My solution is making gun ownership less indiscriminate.
In my country, I’d have to prove that I need a gun for self-defense and pass a psychological and physical check.
Moreover, the license would have to be renewed after 5 years.
I have a friend that used to be a stripper (“exotic dancer”, if you prefer). She tried to get a concealed carry permit–in Detroit–long before Heller v. D.C. and McDonald v. Chicago because she had a stalker. She was denied, because she didn’t have any greater need for self-defense than any other person.
Who defines psychological wellness? For reference, I’m a gun owner, and I compete in shooting matches on a regular basis. About a decade ago, I failed to complete suicide; I attempted suicide because I was being seriously abused (verbally, mentally, emotionally, financially, and sometimes physically) by my ex-spouse, which had lead to serious isolation and depression. I believe that I am mentally healthy now–as did my last psychiatrist–but I am forever barred from owning a firearm in Illinois because I was held for observation at a hospital in the state. Moreover, people with serious mental illnesses are more likely to be victims orf violence rather then perpetrators.
Why should people that are less physically capable be less able to defend themselves?
You can’t “prove you need a gun for self defense” until it’s too late. Unless you mean “only of you’re rich, important, and white (this is America mind you) enough that we think there’s a chance those dirty not-white races may attack you.”
Personally I don’t think we should limit guns to the wealthy elite, I think that even us lowly poors deserve the right to protect our lives.
I’ve never even thought, “I need a gun” and I’m not rich or wealthy or affluent.
The only reason I’ll ever learn to handle firearms is to shoot fascists if the need arises.
Damn fine reason. Unfortunately not everyone is as lucky as you in not needing one before then, too. I wish they were, but unfirtunately there are still people who want to victimize others. Less than there used to be though, crime has gone down since '93, so that’s a positive!
Buyback programs. Ammo purchasing restrictions. Laws requiring documentation of all firearms with strict penalties for undocumented weapons. There are proven menthods of de-escalating and de-weaponizing populations when they are provided with the means, motive and opportunity.
Get out of here with this defeatist attitude. You’d never make this argument for driving a vehicle without a license because “tHeRe ArE tOo MaNy CaRs”
Buyback programs in the US are good for PR but do little to remove guns that would be used in a crime. Mostly people sell their junk and old rifles at these things. Many times, while they’re waiting in line they’ll get a better offer by the mob of people on the sidewalks looking to buy.
Ammo restrictions, I agree would be effective. But the 2nd Amendment would shut that down.
Documented firearms, again the cat is out of the bag. There are millions of undocumented firearms in the US. And no criminal would use one with a paper trail anyway. This just makes things harder for honest people.
Those “proven” methods haven’t worked in the US. The 2nd Amendment and a very armed population will see to it that the guns are here to stay, by force if necessary.
Each of these ideas solves a different aspect of the bigger problem, but none of them will solve the entire issue.
The problem is that with these ‘realistic’ views, we never make ANY progress by just throwing our hands up, saying ‘Well there are just too many guns to solve the problem with a single solution.’
How about “Less guns in the hands of those who should not have them in the first place”, like every other civilized country does? And guess what, those countries know “school shootings” only as something America does.
Giving guns to teachers to fight school shooters is exactly the excalating move that I would expect from the US.
What’s your solution?
My solution is making gun ownership less indiscriminate. In my country, I’d have to prove that I need a gun for self-defense and pass a psychological and physical check. Moreover, the license would have to be renewed after 5 years.
I have a friend that used to be a stripper (“exotic dancer”, if you prefer). She tried to get a concealed carry permit–in Detroit–long before Heller v. D.C. and McDonald v. Chicago because she had a stalker. She was denied, because she didn’t have any greater need for self-defense than any other person.
Who defines psychological wellness? For reference, I’m a gun owner, and I compete in shooting matches on a regular basis. About a decade ago, I failed to complete suicide; I attempted suicide because I was being seriously abused (verbally, mentally, emotionally, financially, and sometimes physically) by my ex-spouse, which had lead to serious isolation and depression. I believe that I am mentally healthy now–as did my last psychiatrist–but I am forever barred from owning a firearm in Illinois because I was held for observation at a hospital in the state. Moreover, people with serious mental illnesses are more likely to be victims orf violence rather then perpetrators.
Why should people that are less physically capable be less able to defend themselves?
You can’t “prove you need a gun for self defense” until it’s too late. Unless you mean “only of you’re rich, important, and white (this is America mind you) enough that we think there’s a chance those dirty not-white races may attack you.”
Personally I don’t think we should limit guns to the wealthy elite, I think that even us lowly poors deserve the right to protect our lives.
I’ve never even thought, “I need a gun” and I’m not rich or wealthy or affluent. The only reason I’ll ever learn to handle firearms is to shoot fascists if the need arises.
Damn fine reason. Unfortunately not everyone is as lucky as you in not needing one before then, too. I wish they were, but unfirtunately there are still people who want to victimize others. Less than there used to be though, crime has gone down since '93, so that’s a positive!
The problem is that in the US, the guns are already in the hands of everyone. There are more guns than people. The cat’s out of the box.
Buyback programs. Ammo purchasing restrictions. Laws requiring documentation of all firearms with strict penalties for undocumented weapons. There are proven menthods of de-escalating and de-weaponizing populations when they are provided with the means, motive and opportunity.
Get out of here with this defeatist attitude. You’d never make this argument for driving a vehicle without a license because “tHeRe ArE tOo MaNy CaRs”
Buyback programs in the US are good for PR but do little to remove guns that would be used in a crime. Mostly people sell their junk and old rifles at these things. Many times, while they’re waiting in line they’ll get a better offer by the mob of people on the sidewalks looking to buy.
Ammo restrictions, I agree would be effective. But the 2nd Amendment would shut that down.
Documented firearms, again the cat is out of the bag. There are millions of undocumented firearms in the US. And no criminal would use one with a paper trail anyway. This just makes things harder for honest people.
Those “proven” methods haven’t worked in the US. The 2nd Amendment and a very armed population will see to it that the guns are here to stay, by force if necessary.
I’m not a defeatist, I’m a realist.
Each of these ideas solves a different aspect of the bigger problem, but none of them will solve the entire issue.
The problem is that with these ‘realistic’ views, we never make ANY progress by just throwing our hands up, saying ‘Well there are just too many guns to solve the problem with a single solution.’
deleted by creator
How about “Less guns in the hands of those who should not have them in the first place”, like every other civilized country does? And guess what, those countries know “school shootings” only as something America does.
I’m with you there in general.
We don’t need metal detectors outside of school either
Grow up and stop thinking guns make you look badass, for one.