What's your opinion of gun control?

[Daniel91]

It seems to me that it is obvious that countries that do not have strict control of the sale and possession of weapons have more problems with crime and safety.
USA is very good example.
In America, the right to arms is a constitutional right but it is also a country with a lot of crime and murders.
On the other hand their neighbor country Canada has much stricter laws on gun ownership and a lot less crime, and the country is much safer for life.
I'm definitely for very strict gun control.
More guns mean only more violence and insecurity, not vice versa.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

More guns mean only more violence and insecurity, not vice versa.

I notice you didn't say more legal guns mean only more violence and insecurity...

[Daniel91]

More guns mean only more violence and insecurity, not vice versa.

I notice you didn't say more legal guns mean only more violence and insecurity...

Thanks for the warning, here is corrected sentence: More legal and illegal weapons (in the hands of citizens) means only more violence and insecurity, not vice versa.

[bojan92]

I think that in places like Texas where the trespassing is a common stuff, the people need a way to protect them self. But if you own a firearm you should keep it in a place where nobody can find it or reach it. In order not to happen many unwanted things

[Spendulus]

I think that in places like Texas where the trespassing is a common stuff, the people need a way to protect them self. But if you own a firearm you should keep it in a place where nobody can find it or reach it. In order not to happen many unwanted things

It just happens that I'm right now sitting in a Starbucks in Texas, about 200 feet from where a shootout occurred about a year ago.  The bad guy tried to jack and steal a car, and the owner was returning to the car.  He had a concealed carry permit and was carrying his weapon.

I'm not going to argue in favor of shooting people dead who steal cars.  I really just don't care.

But everyone should recognize that if Good Guy had not been armed, she would most likely have been shot dead, defenseless......

[Agestorzrxx]

I believe everyone has the right to own a gun to protect himself.
                                                                           

[RodeoX]

I think that in places like Texas where the trespassing is a common stuff, the people need a way to protect them self. But if you own a firearm you should keep it in a place where nobody can find it or reach it. In order not to happen many unwanted things

It just happens that I'm right now sitting in a Starbucks in Texas, about 200 feet from where a shootout occurred about a year ago.  The bad guy tried to jack and steal a car, and the owner was returning to the car.  He had a concealed carry permit and was carrying his weapon.

I'm not going to argue in favor of shooting people dead who steal cars.  I really just don't care.

But everyone should recognize that if Good Guy had not been armed, she would most likely have been shot dead, defenseless......

There is very little attention given to the frequent event of a gun saving a life. It happens almost everyday in America. My favorite this week is the escort who killed a John who attacked her. Turns out the guy was likely a serial killer. If not for a gun she would have died a horrifying death at the hands of a maniac.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/25/women-who-shot-alleged-attacker-may-have-slain-a-serial-killer-police-say/

[Spendulus]

More guns mean only more violence and insecurity, not vice versa.

I notice you didn't say more legal guns mean only more violence and insecurity...

Thanks for the warning, here is corrected sentence: More legal and illegal weapons (in the hands of citizens) means only more violence and insecurity, not vice versa.

Evidence simply does not support this.

[TECSHARE]

People should simply don't own guns at all , it's too dangerous and will just make chaos everywhere .
A lot of countries don't have gun control and it's the total peace comparing with the other countries

I agree, gun control results in more violent crime.

I'm not a fan of any 'hard' gun control, but I do think there should be a few restrictions to reduce the amounts of them that get into the wrong hands, and make sure the people that do own them know how to use them:

• Background check for violent crime
• Mental health evaluation
• Training course complete with range practice
• 7-10 day waiting period

The training course seems reasonable on the surface, but what about poor people? Aren't you effectively limiting the most in danger segment of the populations ability to protect themselves by forcing them to pay for a class, take off work, and actually go to classes? As for the waiting period, this is already law in most states.

By federal law everyone has a background check on them when buying a gun from a dealer. As far as your mental health evaluation, 1/5th of the entire country is on at least 1 psychiatric medication. Even if the mental health evaluations start off as reasonable, you know damned well it won't stop there. It could easily include anyone on any psychiatric meds, then anyone with depression, or anxiety, or even family history of issues.

