Current Events > Idea for gun control that doesn't actually infringe upon rights of good citizens

(+) Yeah! (+)

DK9292 posted...

Is it's only purpose to kill someone?

Then it's illegal.

Straw man. Firearms are used for recreation and home defense.
---

That_Happened posted...

Recognize that I'm talking about currently and not Jim Crow era.

Right.

Either way, it sounds like you're against Voter ID because it overstepped but you wouldn't care about that with guns.

So his stance of "it's okay cause it's guns" sounds about right.
---

Anteaterking posted...

booboy posted...

Anteaterking posted...

booboy posted...

Considering he didn't even check to see if there was a round chambered before he pointed it at something he didn't want to shoot, I'd say he...

A - would have spectacularly failed the safety course
B - would have learned enough to not make this happen

Do you think that people who speed, get DUIs, etc. fail their driver's ed courses?

No, but then again, "weapon" isn't the first thing that comes to mind when you think of "car."

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.

You are claiming that a firearm safety instruction course will limit the number of people who die from poor gun safety practices. I'm claiming that most people who practice poor gun safety know proper gun safety, but don't apply it because it's more work, they don't think it matters, etc.

I have to disagree with your claim, simply due to the amount of exposure each category of education gets. As someone approaches their 16th birthday, all manner of driving instruction and safety are thrown at them left, right, and center. For firearm usage and ownership, you have to go out of your way to get that education.

I need to expand on the above a little bit. It is society's general expectation that when you're 16-18, you learn how to drive a car. That general expectation is near universal in the USA, regardless of demographics. Also curiously, as has been said before, a car isn't an explicitly granted right.

A firearm, on the other hand, is an explicitly granted right. Therefore, it would follow that expectations about safety, maintenance, and use (in that order of importance) should be near universally as available as the expectations of driving. Curiously, it isn't.
---

Swagnificent119 posted...

Either way, it sounds like you're against Voter ID because it overstepped but you wouldn't care about that with guns.

That_Happened posted...

The reason people are against voter ID is because certain parties are purposely and admittedly trying to pass laws to stop the opposing party from voting. If we started to see gun laws like that, hopefully they would be struck down like the voter ID laws were. But we're not even allowed to attempt laws as a country because our politicians are being funded by the NRA and you're lapping up the b.s. propaganda they're feeding you.

TC himself is a gun owner and he would like to see reform, just so we can start separating the good gun owners from the bad ones.

We should require a reading test along with the gun license test.
---

That_Happened posted...

We should require a reading test along with the gun license test.

No, I read it.

You don't seem to understand that I'm calling bullshit on your belief in that.

Unless you're saying you are, in fact, in favor of voter ID laws.
---

booboy posted...

Tie it to a special driver's license marker, or even make it so that firearm safety instruction is required before a driver's license will be issued.

This is reasonable imo.
---

Stop comparing it to Voter ID Laws. If I'm against voter ID laws does that mean I also need to be against requiring a license to drive a car? or am i able to understand the context is different? If your rebuttal is "driving isn't a right, Voting and Gun Ownership are"...No one who is against Voter ID laws is against them because "THE CONSTITUTION" so it doesn't really apply...
---

Swagnificent119 posted...

That_Happened posted...

We should require a reading test along with the gun license test.

No, I read it.

You don't seem to understand that I'm calling bullshit on your belief in that.

Unless you're saying you are, in fact, in favor of voter ID laws.

If there was a provable issue with voter fraud, and the voter ID laws were fairly implemented, then of course I would have no problem with them. But there is no issue with voter fraud (currently), so there doesn't seem to be a need for a solution. There *is* an issue with gun violence, however.
---

That_Happened posted...

If there was a provable issue with voter fraud, and the voter ID laws were fairly implemented, then of course I would have no problem with them. But there is no issue with voter fraud (currently), so there doesn't seem to be a need for a solution. There *is* an issue with gun violence, however.

So basically, it's different because it's guns.

Gotcha.
---

This is all pie in the sky shit since drivers licenses are state issued, anyways.
---

Swagnificent119 posted...

That_Happened posted...

