I better get in on this instead of thread-s*****ng.
I don't know if this has been said or not, but lets put a different spin on this. Lets not look at it as "We're controlling what you do", or "They're curtailing the 2nd amendment" trains of thought.
Drop those, and then look at this section here:
Applicants face strict background checks, including criminal history, a full psychological evaluation and a medical exam. They must pass a test on firearm laws and safety.
The first part is kind of suspect. But I don't think anyone can completely be all that upset with keeping firearms out of the hands of those mentally unfit to care for them. I'll take it a step further and say that I'd be glad to be the anxiety/ptsd poster boy that believes I probably should not own a gun. There are points where my anxiety kicks in and gives me some unbearable negativity with the world as a whole; a bad combination considering that sometimes I can be an arrogant prick that thinks he knows all the answers. To date, I've been able to maintain. But I can see how there are much further extremes in mental instability than what I deal with that I likely wouldn't be able to handle in a well thought out manner. So I'd say Yes, I believe a psych eval for anyone that owns a gun has great value.
Mind you, I do own one. And am yet to use it for a purpose other than understanding how it works.
Each weapon is then registered by the police during a home visit. Police take bullet patterns, test bullets and cartridges so bullets can be matched if the gun is used in a crime. A license lasts five years, after which applicants must go through the whole process again
A home visit almost feels like an invasion of Privacy. I'm not sure I can get in line with that, but if you put that under the first section of psych eval it's tolerable.
Now the bullet patterns and such make perfect sense. To a degree, it also blows the argument of "Criminals don't obey laws" out of the water if you follow it through just a little further. Criminals don't obey laws.. great. But Criminals also find every crack, every nook, every possible way to get through the screen we call "Law" they can. "Criminal Lawyer" indeed! This evidence would help build better, stronger cases against the worst criminals, those that are actually using the guns for violent crimes. That tied in with tougher gun laws gets those criminals off the streets for longer periods of time.
So in a way, it does/can make sense.
At the same time, following it through to the very end, they just end up in Prison. Prison is still violent, and perpetuates the lifestyle that said criminal was living in. So in order for this really to work, we'd have to overhaul the way we look at Criminal Rehabilitation, which is much more costly. OR, those violent crimes criminals that manage to make repeat offenses we kill. I'm pretty pro-death penalty anyway.
We kind of end up in a d***ed if we do d***ed if we don't situation.
So what is the answer here? I have no idea. But I believe coming closer to Russian gun control laws has more value than keeping the standard we have now.