Using the excuse of "mental health evaluations" you could effectively disarm more than half of the US population. I agree crazy people shouldn't have guns, but the issue is not if crazy people should have guns, it is how do you effectively enforce this is a in REALITY without stripping the rights of millions of others as well. Additionally perhaps instead of treating the symptom of gun violence, maybe we should be treating the USA's crazy person problem instead. The mental health care options in the US are almost nil unless you have the big bucks to afford it, which IMO is one of the primary causes of this issue along with certain types of psychiatric meds.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

People should simply don't own guns at all , it's too dangerous and will just make chaos everywhere .
A lot of countries don't have gun control and it's the total peace comparing with the other countries

I agree, gun control results in more violent crime.

I'm not a fan of any 'hard' gun control, but I do think there should be a few restrictions to reduce the amounts of them that get into the wrong hands, and make sure the people that do own them know how to use them:

• Background check for violent crime
• Mental health evaluation
• Training course complete with range practice
• 7-10 day waiting period

..........By federal law everyone has a background check on them when buying a gun from a dealer. As far as your mental health evaluation, 1/5th of the entire country is on at least 1 psychiatric medication. Even if the mental health evaluations start off as reasonable, you know damned well it won't stop there. It could easily include anyone on any psychiatric meds, then anyone with depression, or anxiety, or even family history of issues.

Using the excuse of "mental health evaluations" you could effectively disarm more than half of the US population.........

You reminded me...


Could some Social Security recipients lose gun rights? NRA says yes

".....The Social Security Administration confirmed that it is developing a new policy. It does not currently require the reporting of its mentally incapacitated beneficiaries to the government’s gun-purchase background check system.

The NRA says if Social Security starts doing so it would allow the government to disarm the 4.2 million Social Security pensioners who have a “representative payee” to manage their benefits, forcing some elderly or disabled people to decide between arming themselves or getting their Social Security checks.

Federal gun laws prohibit the possession or sale of firearms to those who “have been adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution.”...."

Obama plan could ban 4.2 million Social Security recipients from owning guns

[freeyourmind]

People should simply don't own guns at all , it's too dangerous and will just make chaos everywhere .
A lot of countries don't have gun control and it's the total peace comparing with the other countries

I agree, gun control results in more violent crime.

I'm not a fan of any 'hard' gun control, but I do think there should be a few restrictions to reduce the amounts of them that get into the wrong hands, and make sure the people that do own them know how to use them:

• Background check for violent crime
• Mental health evaluation
• Training course complete with range practice
• 7-10 day waiting period

The training course seems reasonable on the surface, but what about poor people? Aren't you effectively limiting the most in danger segment of the populations ability to protect themselves by forcing them to pay for a class, take off work, and actually go to classes? As for the waiting period, this is already law in most states.

By federal law everyone has a background check on them when buying a gun from a dealer. As far as your mental health evaluation, 1/5th of the entire country is on at least 1 psychiatric medication. Even if the mental health evaluations start off as reasonable, you know damned well it won't stop there. It could easily include anyone on any psychiatric meds, then anyone with depression, or anxiety, or even family history of issues.

Using the excuse of "mental health evaluations" you could effectively disarm more than half of the US population. I agree crazy people shouldn't have guns, but the issue is not if crazy people should have guns, it is how do you effectively enforce this is a in REALITY without stripping the rights of millions of others as well. Additionally perhaps instead of treating the symptom of gun violence, maybe we should be treating the USA's crazy person problem instead. The mental health care options in the US are almost nil unless you have the big bucks to afford it, which IMO is one of the primary causes of this issue along with certain types of psychiatric meds.

Mental health is the real issue, and addressing it in an effective way should be the primary concern.  I don't find anything wrong with a gun in the hand of a morally sound, mentally stable person that is able to manage anger.

As for limiting less affluent folks from being able to take a course and own a firearm, that can be said about any expense in general.  A gun is not a basic need so it doesn't need to be subsidized.

[tvbcof]

...
By federal law everyone has a background check on them when buying a gun from a dealer. As far as your mental health evaluation, 1/5th of the entire country is on at least 1 psychiatric medication. Even if the mental health evaluations start off as reasonable, you know damned well it won't stop there. It could easily include anyone on any psychiatric meds, then anyone with depression, or anxiety, or even family history of issues.

Using the excuse of "mental health evaluations" you could effectively disarm more than half of the US population. I agree crazy people shouldn't have guns, but the issue is not if crazy people should have guns, it is how do you effectively enforce this is a in REALITY without stripping the rights of millions of others as well. Additionally perhaps instead of treating the symptom of gun violence, maybe we should be treating the USA's crazy person problem instead. The mental health care options in the US are almost nil unless you have the big bucks to afford it, which IMO is one of the primary causes of this issue along with certain types of psychiatric meds.

