I can agree with carrying a rifle or shotgun where the population density is less than the maximum range of the weapon, on average. My point here is that along with the individual right to carry the weapon is other folks right to be safe from that weapon. Does this seem extreme or do I just have to trust you? When you consider that nearly half of the US population will suffer from some mental illness in their lifetime, I don't think it is unreasonable. This is why I also support psychological testing for anyone wishing to possess firearms. Mind you, the 46.4% of us who will suffer a mental illness should not automatically disqualify the individual. Some of these illnesses are quite mild. Actually, only 6% will suffer from extreme mental illness. But this leave a lot of grey area of the grey matter. Sorry, couldn't help myself. How stable should an individual be to be permitted to possess a firearm? I would even say, how mature should an individual be? For the safety of you and yours, shouldn't the bar be set high? I mean, we're not talking about hammers, reciprocating saws, or lathes, we're talking about guns. All these items have purpose, but to conflate one with another is a fallacy. While they may be used for purposes other than their primary purpose, they should be considered on that basis. We all know what the primary purpose of these items are. I think the error comes in thinking that the handgun's primary purpose is for self defense. I think it is to kill another human being and it should be judged and regulated from this point. To say it is for self defense is extremely subjective, and here's why...
Consider self defense. You are the good guy and the person you have to shoot is the bad guy. Says you. In a black and white scenario, this may be true. But consider how many black and white scenarios you will encounter. Here, things get grey again. You're most always going to think you are in the right, it's human nature. Just as no one reading this would place themselves in that 46.4% of crazies, well over half (depending on what specifically is being evaluated) consider themselves above average. Who here is willing to say they are average or even below average in their job performance, academic abilities, driving skills (80% of us consider ourselves above average), ability to get along with others (25% rate themselves in the top 1%). The numbers are actually comical. It goes by many terms. I like "The Lake Wobegon effect"; where all the children are above average.
It may seem like I am off on a tangent but there is purpose. I shouldn't have to trust you and your psychological baggage and you shouldn't have to trust me and my psychological baggage. There should be standard testing. We cannot judge this for ourselves. Why? Because we all suffer from "Bias Blind Spot". We are the standard by which all others should be judged. And that's just plain crazy.
