Why to be wary of imposed 'sanity' checks:


PDA






Lucky
April 19, 2007, 05:09 PM
First: Sanity or Insanity are legal terms, not medical terms, used to refer to a person suspected of crimes, and on trial. Do you want owning a gun to make you equivalent to a person on trial?


Second: Every medical test has a false-positive rate. None are perfect. Even the most accurate drug tests looking for specific compounds, in the most ideal circumstances, have false-positive rates. This means that out of a hundred sober people taking a drug test, a certain amount of them will test positive and the test will be wrong.

Imagine this applied to millions of gun owners; a 1% false-positive rate would disenfranchise tens of thousands of people. And there is NO mental test for sanity or insanity, those are legal terms used to discuss a CRIMINAL'S culpability. Any psychological tests using bureaucratic checklists will always be biased in favour of some group, and against others, it's inevitable.


Third: Forced psychological screening is an invasion of privacy. Your HEALTH is no-body's business but yours. Do they make HIV positive people walk around with a badge, so you can spot them? No, that would be a violation of their privacy. But singling out gun-owners would just set a precedent, and years later it would be possible to walk into a bar and see who has Herpes by their nametags.


Fourth: The FBI report released in 2006 made it extremely clear that someone going to commit a crime if never impeded by legal restrictions on acquiring firearms. Killers will always get the weapons they want.


I know there are people who are certified by medical personnel to be a threat to themselves or others, and that is just the borderline of what I'm willing to accept, for state imposing punishments on people who have not committed crimes, but even then there must be people like relatives who act in the patient's interest.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why to be wary of imposed 'sanity' checks:" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
illspirit
April 19, 2007, 05:22 PM
Fifth: Many of those in the mental health industry feel owning a gun is a mental illness in itself, and would love the chance to disqualify us from owning a gun because we asked if we could...

critter
April 19, 2007, 05:33 PM
Sixth: No person on earth has ever visited a shrink at $250 per hour only to hear him say 'You are fine. Go home and do not come back'.

Lucky
April 19, 2007, 06:04 PM
Damned straight, both.

JerryM
April 19, 2007, 06:14 PM
In my view both psychology and psychiatry are so inexact that I would not trust either in a majority of cases.
I don't really "hate my mother." I guess so many of them do they think we all do.

Jerry

obxned
April 19, 2007, 11:32 PM
It would just be another BS way to control people, something the government seems to love.

Many of the people writting laws could not pass the requirements for obtaining a CC permit, some are not legally able to own firearms. Some are alcoholics, some use drugs, and they use our money to buy the votes needed for re-election. They exempt themselves from the truth in advertising laws (because they know they will lie to you to get elected), and opt out of the medical and retirement programs we are forced into 'for our own good'.

So just who is it who really needs thier mental fitness examined?

security6
April 19, 2007, 11:42 PM
Seventh: Who is going to pay for these "sanity" checks? How much will it add to the price of a gun?

As another poster noted - shrinks are not cheap.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why to be wary of imposed 'sanity' checks:" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!