If there was a provable issue with voter fraud, and the voter ID laws were fairly implemented, then of course I would have no problem with them. But there is no issue with voter fraud (currently), so there doesn't seem to be a need for a solution. There *is* an issue with gun violence, however.

So basically, it's different because it's guns.

Gotcha.

It's different because there's a problem that needs to be solved. But if there was a problem with voter fraud (and that may come about in the future) then I'm on board for fairly-implemented voter ID laws. Just like I would only be on board for fairly-implemented gun registry laws (again, with a special reading test just for you). There is no double-standard here, no matter how hard you wish for one to appear.
---

AlecSkorpio posted...

This is all pie in the sky shit since drivers licenses are state issued, anyways.

Exactly. So why not have those same entities confirm that you know firearm safety?
---

only cops should be allowed to have guns
---

booboy posted...

Exactly. So why not have those same entities confirm that you know firearm safety?

My point is that this would need to be implemented on the federal level. States already have different laws regarding guns and gun ownership already, so there is no way they'd all get behind this.
---

AlecSkorpio posted...

booboy posted...

Exactly. So why not have those same entities confirm that you know firearm safety?

My point is that this would need to be implemented on the federal level. States already have different laws regarding guns and gun ownership already, so there is no way they'd all get behind this.

Gun ownership =/= gun safety training. As I stated before, the explicit right to own a firearm exists, as well as the choice to own or not own a firearm. No matter what I may think of CA-level firearm laws, I am asserting that the knowledge of how to handle them safely should be as universal as driving, if not moreso.
---

That_Happened posted...

It's different because there's a problem that needs to be solved. But if there was a problem with voter fraud (and that may come about in the future) then I'm on board for fairly-implemented voter ID laws. Just like I would only be on board for fairly-implemented gun registry laws (again, with a special reading test just for you). There is no double-standard here, no matter how hard you wish for one to appear.

lol this is literally it's okay because it's guns and I don't like guns..
---

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

lol this is literally it's okay because it's guns and I don't like guns..

No it isn't. He's explained himself like 20 times; why are you all simplifying what he's saying every time?
---

@AlephZero posted...

only cops should be allowed to have guns

This isn't an argument, no matter how many times you repeat it.

How do you get rid of guns already in circulation? Are you willing to shed American blood to take those guns? Do you think military personnel , who generally are pro-2nd amendment, would be willing to deploy on American soil and forcibly take citizens guns? Are you willing to have another Civil War to take those guns, because it would be a strong possibility that would happen? How effective do you think people who don't want anyone owning guns, versus people that do own guns, would be in that war? Can you explain exactly how disarming citizens, who already follow laws, makes them safer?
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

lol this is literally it's okay because it's guns and I don't like guns..

No it isn't. He's explained himself like 20 times; why are you all simplifying what he's saying every time?

Because they're trolling. It's what they do.
---

booboy posted...

Gun ownership =/= gun safety training. As I stated before, the explicit right to own a firearm exists, as well as the choice to own or not own a firearm. No matter what I may think of CA-level firearm laws, I am asserting that the knowledge of how to handle them safely should be as universal as driving, if not moreso.

This has nothing to do with gun ownership even. I'm saying that a system like this would have to be implemented on the federal level regardless, and drivers licensure is a state level thing.

Maybe it should be as universal as driving, but you're not going to get it because every state has different ideas when it comes to firearms. Hence, it's pie in the sky.
---

AlecSkorpio posted...

booboy posted...

Gun ownership =/= gun safety training. As I stated before, the explicit right to own a firearm exists, as well as the choice to own or not own a firearm. No matter what I may think of CA-level firearm laws, I am asserting that the knowledge of how to handle them safely should be as universal as driving, if not moreso.

This has nothing to do with gun ownership even. I'm saying that a system like this would have to be implemented on the federal level regardless, and drivers licensure is a state level thing.

Maybe it should be as universal as driving, but you're not going to get it because every state has different ideas when it comes to firearms. Hence, it's pie in the sky.

True. If you have another vehicle for firearm safety education that's as universal as a driver's license, I'm open to suggestions.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

No it isn't. He's explained himself like 20 times; why are you all simplifying what he's saying every time?

