The Swamp logo

The Rogue Scribe's Mental Assessment for Firearm Ownership

Get your CLP ready; I'm going in.

By The Rogue ScribePublished about a year ago Updated about a year ago 7 min read

More shootings this week in the US. Is anyone shocked anymore?

In previous posts, I've gone after broken men who clearly need more than just mental and emotional help. I doubt many sane people will disagree on that point.

Next, I've already presented my argument that firearms are primarily designed to injure/kill people and destroy property. People who refuse to acknowledge this shouldn't even be near a firearm because their judgment is questionable.

In case you needed yet another example, imagine someone making the same argument for cigarettes.

"Cigarettes don't kill people, smoking kills people."

Well, cigarettes weren't primarily designed to brush your teeth, were they?

So yes, cigarettes can eventually kill you if you use them in accordance with their primary purpose. Likewise, firearms will instantly injure/kill someone or destroy property if you use or even misuse them in accordance with their primary purpose.

Curiously, not everyone wants to totally ban cigarettes despite their clear lethality... I digress.

This is why today, 2nd Amendment activists, I have a question (and a challenge) for all of you:

Question: Why do you oppose mental health assessments prior to purchases of firearms?

*Challenge: You can't say "because it's unconstitutional" or "criminals can still get guns illegally".

1. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

2. We all know that criminals will always find a way to be dirtbags.

That's neither here nor there. I'm interested in hearing better arguments against implementing tests that prevent ALL mentally and emotionally unstable people who aren't necessarily career criminals from owning firearms.

That's the dialogue I want to open.

Listen, I get it.

You want "rights" and "freedoms". You do things because "you can" without thinking if you "ought to". That's another conversation, friends.

Fear not, I don't want to ban firearms - even though our reasons to do so are different.

We obviously can't ban all firearms without also banning all sharp objects and open-toe shoes. I know that won't really work.

Now, I read somewhere that if we began requiring mental health assessments, people could "fake" being mentally sane long enough to pass them. I think this was said by someone claiming to be a Veteran's Affairs psychologist/psychiatrist. See, I don't know about that...

To imply that people can "fake" being sane, also implies that people can "fake" being insane... And they do. Usually to get medications that they can later resell or overdose on.

So, if anyone can "fake" their way through psychiatric evaluations to get something as simple as prescription medicine, then that's even MORE reason to make the current process for people to obtain lethal weapons more challenging than it is.

For example: Take police interrogators. They are mostly spot on when putting pressure on criminals when they're being untruthful or deceitful.

The question then becomes why can't a team of trained and dedicated professionals develop a similar process or test that does the same for people interested in owning firearms?

Obviously, we're not going to have 18-hour interrogation sessions with common citizens who are looking to defend themselves and their property from criminals. That's not really sustainable.

That's why I'm proposing a simple but extremely challenging test prior to purchasing a firearm.

Yes, it's unfortunate for the "good guys", but I don't see any other way at this point. The violence has completely gone unchecked for far too long and it's time we take one for the team and make firearm access more selective.

Because if "an armed society is a polite society" imagine what an educated society could be.

Here is the general outline of the type of test along with my reasoning behind each point. We can work out the kinks later based on how many good counterarguments I get to this, if any.


The Rogue Scribe's Mental Assessment for Firearm Ownership

1. The test will be a total of 500 questions across multiple categories. These will include but aren't limited to proper firearm safety, proper threat assessment, philosophy, communication, emotional intelligence, situational awareness, etc. The questions will be created by a dedicated, peer-reviewed board of scholars, mental health professionals, and combat veterans. The questions will then be randomized for each applicant using A.I. to save time. The test will be available for a fee via a secure portal in the FBI/ATF website. It will require an email account.

Reason: Any person can pull a trigger. Not everyone can verbally de-escalate situations, understand the world in rational ways, or even define real "danger". Testing people on these topics will easily separate the weeds from the wheat.

Law-abiding citizens shouldn't find this to be too difficult since these things should already be part of their daily lives. People argue that mass shooters are "smart" - I don't buy that for a minute. Put me in a room with one and I'll tell you almost in record time if they're unstable or not.

Along with having a good moral compass, potential applicants will be encouraged to learn everything there is to know about preserving life before they decide to take it from someone else - justified or not.

Lastly, do you know how many people claim to be able to make life-or-death decisions involving a firearm but can't "understand technology"? I'm sorry, but if you can't create a simple email account or operate a smartphone, you shouldn't own a firearm.

That means you, grandpa.