It's getting to the point where people think it's pretty weird to NOT be on some perscription medication or another.  Recently a 'health care professional' double-checked that there was not some records mix-up when she didn't see my mother on any.

I really could imagine a situation where someone who did not take any drugs was considered some sort of a paranoid freak for that reason alone.  That could 'close the gap' should the 2nd amendment be denied to people due to their medication or the underlying necessity of the medication.

I better read Brave New World again...before it's banned...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1btEwwRePs  Huxley fuckin nails it!  Again and again.

[the joint]

...
By federal law everyone has a background check on them when buying a gun from a dealer. As far as your mental health evaluation, 1/5th of the entire country is on at least 1 psychiatric medication. Even if the mental health evaluations start off as reasonable, you know damned well it won't stop there. It could easily include anyone on any psychiatric meds, then anyone with depression, or anxiety, or even family history of issues.

Using the excuse of "mental health evaluations" you could effectively disarm more than half of the US population. I agree crazy people shouldn't have guns, but the issue is not if crazy people should have guns, it is how do you effectively enforce this is a in REALITY without stripping the rights of millions of others as well. Additionally perhaps instead of treating the symptom of gun violence, maybe we should be treating the USA's crazy person problem instead. The mental health care options in the US are almost nil unless you have the big bucks to afford it, which IMO is one of the primary causes of this issue along with certain types of psychiatric meds.

It's getting to the point where people think it's pretty weird to NOT be on some perscription medication or another.  Recently a 'health care professional' double-checked that there was not some records mix-up when she didn't see my mother on any.

I really could imagine a situation where someone who did not take any drugs was considered some sort of a paranoid freak for that reason alone.  That could 'close the gap' should the 2nd amendment be denied to people due to their medication or the underlying necessity of the medication.

I better read Brave New World again...before it's banned...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1btEwwRePs  Huxley fuckin nails it!  Again and again.

And from a reverse perspective, what about the countless millions of people who could likely qualify for some mental health diagnosis or another, but who are currently undiagnosed?  On-the-spot psych evals?  Now that would be costly...

[Spendulus]

People should simply don't own guns at all , it's too dangerous and will just make chaos everywhere .
A lot of countries don't have gun control and it's the total peace comparing with the other countries

I agree, gun control results in more violent crime.

I'm not a fan of any 'hard' gun control, but I do think there should be a few restrictions to reduce the amounts of them that get into the wrong hands, and make sure the people that do own them know how to use them:

• Background check for violent crime
• Mental health evaluation
• Training course complete with range practice
• 7-10 day waiting period

The training course seems reasonable on the surface, but what about poor people? Aren't you effectively limiting the most in danger segment of the populations ability to protect themselves by forcing them to pay for a class, take off work, and actually go to classes? As for the waiting period, this is already law in most states.

By federal law everyone has a background check on them when buying a gun from a dealer. As far as your mental health evaluation, 1/5th of the entire country is on at least 1 psychiatric medication. Even if the mental health evaluations start off as reasonable, you know damned well it won't stop there. It could easily include anyone on any psychiatric meds, then anyone with depression, or anxiety, or even family history of issues.

Using the excuse of "mental health evaluations" you could effectively disarm more than half of the US population. I agree crazy people shouldn't have guns, but the issue is not if crazy people should have guns, it is how do you effectively enforce this is a in REALITY without stripping the rights of millions of others as well. Additionally perhaps instead of treating the symptom of gun violence, maybe we should be treating the USA's crazy person problem instead. The mental health care options in the US are almost nil unless you have the big bucks to afford it, which IMO is one of the primary causes of this issue along with certain types of psychiatric meds.

Mental health is the real issue, and addressing it in an effective way should be the primary concern.  I don't find anything wrong with a gun in the hand of a morally sound, mentally stable person that is able to manage anger.

As for limiting less affluent folks from being able to take a course and own a firearm, that can be said about any expense in general.  A gun is not a basic need so it doesn't need to be subsidized.

Any and all means of ratcheting up the cost, complexity, and or bureaucratic procedures that one must jump through to gain possession of a firearm is contrary to the 2nd amendment.  

That includes "waiting periods."   Oddly enough, while a waiting period might ensure someone is not buying a gun in anger to shoot someone.....it also makes a person defenseless against those who, suddenly in anger, would do harm to him.  What is the net result of the "waiting period"?  I suspect it is negative, but am not certain.