Because he's trying to make it sound more complex to save face when really all it boils down to is he doesn't think voter ID is important (because the majority of people are not voting illegally), so it isn't necessary. And the thinks firearm possession is a major problem (even though the majority of people who own guns are NOT going on mass shootings) so firearm ID is necessairy.

So basically, it's okay because it's guns.
---

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

Because he's trying to make it sound more complex

I'm sorry that you hate discussion and explanation, but real life problems require more than a bumper sticker slogan to address. I can't oversimplify everything for you just because your brain requires it.

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

And the thinks firearm possession is a major problem (even though the majority of people who own guns are NOT going on mass shootings) so firearm ID is necessairy.

Gun violence is responsible for 35,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries per year.
A comprehensive study of a billion ballots found 31 instances of voter fraud.

When we get down to 31 deaths a year from gun violence, we can talk about it being a non-issue.
---

Keep in mind, I'm saying all of this as a firearm owner that plans to acquire more firearms in the future. What I want this theoretical system to achieve is fourfold:

1) Instill an entire generation or more with passing knowledge of firearms
2) Use 1 to get as much safety knowledge possible spread among everyone in the USA as possible
3) Remove as much stigma as possible across all demographics of firearm ownership
4) De-facto standardize firearm laws across the states through the first three items

Item 4 is pretty much wishful thinking on my part, but the first three items need to happen.

Blind fear of a firearm is just as dangerous as carelessness. Let's work on eliminating both, shall we?
---

Or any potential gun owner has to pass a mental health check or screening before being able to purchase any weapon
---

CADE FOSTER posted...

Or any potential gun owner has to pass a mental health check or screening before being able to purchase any weapon

This clause is actually in there already. If you've been court-ordered to a mental facility, it will show up on the background check.

Of course, this is assuming that the clerk in question doesn't pull an Air Force level derp and forget to put it in the system to begin with.
---

I want it for everyone not just the declared mentally unstable
---

That_Happened posted...

I'm sorry that you hate discussion and explanation, but real life problems require more than a bumper sticker slogan to address. I can't oversimplify everything for you just because your brain requires it.

I don't hate discussion and explanation. What I hate are hypocrites and bullshit artists.
---

Wait, I am confused.

If voter fraud isn't such a big deal, why is implementing voter ID so bad? why not just do it to be extra safe?
---

I think licenses would have had to have been done decades ago. Like when these modern guns were being mass produces. There's too much to track now.

Pie in the sky daydreaming solution would be a licensing account thing that tracks all of your weapon and ammo purchases. If purchases were suspicious (like for planning an attack or re-selling to people who are circumventing a license) it would get flagged for further applications to justify it or whatever. Accounts can be suspended and banned for offenses.

But again there's too much guns and ammo out there already to make this really feasible. This would have to have been done like in the 60's I think lol. The other downside would be how expensive it would be and that paranoid conspiracy theorists would hate it.
---

CADE FOSTER posted...

I want it for everyone not just the declared mentally unstable

Where would you draw the line? Mental illness hits more people than you realize, and is fucking finally at the point where it's medically possible to treat some of the worst of it.

On top of that, there's a pretty overwhelming precedent that a person's medical matters are very much a private affair, excluding court involvements.

Actually, if you want to complete the system even further, you could tack on a $5 fee or so for the extra notation on the license, and have that notation fund mental health treatment.
---

Darmik posted...

I think licenses would have had to have been done decades ago. Like when these modern guns were being mass produces. There's too much to track now.

Pie in the sky daydreaming solution would be a licensing account thing that tracks all of your weapon and ammo purchases. If purchases were suspicious (like for planning an attack or re-selling to people who are circumventing a license) it would get flagged for further applications to justify it or whatever. Accounts can be suspended and banned for offenses.

But again there's too much guns and ammo out there already to make this really feasible. This would have to have been done like in the 60's I think lol. The other downside would be how expensive it would be and that paranoid conspiracy theorists would hate it.

This isn't about ownership primarily, this is about safety, first and foremost.
---

booboy posted...

This isn't about ownership primarily, this is about safety, first and foremost.

the problem is that nobody gets a drivers license unless they plan on driving

your system sounds like everyone has to get firearms training? what if nobody wants anything to do with firearms?

also, fun fact, they used to teach firearms safety in school back in like the 50's. maybe we should bring that back.

darkjedilink posted...