2. Answers will be defined and graded by the same dedicated, peer reviewed board of scholars, mental health professionals and combat veterans - not by politicians or average citizens. This board or "department" can be funded with the same money used to fund other wars that the US is directly involved in. *cough cough not Ukraine right cough*

Reason: Politicians may be known for smooth talk, but definitely not smooth reasoning. If we're to properly judge someone's mental faculties, especially when talking about firearms, then we need a team of professionals who have a true passion for figuring out the human condition and not someone who will say and do anything for a few votes.

Furthermore, unlike your high-school buddy who "almost joined", combat veterans have experience with actual danger, so they have a clear understanding of what to do and what not to do under pressure. Their insight will be invaluable in creating questions that truly test people's ability to handle weapons in the most dangerous situations.

3. The quiz can be reduced to 400 questions if you're a veteran, police officer, EMT, or any other individual with a good service record and a minimum of 4 continuous years of verified formal, hands-on weapons and threat assessment training. Classroom training will not count.

Reason: Again, it's one thing to read about danger and another thing to live it. Hence the judging group includes people who dedicate their lives to serving others in the face of danger. This is usually a pretty good indicator that their mind is on the right track. Not always, but it can certainly help.

As a "reward" for choosing a righteous path, they'll have to answer fewer questions than the average person who only daydreams of being a hero.

They also will get a whopping 10% off their Applebee's tab.

4. All applicants have 2 attempts to pass with 95% or more within a 2-hour time limit. Any score below that is an automatic fail, with zero exceptions. You can retest after 6 months. If the test is failed three times, firearm ownership is permanently denied.

Reason: We're talking about a tool used to save a life by inflicting pain/death upon another, so the bar will not be set low. Firearms and mental health are nothing to play with, right? Okay, so let's stop playing.

The retest period is based on the fact that some employers won't allow you to reapply for a job after 6 months if you fail the interview. (For example, life insurance.) Unlike being unemployed and unable to provide for your family, not owning a firearm for 6 months is mildly inconvenient in comparison so this is why I believe it's a reasonable timeframe.

The 2-hour test limit is to further press the claim that average people can make split-second, life-or-death decisions. Hint: Most people can't.

Sharp thinking shouldn't be unique to engaging in a firefight - you should be a sharp thinker across all areas of your life. If you can't control your emotions, then maybe a firearm isn't for you.

5. Applicants who pass the test will have an additional, variable waiting period before they're able to actually collect their firearm. The waiting period will be determined by the person/dealer selling you the firearm and will be no less than 15 days and no more than 45 days. If ANY crime is committed within that additional waiting period, firearm ownership can be delayed or denied.

Reason: They say patience is a virtue. Murderous psychopaths and thugs aren't known to have such a virtue.

The way a person reacts upon hearing how many additional days they'll have to wait will be one of the final tests to determine if they're fit to own a lethal weapon or not.

This will not only ensure people have no other choice but to behave for a little longer, but can allow the individual to reflect on this decision and process everything they've learned from the questions on the initial test.

6. Finally, upon returning to collect your firearm, all of the current standard steps will be followed. (ID check, Background check, Fees, etc.)

In conclusion: If banning firearms isn't the solution, and making them so easily accessible isn't helping either, then a challenging test of people's mental and emotional faculties is the only other solution that I think satisfies both sides and just might solve the problem.

Hell, testing people's mental and emotional faculties might be the solution to more issues than just firearms... Think about it.

I mean, it's either that or we keep doing what we're doing now.

That's all I got. If anyone wants to talk about why this would or would not work, I'd like to hear your opinions. (Remember the challenge.)

Comment below, keep it respectful.

Stay sharp.

social mediavotingsupreme courtpop culturepoliticsopinionlegislationhumanityeducationdefensecorruptioncontroversiesactivism

About the Creator

The Rogue Scribe

Writer and Voiceover Artist. Author of 'The Art of Patience, Gratitude & Courage'.

Challenge the world, go rogue with me, and subscribe to support my wordsmithing.

Enjoyed the story?
Support the Creator.

Subscribe for free to receive all their stories in your feed. You could also pledge your support or give them a one-off tip, letting them know you appreciate their work.

Subscribe For Free

Reader insights

Nice work

Very well written. Keep up the good work!

Top insights

  1. Compelling and original writing

    Creative use of language & vocab

  2. Easy to read and follow

    Well-structured & engaging content

  3. Excellent storytelling

    Original narrative & well developed characters

  1. Eye opening

    Niche topic & fresh perspectives

  2. Heartfelt and relatable

    The story invoked strong personal emotions

  3. On-point and relevant

    Writing reflected the title & theme

Add your insights

Comments (1)

  • Nilanni Loveabout a year ago

    Loved your insight regarding gun control, now a 500 question exam is a bit long Lol

The Rogue ScribeWritten by The Rogue Scribe

Find us on social media

Miscellaneous links

  • Explore
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Support

© 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.