What about required firearms safety?  Of this there are two varieties (1) for concealed carry (2) for any firearm purchase.  For (2) this seems ridiculous, particularly since such courses are available for free on youtube.   For (1) maybe it is more reasonable.  The one I took was all good information - the 50 rounds shot at a 7 yard target was totally ridiculous.  Still, there were a number of people in that room with zero experience with firearms.

To be fair, I have found the NCIS "instant background checks" done when buying a firearm from a dealer to be pretty fair.  Sometimes I have gotten the "wait and see" response, then gone back a couple days later and picked the firearm up.  Other times it was an immediate approval.  Once it was a denial, for a state charge (an error) that had never been taken off my record.  The errors and omissions from the state and local level do propagate upwards to the federal database, and nobody really cares.  It's your job to figure it out and get them corrected.  

[cooldgamer]

The training course seems reasonable on the surface, but what about poor people? Aren't you effectively limiting the most in danger segment of the populations ability to protect themselves by forcing them to pay for a class, take off work, and actually go to classes? As for the waiting period, this is already law in most states.

By federal law everyone has a background check on them when buying a gun from a dealer. As far as your mental health evaluation, 1/5th of the entire country is on at least 1 psychiatric medication. Even if the mental health evaluations start off as reasonable, you know damned well it won't stop there. It could easily include anyone on any psychiatric meds, then anyone with depression, or anxiety, or even family history of issues.

Using the excuse of "mental health evaluations" you could effectively disarm more than half of the US population. I agree crazy people shouldn't have guns, but the issue is not if crazy people should have guns, it is how do you effectively enforce this is a in REALITY without stripping the rights of millions of others as well. Additionally perhaps instead of treating the symptom of gun violence, maybe we should be treating the USA's crazy person problem instead. The mental health care options in the US are almost nil unless you have the big bucks to afford it, which IMO is one of the primary causes of this issue along with certain types of psychiatric meds.

In this day and age, there's no reason we can't use technology to get around the course problem.  Have a free video series made by the state, quick paper test when you get to the shooting range and go fire off 50 bullets.  A gun costs a few hundred bucks, so there shouldn't be an issue with an extra 15 for some practice ammo.  With not many places with shooting ranges more than an hour away, it should be easy to find a time to do it on a day off or even after work.

The mental health check isn't an issue of whether anybody with any mental illness shouldn't be able to have one, but where to draw the line.  Maybe people with depression, bipolar, etc would be able to get one, while people that are more 'up there' with schizophrenia, psychosis, etc can't.  

[Spendulus]

The training course seems reasonable on the surface, but what about poor people? Aren't you effectively limiting the most in danger segment of the populations ability to protect themselves by forcing them to pay for a class, take off work, and actually go to classes? As for the waiting period, this is already law in most states.

By federal law everyone has a background check on them when buying a gun from a dealer. As far as your mental health evaluation, 1/5th of the entire country is on at least 1 psychiatric medication. Even if the mental health evaluations start off as reasonable, you know damned well it won't stop there. It could easily include anyone on any psychiatric meds, then anyone with depression, or anxiety, or even family history of issues.

Using the excuse of "mental health evaluations" you could effectively disarm more than half of the US population. I agree crazy people shouldn't have guns, but the issue is not if crazy people should have guns, it is how do you effectively enforce this is a in REALITY without stripping the rights of millions of others as well. Additionally perhaps instead of treating the symptom of gun violence, maybe we should be treating the USA's crazy person problem instead. The mental health care options in the US are almost nil unless you have the big bucks to afford it, which IMO is one of the primary causes of this issue along with certain types of psychiatric meds.

In this day and age, there's no reason we can't use technology to get around the course problem.  Have a free video series made by the state, quick paper test when you get to the shooting range and go fire off 50 bullets.  A gun costs a few hundred bucks, so there shouldn't be an issue with an extra 15 for some practice ammo.  With not many places with shooting ranges more than an hour away, it should be easy to find a time to do it on a day off or even after work.

The mental health check isn't an issue of whether anybody with any mental illness shouldn't be able to have one, but where to draw the line.  Maybe people with depression, bipolar, etc would be able to get one, while people that are more 'up there' with schizophrenia, psychosis, etc can't.  

You are likely far too trusting of your Overlords on the bolded above.  You presume they have good intent - I presume that they don't, often times.