Hicks233 posted...

Ammend the ammendment and grow past your shiny safety blankets. Perhaps thinking about responsibilities more than rights might be a start as well.

I love how literally no other right is treated to such scrutiny by the left.

Your constitution is a living document. It could all do with being regularly scrutinised. Given that the topic covers the second it makes sense to refer to it.
---

realistically (taken from the other thread)--
tighten and plug up holes in background checks as well as concurrent and always updated background checks. re-instigate waiting periods. make more people accountable for their mistakes and harsher penalties for gun crime. instigate constant buy back programs. make local (private) registration on all firearms a thing (this one i can honestly take or leave, but im not completely opposed to it).

Youngster_Joey_ posted...

also, fun fact, they used to teach firearms safety in school back in like the 50's. maybe we should bring that back.

my dad was actually part of a .22 shooting club in high school. they had those in the 70's and 80's too.
---

Hicks233 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Hicks233 posted...

Ammend the ammendment and grow past your shiny safety blankets. Perhaps thinking about responsibilities more than rights might be a start as well.

I love how literally no other right is treated to such scrutiny by the left.

Your constitution is a living document. It could all do with being regularly scrutinised. Given that the topic covers the second it makes sense to refer to it.

Oh, so you're okay with stricter laws on free speech? Voting? How about we take a stricter stance on 'innocent until proven guilty?'

No?

Why am I not surprised?

Do you even know what TC's proposal would solve?
---

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

That_Happened posted...

I'm sorry that you hate discussion and explanation, but real life problems require more than a bumper sticker slogan to address. I can't oversimplify everything for you just because your brain requires it.

I don't hate discussion and explanation. What I hate are hypocrites and bullshit artists.

@D-Lo_BrownTown And I bet to your high school-dropout mind, the longer someone's explanation goes on and the more nuanced it is, the more you think they're lying to you. Am I right?
---

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

The reason gun people are against this idea is because it can very easily be used to keep people from owning firearms or making it unnecessarily difficult.

It's basically every reason people are supposedly against Voter ID, except it's suddenly okay because it's guns.

to add to this....we already have background checks.

not sure what more else people want? some kind of bourne identity thought police check?

just more proof the communist liberal left wants to destroy all freedom and all rights.

i really wish liberals would put as much effort as they do into destroying the bill of rights into something constructive, like making sure everybody who votes is a legal citizen. or better yet, demand every voter has to pass some kind of basic government class.....but nah let's just ban guns and free speech.

DK9292 posted...

Is it's only purpose to kill someone?

Then it's illegal.

1. That's not how laws work.
2. That's not even true. Target shooting, hunting, and collectorship are all legitimate uses. You can use it as a fucking dildo if you want, too.
---

kayoticdreamz posted...

not sure what more else people want?

booboy posted...

Keep in mind, I'm saying all of this as a firearm owner that plans to acquire more firearms in the future. What I want this theoretical system to achieve is fourfold:

1) Instill an entire generation or more with passing knowledge of firearms
2) Use 1 to get as much safety knowledge possible spread among everyone in the USA as possible
3) Remove as much stigma as possible across all demographics of firearm ownership
4) De-facto standardize firearm laws across the states through the first three items

Item 4 is pretty much wishful thinking on my part, but the first three items need to happen.

Blind fear of a firearm is just as dangerous as carelessness. Let's work on eliminating both, shall we?

kayoticdreams posted...

just more proof the communist liberal left wants to destroy all freedom and all rights.

We got a Infowars subscriber here.
---

The NRA and the Republican Party have manipulated their voters to believe that gun control means "take away all our guns" when it doesn't.
---

creativerealms posted...

The NRA and the Republican Party have manipulated their voters to believe that gun control means "take away all our guns" when it doesn't.

No, that's not why people are objecting. Also there are more than just a handful of people who actually do want that to happen. It's not even considered an extreme view.
---

That_Happened posted...

@D-Lo_BrownTown And I bet to your high school-dropout mind, the longer someone's explanation goes on and the more nuanced it is, the more you think they're lying to you. Am I right?

There is nothing nuanced about your explanation. It's just wordy for the sake of being wordy. Just like how you keep going on about how dumb I am, it's all a farce in an attempt to make yourself feel intelligent.

