Bang!

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

"Reasonable", to me, is considering the totality of the situation, of a prospective gun owner. If you're in a house with someone who has a history of violence or mental health issues, then odds are you shouldn't have a firearm on the premises. Proper storage is also an issue.

When I got my Firearms Acquisition Certificate, I went through a RCMP background check, that included fingerprinting. When I got my Restricted Weapons Certificate they repeated that process, to make sure that there were no un-logged changes in my situation. The local Firearms Officer also attended my home in order to check that I had proper, lockable storage for my restricted weapon.

I see nothing unreasonable in these practices.

The primary issue is how do you establish that totality of a situation? We often don't have the ability to check the mental health history of the person who wants to buy a firearm, much less the history for everyone in a household. We have a ton of laws that protect the privacy of a patient's medical records. A person can have an extensive history of mental health issues and have none of it show up on any background check. As far as I know the only things related to mental health that would flag on a background check is if someone's mental issues create problems with the police or they are deemed incompetent by the courts. We have two opposing interests and, at least at this time, the government has determined that protecting a patient's privacy is more important than understanding a person's mental health for firearm ownership.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by OneSickPsycho

I disagree...

So would the Iraqis and Afghanis. They put up pretty effective resistance for a long time with not much more than light weapons and improvised explosives.

[OneSickPsycho]

Originally Posted by goof2

So would the Iraqis and Afghanis. They put up pretty effective resistance for a long time with not much more than light weapons and improvised explosives.

Vietnam.

[azoomm]

Originally Posted by Switch

And for you all you yippee kiy yi yay cowboy wannabe motherfuckers, guess what. If the US of A wanted to wage war against it's citizens, you could never stop our military. Sorry. So the point you are trying to make by saving up thousands of rounds of ammunition is moot.

You have completely missed the point of the 2nd amendment.

[Switch]

Originally Posted by azoomm

You have completely missed the point of the 2nd amendment.

So then bestow upon me your wisdom.

[RACER X]

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

The primary issue is how do you establish that totality of a situation? We often don't have the ability to check the mental health history of the person who wants to buy a firearm, much less the history for everyone in a household. We have a ton of laws that protect the privacy of a patient's medical records. A person can have an extensive history of mental health issues and have none of it show up on any background check. As far as I know the only things related to mental health that would flag on a background check is if someone's mental issues create problems with the police or they are deemed incompetent by the courts. We have two opposing interests and, at least at this time, the government has determined that protecting a patient's privacy is more important than understanding a person's mental health for firearm ownership.

Highlight the duty of medical professionals to report possibly dangerous issues.

Nothing is perfect but doing more, or at least doing something, is better than nothing. If nothing else, storage and inspection rules must be improved.

[shmike]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Nothing is perfect but doing more, or at least doing something, is better than nothing. If nothing else, storage and inspection rules must be improved.

I don't see that being a big hit with those familiar with our Bill of Rights.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by shmike

I don't see that being a big hit with those familiar with our Bill of Rights.

Times change. Perhaps it's time for it to change too. At this point in your history there are far too many people screaming about their rights. When the damned thing was originally penned, people understood that they also had some basic responsibilities.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by goof2

So would the Iraqis and Afghanis. They put up pretty effective resistance for a long time with not much more than light weapons and improvised explosives.

These and Vietnam was never officially waged against citizens. If ridding the civilian population was the goal, the countries would now be populated by a different population base.

It would all depend on how far the government would go and what the situation is...