P
PeteZ28
Guest
Unfortunately, they very often are. In their desire to be “first”, they often pass off speculation rather than wait for the facts.
- Status
B
Bradski
Guest
See here for typical application requirements in Australia:/ police.wa.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=O3tmMqtmY1A%3d&tabid=865
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Not a bad application.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Perhaps I’ve missed it in the application you cite, but where does it address the question that was asked – that is, the process (or criteria) by which someone is declared sufficiently ‘insane’ to be prohibited from purchasing a firearm?
In fact, all the application demonstrates is that, in Australia, one must prove (to the satisfaction of the state) that one has a ‘need’ to purchase a firearm.
E
Eddie_Mac
Guest
I actually think they should have to eat with plastic utensils too.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
He gave an example of one application as it is written in Australia. There is always the possibility of adding more criteria to that given application. For example, anyone who has symptoms of mental and behavioural disorders as classified either by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association OR by
ICD-10 Chapter V, International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision,
OR who is judged to be mentally insane, should in my opinion be denied a gun permit.
E
Eddie_Mac
Guest
That answered none of my questions.
E
Eddie_Mac
Guest
The DSM is updated all of the time as opinions change about what mental disorders are.
The DSM could be updated to add white male conservative Christian voters as as mental disorder if the “scientific consensus” agreed to it.
Oath Keepers are classified as a domestic terrorist organization by the Southern Poverty Law Center which the Department of Homeland Security uses for reference.
In this day and age anyone can be classified as anything at the whim of any so called professional organization or the government.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
The application for a gun permit should then be updated as well, keeping it current with present scientific knowledge on mental disorders and insanity.
I
ichabode
Guest
I am sure this has already been covered, but if you attend Mass in a military war zone don’t be surprised as the military carry their weapons.
I for one have always felt more comfortable with our armed women and men in the military carrying their guns, and only wish they would be allowed to do so when they are back in the states. If they did Maj. Hassan would have been to cowardly to kill our loved ones at Ft. Hood.
I would imagine if a priest would say Mass for police officers they too would most likely be carrying guns on themselves even as they go up to receive communion.
A final note Peter had sword he used to cut off a temple guards ear. Now I realize that was probably not the wise on Peter’s part, but he had a sword.
I for one have always felt more comfortable with our armed women and men in the military carrying their guns, and only wish they would be allowed to do so when they are back in the states. If they did Maj. Hassan would have been to cowardly to kill our loved ones at Ft. Hood.
I would imagine if a priest would say Mass for police officers they too would most likely be carrying guns on themselves even as they go up to receive communion.
A final note Peter had sword he used to cut off a temple guards ear. Now I realize that was probably not the wise on Peter’s part, but he had a sword.
G
Gorgias
Guest
That would not represent an update, but an addition: the application makes no mention of ‘insanity’ or qualifications to prove a lack thereof. And, that was the question to which he replied. In other words, he gave a non-responsive answer.
G
GEddie
Guest
Secular, mebbe, but they close businesses on Sunday, unlike us.
West Edmonton Mall, the largest in the western world, I was there on a Sunday, it was silent except a handful of eateries and a few walkers; imagine that anywhere in the USA.
All the things you criticize about Canada, we are heading the same way and with 10 times more people pushing the handbasket.
ICXC NIKA
G
GEddie
Guest
Bank account: why not? Shouldn’t they have an equal right to waste their own money as, say, a non-insane shopaholic?
I’d be on the same page with limiting access by these people to joint accounts.
Car: Probably not, as this, too, is a potential lethal weapon, although in this country already heavily regulated, as IMNAAHO firearms should likewise be.
OTOH, I notice you said “buy” not “drive.” Why shouldn’t they buy a car if someone else will drive them (and if can afford it).
ICXC NIKA
B
Bradski
Guest
The second paragraph.
I think it did.
The Commissioner of police determines if you fail to meet standards of mental or physical fitness. You’d have to ask them how this process works, but I assume that if you found it reasonable it would be acceptable. I assume that you wouldn’t want a license issued to someone whom you believed to be mentally unfit.
You fill in the forms yourself. It’s then checked to make sure you haven’t lied.
The state police in this case enforce it.
It’s a state matter in this case. The license is issued by the state police.For 12 moths. The renewed upon application. Assuming you have been a good boy and haven’t been beating your wife up or robbing banks in the interim.