Further, mental illness is far less precise than these words imply.  And it wasn't too long ago that actual, certified Mental Illnesses included -

Homosexuality
Nymphomania

Certainly you don't want THOSE PEOPLE to have guns.  Do you?  Wait, are we more enlightened today?  Smarter?  Better informed?  More scientific?

Might want to think those things over a bit, lol....

[tvbcof]

It's getting to the point where people think it's pretty weird to NOT be on some perscription medication or another.  Recently a 'health care professional' double-checked that there was not some records mix-up when she didn't see my mother on any.

I really could imagine a situation where someone who did not take any drugs was considered some sort of a paranoid freak for that reason alone.  That could 'close the gap' should the 2nd amendment be denied to people due to their medication or the underlying necessity of the medication.

I better read Brave New World again...before it's banned...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1btEwwRePs  Huxley fuckin nails it!  Again and again.

And from a reverse perspective, what about the countless millions of people who could likely qualify for some mental health diagnosis or another, but who are currently undiagnosed?  On-the-spot psych evals?  Now that would be costly...

Perhaps not.  You might remember the stories not long ago the technological capabilities of 'reading minds' to the extent that a visual images of a face (albeit not very 'high resolution') could be pulled out of a person's thoughts.  It seems far-fetched on one hand, but with sensitive enough readings and enough data processing power, it does seem technically feasible...and the news stories on it were at least passed off as being accurate.  I could see it being much more easy to combine less complex methods with a few targeted questions or images being able to understand an individual's mind quickly and cost effectively.  Probably you could do it without much more complexity than running a TSA security line.

In my recent interest in vaccination technology, it does seem to me that there is a very strong interest in doing at least one shot (here in the U.S.) either In Utero (pregnant women are now implored to take flu vaccines) or right at birth via the Hep-B shot.  Hep-B is a threat to those who engage in unsafe sexual practice or inter-venous drug use neither practice is widespread among newborns.  This observation is interesting enough for me to form some hypothesis.  One of these is that by infusing certain metals into the brain at an early stage of development one can make certain technology more effective.

[cooldgamer]

The training course seems reasonable on the surface, but what about poor people? Aren't you effectively limiting the most in danger segment of the populations ability to protect themselves by forcing them to pay for a class, take off work, and actually go to classes? As for the waiting period, this is already law in most states.

By federal law everyone has a background check on them when buying a gun from a dealer. As far as your mental health evaluation, 1/5th of the entire country is on at least 1 psychiatric medication. Even if the mental health evaluations start off as reasonable, you know damned well it won't stop there. It could easily include anyone on any psychiatric meds, then anyone with depression, or anxiety, or even family history of issues.

Using the excuse of "mental health evaluations" you could effectively disarm more than half of the US population. I agree crazy people shouldn't have guns, but the issue is not if crazy people should have guns, it is how do you effectively enforce this is a in REALITY without stripping the rights of millions of others as well. Additionally perhaps instead of treating the symptom of gun violence, maybe we should be treating the USA's crazy person problem instead. The mental health care options in the US are almost nil unless you have the big bucks to afford it, which IMO is one of the primary causes of this issue along with certain types of psychiatric meds.

In this day and age, there's no reason we can't use technology to get around the course problem.  Have a free video series made by the state, quick paper test when you get to the shooting range and go fire off 50 bullets.  A gun costs a few hundred bucks, so there shouldn't be an issue with an extra 15 for some practice ammo.  With not many places with shooting ranges more than an hour away, it should be easy to find a time to do it on a day off or even after work.

The mental health check isn't an issue of whether anybody with any mental illness shouldn't be able to have one, but where to draw the line.  Maybe people with depression, bipolar, etc would be able to get one, while people that are more 'up there' with schizophrenia, psychosis, etc can't.  

You are likely far too trusting of your Overlords on the bolded above.  You presume they have good intent - I presume that they don't, often times.

Further, mental illness is far less precise than these words imply.  And it wasn't too long ago that actual, certified Mental Illnesses included -

Homosexuality
Nymphomania

Certainly you don't want THOSE PEOPLE to have guns.  Do you?  Wait, are we more enlightened today?  Smarter?  Better informed?  More scientific?

Might want to think those things over a bit, lol....

It's not a matter of any mental illness, it's whether said mental illness reasonably poses a danger to any other people.  Same standard we use for involuntary hospitalization, but maybe take out the 'to yourself' part.

