out in response to you, it can take several sessions for a therapist to make an accurate diagnosis (and even that isn't necessarily reliable, as in my aunt's case). Meanwhile, if you have to base things on only a single session, it's a lot easier to both fake your way through the session and get additional false positives (i.e. both Type I and Type II errors).
Well, presently there is not system in place to "filter" out dangerous individuals, so right now, dangerous people are automatically let through. I see any move towards screening gun applicants as a step in the right direction. Why are you so opposed to precautionary methods? Why do you believe that psych students would act unethically in order to get money? These things are closely monitored. It's not like they wouldn't be held accountable. I mean, their license or ability to obtain a license would be at stake. That's like saying doctors (or residents) can't be trusted to make diagnoses or treat somebody because they are out to make a buck.
Yes, there is a system to filter out dangerous individuals as defined by law. It's the NICS background check. You can see the list of who is supposed to be prohibited here: The problem with #5 is because not all of the states report the needed information to NICS. If the information is never reported, it can't be used to prohibit the transfer.
And all of this might be accurate, but you're missing the realities of government-required anything. If the justice department makes it a requirement to talk with a licensed professional prior to anyone buying a firearm, then the government is going to get involved with, and set the requirements of such regulation. It's not going to be the case of simply talking with a PhD student to either pass or fail the requirement. I think it would actually demean the overall psychological process. All psychologists say that accurate progress can't be achieved in a single session, and it would be a step backward to pretend that anything could be accomplished in one simply to fulfill some requirement. I mean, James Holmes was a PhD student himself, and the immediate, intentionally sarcastic answer is to point out that I'm sure it violates the PhD candidate code of ethics to go on a mass shooting. But the more realistic answer is that you don't think Holmes wouldn't be able to just go to one of his peers and get the form signed off on? Doctors intentionally mis-prescribe medication to their friends/family all the time. Hollywood physicians are notorious for prescribing drugs to celebrities, which most certainly violates their code of ethics. Can you ensure that all psychologists/PhD candidates are going to act in an ethical manner? You can't. All this does is replace one aspect of reliance of human behavior with another. Because contained in any hypothetical regulation requirement would also be penalties for the violation and/or misuse of the regulation. So, not only do you waste resources on a meaningless requirement as it applies to the vast majority of gun owners, but you also create an entirely new category of enforcement, and tie up resources prosecuting those psychologists who violate the regulation itself. But of course, you could always make another regulation which mandates that those psychologists who screen gun owners would have to talk with a different psychologist to make sure they're not abusing their approval, until it becomes a huge morass of a pyramid scheme of regulations and requirements..... EDIT-KK's above point. That's exactly the issue that is easiest to fix.
Sure, treatment takes multiple sessions, but I'm not talking about treatment. I'm talking about an assessment. It wouldn't replace NICS; it would be added to it. It seems that you are out to refute any possible idea that would possibly help in this situation. Do you think anything can be done to improve on the current process of acquiring firearms? I actually agree with KK that better communication/reporting with NICS would be helpful.
Although it's for another debate, you get no sympathy for "inconvenience" - isn't that the entire goal of most Republican legislatures regarding abortion? Of course not, but that does not mean it isn't beneficial. You and KK both seem to think that any regulation that isn't perfect is invalid.