You want to know how I know you're full of shit? The complete non-answer you gave previously about voter ID. You keep coming up with reasons why you're against voter ID without having to say you're against voter ID.

The fact is, it's exactly how I said. It's only okay to you because it's guns. You can give all of the "nuanced" points you want, but the long and short of it is you have a problem with guns and you don't have a problem with voter ID even though, logically, there should be nothing wrong with voter ID especially since you claim fraud is so low.
---

I never understood why anyone would think "safety training" will make people not want to murder. I've had training, it's literally just, "finger off trigger, don't point at people."
---

That_Happened posted...

We got a Infowars subscriber here.

Oh look, more nuanced discussion.

lmfao
---

Why not make them require regular checks/evaluations (like a regular CRB and mental evaluation or something?) and to pass a safety test like with a car? (I dunno what America's current laws are mind)
---

That_Happened posted...

kayoticdreamz posted...

not sure what more else people want?

booboy posted...

Keep in mind, I'm saying all of this as a firearm owner that plans to acquire more firearms in the future. What I want this theoretical system to achieve is fourfold:

1) Instill an entire generation or more with passing knowledge of firearms
2) Use 1 to get as much safety knowledge possible spread among everyone in the USA as possible
3) Remove as much stigma as possible across all demographics of firearm ownership
4) De-facto standardize firearm laws across the states through the first three items

Item 4 is pretty much wishful thinking on my part, but the first three items need to happen.

Blind fear of a firearm is just as dangerous as carelessness. Let's work on eliminating both, shall we?

kayoticdreams posted...

just more proof the communist liberal left wants to destroy all freedom and all rights.

We got a Infowars subscriber here.

points 1-3 can be accomplished with 0 federal laws needed. and in fact you'll find gun safety and training is generally taught to any novice who takes a gun to a range. gun ranges basically have the first 3 points down packed, but i guess a well informed liberal such as yourself knew this already?

as for point 4....we again already have that. its called the second amendment.

so in short, your wish can be easily granted without the need for any more laws and anymore infringement on the second amendment,

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

There is nothing nuanced about your explanation. It's just wordy for the sake of being wordy.

It's not even that wordy. It's a 4-sentence paragraph. The fact that you call that wordy is hilarious.

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

Just like how you keep going on about how dumb I am, it's all a farce in an attempt to make yourself feel intelligent.

I can write a paragraph explaining my point, whereas that many words appears to make you mad. I'm not attempting to make myself feel intelligent. I'm just pointing out how a basic level of English makes you suspicious about the writer.

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

You want to know how I know you're full of shit? The complete non-answer you gave previously about voter ID. You keep coming up with reasons why you're against voter ID without having to say you're against voter ID.

I couldn't have been more direct.
1. Voter fraud is not an issue.
2. Rep. lawmakers ADMIT their voter ID laws were attempts to stop Dems from voting. Therefore,
3. I am against those specific laws. But if 1 and 2 ever change, I would be in favor of them. I like laws that are fair and make sense.

If the above is too complicated for you, or if it makes you suspicious that I used college words like "therefore" (note, I abbreviated Republican and Democrat to make it easy on you), then that's a you problem, not a me problem.
---

deupd_u posted...

I never understood why anyone would think "safety training" will make people not want to murder. I've had training, it's literally just, "finger off trigger, don't point at people."

it would definitively help as far as accidents and it should be a common thing regardless. or at the very least make more people aware. something like 700 people per year die unintentionally due to negligence. personally i wouldn't be opposed to kids learning mandatory gun safety classes as early as possible.
---

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

The fact is, it's exactly how I said. It's only okay to you because it's guns.

Nope, and I explained this perfectly.

1. It's ok to put good and fair laws in place for gun control because gun violence is statistically a problem.
2. It's NOT ok to put bad and unfair laws in place for voter fraud, because voter fraud is statistically not a problem.

Switch only the bold parts, and they'd still be true.

1. It would be ok to put good and fair laws in place for voter fraud if voter fraud was statistically a problem.
2. It's NOT ok to put bad and unfair laws in place for gun violence, if gun violence wasn't statistically a problem.
---