[Spendulus]

The training course seems reasonable on the surface, but what about poor people? Aren't you effectively limiting the most in danger segment of the populations ability to protect themselves by forcing them to pay for a class, take off work, and actually go to classes? As for the waiting period, this is already law in most states.

By federal law everyone has a background check on them when buying a gun from a dealer. As far as your mental health evaluation, 1/5th of the entire country is on at least 1 psychiatric medication. Even if the mental health evaluations start off as reasonable, you know damned well it won't stop there. It could easily include anyone on any psychiatric meds, then anyone with depression, or anxiety, or even family history of issues.

Using the excuse of "mental health evaluations" you could effectively disarm more than half of the US population. I agree crazy people shouldn't have guns, but the issue is not if crazy people should have guns, it is how do you effectively enforce this is a in REALITY without stripping the rights of millions of others as well. Additionally perhaps instead of treating the symptom of gun violence, maybe we should be treating the USA's crazy person problem instead. The mental health care options in the US are almost nil unless you have the big bucks to afford it, which IMO is one of the primary causes of this issue along with certain types of psychiatric meds.

In this day and age, there's no reason we can't use technology to get around the course problem.  Have a free video series made by the state, quick paper test when you get to the shooting range and go fire off 50 bullets.  A gun costs a few hundred bucks, so there shouldn't be an issue with an extra 15 for some practice ammo.  With not many places with shooting ranges more than an hour away, it should be easy to find a time to do it on a day off or even after work.

The mental health check isn't an issue of whether anybody with any mental illness shouldn't be able to have one, but where to draw the line.  Maybe people with depression, bipolar, etc would be able to get one, while people that are more 'up there' with schizophrenia, psychosis, etc can't.  

You are likely far too trusting of your Overlords on the bolded above.  You presume they have good intent - I presume that they don't, often times.

Further, mental illness is far less precise than these words imply.  And it wasn't too long ago that actual, certified Mental Illnesses included -

Homosexuality
Nymphomania

Certainly you don't want THOSE PEOPLE to have guns.  Do you?  Wait, are we more enlightened today?  Smarter?  Better informed?  More scientific?

Might want to think those things over a bit, lol....

It's not a matter of any mental illness, it's whether said mental illness reasonably poses a danger to any other people.  Same standard we use for involuntary hospitalization, but maybe take out the 'to yourself' part.

And homosexuals and nymphomanics WERE INCARCERATED INVOLUNTARILY.  FYI...

[the joint]

It's getting to the point where people think it's pretty weird to NOT be on some perscription medication or another.  Recently a 'health care professional' double-checked that there was not some records mix-up when she didn't see my mother on any.

I really could imagine a situation where someone who did not take any drugs was considered some sort of a paranoid freak for that reason alone.  That could 'close the gap' should the 2nd amendment be denied to people due to their medication or the underlying necessity of the medication.

I better read Brave New World again...before it's banned...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1btEwwRePs  Huxley fuckin nails it!  Again and again.

And from a reverse perspective, what about the countless millions of people who could likely qualify for some mental health diagnosis or another, but who are currently undiagnosed?  On-the-spot psych evals?  Now that would be costly...

Perhaps not.  You might remember the stories not long ago the technological capabilities of 'reading minds' to the extent that a visual images of a face (albeit not very 'high resolution') could be pulled out of a person's thoughts.  It seems far-fetched on one hand, but with sensitive enough readings and enough data processing power, it does seem technically feasible...and the news stories on it were at least passed off as being accurate.  I could see it being much more easy to combine less complex methods with a few targeted questions or images being able to understand an individual's mind quickly and cost effectively.  Probably you could do it without much more complexity than running a TSA security line.

In my recent interest in vaccination technology, it does seem to me that there is a very strong interest in doing at least one shot (here in the U.S.) either In Utero (pregnant women are now implored to take flu vaccines) or right at birth via the Hep-B shot.  Hep-B is a threat to those who engage in unsafe sexual practice or inter-venous drug use neither practice is widespread among newborns.  This observation is interesting enough for me to form some hypothesis.  One of these is that by infusing certain metals into the brain at an early stage of development one can make certain technology more effective.

When I was in college I was applying for random part-time jobs.  I applied once to Blockbuster and got red-flagged as high risk for hire lol.  If what you're talking about was anything like the Blockbuster survey, we're in trouble.  Among the questions asked were: Have you ever been in trouble?  Have you ever lied?  Have you ever been late?  What the hell am I supposed to do with those?