Yes, we do need tighter checks. Many gun extremists are, for some reason, threatened by the fact people have to wait two weeks to buy their guns. They just can’t bear to be without them for 14 days. They don’t have an ounce of my sympathy for that.
And I can’t believe you just said you were concerned about courses being “patronizing.” You really need to work on your priorities. I can assure you the parents of children killed by un-secured guns and carelessly held guns wish they had been so “patronized.” Gun courses teach new users how to maintain, handle, fire, and clean their gun properly so it stays safe. They teach new users how to handle a gun and how to do so when others are in the room. They also teach them how to properly secure them, and where to properly secure them using the right storage space. They particularly teach to do all that when children are in the house. If those users find those courses “patronizing,” and aren’t willing to ensure the safety of others and themselves because of it, then they are not the people we want owning guns in our society.
Guns, like cars, do kill people. We don’t hand an inexperienced driver a car and say “go drive.” There certainly is no reason for us to do so with guns.
I think potential gun owners and users should have to demonstrate proficiency with their weapons, and that they know how to operate, carry and keep them safely, and yes that includes knowing not to do things like leave loaded guns in the reach of small children.
This is a key point. Does requiring people to demonstrate competence and responsibility with firearms before being allowed to use them “infringe” upon their constitutional rights?
The answer is obvious to me, but apparently is somehow quite contentious with gun advocates, who believe that every attempt at gun control represents a slide down the long, fatal, slippery slope to totalitarianism (or something to that effect).
Show me some evidence that it would fix anything, anything at all, instead of just being a way to bother gun owners because you don't like them.
Setting up the equivalent to a DMV where you have to go wait in line all day and deal with Government beaurocracy to own a firearm would cause one thing: it would convince some people that owning a gun isn't worth the fucking hassel of dealing with the State, which of course is a victory condition for the people who propose asinine stuff like this, which is why they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near 2nd Amendment policy.
Some already exist, however we need newer and better ones. As I mentioned, we need better background checks to prevent the mentally ill or the proven violent from legally getting guns. We also need the requirements for mandatory safety course for first time gun buyers.
No, it would be a way to help prevent accidental gun deaths, particularly of children. And the government keeping track of who has guns is a good thing. It will help save the lives of police officers who would know in advance if the people with whom they will be dealing own guns.
The evidence is all the people, particularly children, killed because of poor gun handling and/or poor securing of guns. Classes that will teach people not to make those mistakes will inevitably prevent many of those deaths. The fact you are against them because you don’t want to “bother” gun owners is reprehensible. As a father of two, I find it particularly heinous. And you’re a moderator, so stop making ad hominem attacks on uglypeoplefucking. You have no idea he doesn’t like people with guns, so you’re saying so is rude and inappropriate.
Nobody said anything about setting up a “DMV for guns,” so your ridiculous scenario is nothing but an irrelevant strawman. And again, stop whining about people trying to take away guns or make it too much of a hassle. Waiting two weeks for a gun is not a hassle; it’s a two week wait. And having to go through a safety course is not a hassle either. It’s what every responsible new gun owner would want to do to protect themselves and others from accidental gun deaths. Anyone who doesn’t want to do that shouldn’t be owning a gun, anyway.
And stop crying about the 2nd Amendment. Mandatory wait periods and mandatory safety courses do not threaten the 2nd Amendment in any way, and you should know that.
There is actually very good evidence that banning guns greatly reduces murder rates, because this is exactly what has happened in all the countries that have done so.
If you mean with a “gun” - the same number as the other citizens.
But now of which is more tempting?
A) Someone carrying a gun and abusing the law
B) Someone not carrying a gun and abusing the law
In the USA, the police are being militarized with more and more armaments, including tanks and anti-personnel drones, and ammunition. The Dept Homeland Security has purchased something like 450 million rounds of hollow-point munition for their hand guns (expressly anti-personnel munitions, not target practice). The USA is a police state escalating to all out war on its population.
And you want the police to just volunteer to give up their weapons?
…ain’t gunna happen.
Why do you imagine the police there feel it necessary to be armed to the teeth? Can’t you see, are you so BLIND, that it’s just a vicious circle of paranoia? You need to break that cycle, otherwise it’s going to get worse and worse.
And of course it is a vicious escalating circle. It is supposed to be. You have truly no idea at all of the intricate strategies going on all around the world. Nothing is what it seems on the surface (or if you prefer “the world is but a stage”).
Is it asinine to test and license people who drive cars? Does the fact that they must be tested and licensed dissuade people who want to drive (and actually know how to safely operate a vehicle) from driving? Why would it be different for guns?