Psychopathy and sociopathy are merely pop-psychology terms that people use to describe what actual psychologists refer to as antisocial personality disorder. It's not actually very useful to make a distinction between the two, and as I stated before, the archetype of the 'cold and calculating' evil genius who appears normal but is actually a raving nutcase exists primarily in fiction. In the real world, it's not difficult to spot the warning signs of APD, and the people who have it are usually not very successful at hiding it.
Can you cite any credible sources or examples to support your position? Also, I'm pretty sure that a lot of people who seriously do want to do acts of extreme violence with a firearm are at least smart enough to shut the fuck up until after their background check goes through and they're off with the item. It's not always obvious to the average person if a particular individual is planning something, especially post-Columbine and 9/11, where pretty much any innocuous comment is treated in a ridiculously serious manner. Those who are serious about it, if they are smart enough to, can avoid getting caught until it's time, and those who do end up on the radar sometimes even get let go due to a lack of actionable evidence. Nikolas Cruz's teachers had warned the FBI about him, maybe more than once, but nothing came of it. Elliot Rodger also had a "welfare check" by law enforcement that fostered no real results, as he put on a friendly face and told them it was all a misunderstanding. So even if there is something "off" about a person, it's not always actionable, unless you want to go "lock up anyone who doesn't seem exactly like a normie" route.
Is it an unnecessary shift of the burden of proof to demand that people take a test in order to be allowed to drive on public roads? Is it a violation of privacy and doctor-patient confidentiality to require that people who are medically unfit to drive should make that known to the relevant authorities?
One is a constitutional right, the other is not. Do you think it's fair to license people to allow them to post opinions on internet message boards? Or to fine and jail them for having an opinion that runs counter to that which society deems "acceptable?" How about being required to let law enforcement into my house any time they want, to "prove" that I am "not doing anything wrong?"
Driving is not in the Bill of Rights, but you could make a spirited argument against requiring drivers to be licensed under the Ninth Amendment, saying that it restricts one's freedom to travel throughout the country. This may not necessarily be true as other options exist, but I can see where such a thing is coming from. But that being said, licensing drivers does almost nothing to keep idiots off the road, but it sure does provide revenue for state governments. And anyone with at least a room temperature IQ can at least pass the written test in a lot of states, and you can retake it as much as you like. And you can take both written and physical as many times as you are willing to pay for.
Besides, treating firearms like we treat vehicles, with licensing, tabs, etc., is probably not a good idea, as governments have a vested interest in not allowing their subjects, er, I mean, "citizens," to be armed. This has been true of almost any government throughout history. Maybe it sounds good in theory and I can understand where a person could be coming from on this, but in practice, a lot of registration forms will be either deliberately delayed or "forgotten" entirely. New Jersey is pretty notorious for this from what I have heard.
This is a defeatist statement that lacks any strength of conviction. Of course there are going to be some disturbed people who will want to do disturbed things, but that doesn't mean that we have to resign ourselves to that fact and refuse to take steps to reduce the chances of it happening. There are plenty of European countries that are measurably a lot freer than the United States, and yet they have much tighter controls on firearms. How could this be possible?
My point is, that maybe we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water. Trying to crack down on "disturbed" people casts a huge net, and it's very difficult to deny people their rights without taking it through the court system and proving it there with solid evidence. How hard is this to understand? Besides, there is a massive stigma with mental health in the US, and many people who have problems, even minor ones, are afraid to speak up because they could lose their rights and credibility. The Obama administration wanted to deny many returning veterans their right to keep and bear arms, due to allegations of PTSD or "political extremism" that many may have been exposed to. Most people with mental health problems aren't even that dangerous, except maybe to themselves. The kinds of people that genuinely think that "zombies from Mars want to sodomize their souls and eat their brains" or whatever crazy shit are not all that common.
And what kind of European countries are supposedly "freer" than the US, firearm regs aside? The fucking UK? Pfff, they're actually convicting people of "hate crimes" for making idiotic videos of dogs saluting Hitler or posting "offensive" rap lyrics on Instagram. And the police had to struggle to find someone to pretend to be offended to get a conviction. To say nothing of them going after knives now, leftist/progressive types will never be satisfied. In the US, they can't even get the DNC out of debt, nor find another "pet cause" to rally around. Trannies and gun control are total non-starters there. And France isn't much better than the UK freedom wise from what I hear, at least on the Internet "hate crime" part.
As I have stated, I have nothing against civilian gun ownership, and if you support the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns within reasonable limits, then I am on your side. If however, you have bought into the myths that having more guns in society is automatically better, that any legislation designed to curb them from being used malevolently is futile, or that your political freedom is somehow centrally dependent upon your ability to keep a gun, then I am afraid to say that you are delusional.
On a related note, I find that people who try to draw a link between guns and freedom usually tend to be people who measure freedom solely in terms of the freedom to own firearms. Don't be one of those people.
There are plenty of reasonable limits already in place , the laws that are needed already exist for the most part. (NFA, Brady Bill, FOPA 1986, state laws, etc.) It's not always easy to enforce laws surrounding what is seen by many as an inalienable right, and when done, it's not often in the right place. The public is often told to focus on "Oh My God This Gun Looks SCARY" type shit instead of things that would honestly stand a chance of making it anywhere into law, let alone any kind of difference. The only certain way to make any substantial difference, legally speaking, is to perhaps amend the Constitution to reduce or eliminate the 2nd entirely. This would require a lot of support that just isn't there right now, but could be at some future time, depending on how foolish the public might be at any given time. I think it's a very bad idea for a number of reasons, but it's probably the only way any truly substantial change in firearm laws in the US is going to come along. The whole thing has been so ridiculously polarized that even simple mental health screenings are difficult to get enacted, because many people feel that the government has no right to deny them something they see as protected by the Bill of Rights. These kinds of things lose elections in many places, whether lobbyist groups get involved or not.
RKBA in itself is not the sole indicator of personal and political freedom in any given country or state, but it most certainly does have a strong correlation. Those who want guns banned are often the types who want to control other things as well, and seem to put their faith in institutions rather than individuals. I know this because I have family like this and it's kind of sad, really. People who think we can just make laws and magically whisk away all the world's ills are the delusional ones here, not the people who associate firearm ownership with freedom. The delusional types, like racism and alcohol poisoning, do exist, however, they are way overplayed and overexaggerated for political points or for laughs, depending on the social circle and the situation.
Honestly, the whole debate's been hijacked by people who want firearms to magically disappear with the stroke of a pen, and those who want to be able to order online and instantly have them teleported USS Enterprise style right into their living rooms. I could personally get behind a mental health test or something like that, if it actually worked, but such a plan is so full of holes it might as well be Swiss cheese. Plus, there's the whole "hurr durr guvamint ain't gunna tell me whattado" crowd, who won't stand for such a thing in the first place.
One last exhibit: the states with the strictest gun control are generally lower on the personal freedom scale compared to other states, with California and New York being the two worst. The bottom five are also Democrat mainly, go figure. The bottom ten have Kentucky but that's about it for the non-Democrat states in that range.
https://www.freedominthe50states.org/