In any case, in what way would you restrict ownership of guns? You obviousLy wouldn’t want just anyone to have them, so how would you do it. Let’s find some common ground.
G
Gorgias
Guest
“The Act requires that the Commissioner not approve a license or permit [where] the person is not a fit and proper person to hold the approval, permit, or license”? That’s what you’re talking about?
It explains what ‘fit and proper’ means in the following paragraph:
“In particular the Commissioner will take into account circumstances that indicate that a person has a history of, or a tendency towards, violent behaviour, fails to meet standards of mental or physical fitness; or suspects that the person is a threat to public safety.”
Notice that this language only denies licenses to those who have already committed violence or threatened it, (or shown evidence of lack of ‘mental fitness’)!
That’s why the act doesn’t answer the question asked. There is no definition of what “insane enough to not be ‘fit’ to own a firearm” means – or whether that’s distinct from other definitions of ‘insanity.’
Fair enough. Are you suggesting that the government undertake a sweeping program of evaluation of the mental fitness of its citizens in general? After all, in the cases of these mass murders, the actor always reveals himself as someone who may have seemed troubled to some, but not all, and who (typically) has no history of violence. (That, by the way, is why it’s so difficult to address this situation, and why the suggestions made are insufficient to react to it. One would have to either completely take away the 2nd Amendment or establish a Soviet-style Secret Police against the populace for it to work.)
In that way, it sounds quite a bit like the processes that many states have for ‘concealed carry’ permits.
The issue, it seems, is that the right to own a firearm was one that the framers of the U.S. Constitution found so necessary as to enshrine it in our Bill of Rights. They feared that a government could turn tyrannical and trample the rights of its citizens, and so, as a defense against that sort of turn of events, granted the right to bear arms.
Now the question is how we can reasonably curtail that right – in the attempt to eliminate these kinds of mass murders – without trampling the rights of the populace. Given that these criminals tend not to have a history of criminal behavior, the question you’re asking is how we can predict crime sufficiently well so as to prevent it. Doesn’t that mean that we’re naturally going to curtail the rights of some innocent citizens in the process? Blackstone’s ratio (“it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”) has been a cornerstone principle of British and American governance and jurisprudence for over three centuries. Are we suggesting that we tilt the balance in the other direction? Because, it seems, that’s precisely what dictatorships do; and there’s a substantial bias against turning our democracies into dictatorships… I hope.
B
Brendan
Guest
Who makes that judgment on the symptoms, or insanity? does the clerk at the gun store? Or would it have to be diagnosed by a professional. If an individual has not been so diagnosed, what then?
Or if there is a diagnosis for Dyscalculia (mathematics learning disorder), which is in the DSM (315.1). Would that disqualify a person from gun ownership?
Or Disorder of Written Expression (DSM IV - 315.2) , the reduced ability to write coherent sentences. That too is in the DSM. Does that disqualify a person as well?
B
Bradski
Guest
No. Only those who make an application for a gun license.
I’m assuming that you wouldn’t want people who have numerous convictions for violence or those with serious mental problems owning a gun. I guess we can agree on this. All we need to do is make sure that the criteria is fair enough so that it doesn’t exclude people who don’t fit into these categories.
And that could be a bone of contention, but if we could agree on what that system could be, we are in agreement for gun control.
Now it won’t serve the discussion at all if you now insist on giving examples of how any given system might not work. It would help if you gave some suggestions on how you think it could work.
Then again, if you think the whole problem is in the too hard basket, then say so. Or if you are happy with the current situation, then say so.
P
Pulvis
Guest
This is an issue that the NRA has been trying to address. It is an interesting, and quite complicated question. Do we need mental health professionals to report to state or federal law enforcement? Does someone have to be Judged deficient legally before loosing the right? Can Family or acquaintances report someone to law enforcement? Very complicated issue that needs to be worked out. As we know, a large majority of the recent mass shootings were committed by individuals either being treated with psychotropic meds or ADD meds, with a history of abnormal behavior.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
That makes basic common sense to my mind. I don’t know how many professions in the US are subject to stringent psych examinations but in AUS. the police, airforce and certain branches of defense are put through an examination to precludes certain people. I believe the airlines are pretty strict about psych evaluations also. You just don’t want people with instabilities to be responsible for equipment and machinery that can be turned on others with deadly effects.
T
The_Wizard
Guest
If this has already been posted I apologize but Jesus did approve of weapon ownership! “But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword.” Luke 22:36 (my emphasis added).
- Status