I think Simon Black must have been reading this thread from his post on Sovereign man today:
Go Simon!
Simon Black said:
Go Simon!
Another shooting, close to
- Thread starter Dresden14
- Start date
As I've repeatedly said, I think we should require a higher base level of competency and safety education and training prior to gun ownership through a system of gun licensing. If that disqualifies some people from owning guns, so be it; if they can't safely handle and operate a firearm, they shouldn't be allowed to own one.
Just like with driving; if you can't safely handle and operate a vehicle, you can't legally drive one.
Just like with surgeons
Just like with pilots
The risk of having to overthrow a tyrannical government is substantially lower than the risk of accidental discharge of a firearm in the hands of an untrained operator and because of that, I think we should require substantially more testing and training for legal ownership of firearms.
Per Wikipedia's statistics:
I think we can substantially lower that number of accidental shootings and that's simply a good thing for everyone.
Are you totally blind to the logical problem this presents though?
The Problem: Gov gets evil
Yer Solution: Give Gov power over your guns?
Hello McFly?
Besides the shooter clearly knew how to operate the weapon. No amount of courses and training would have prevented that or any other attack. You simply want to feel good. All the while completely ignoring all the safety requirements already in place. Why don't you even acknowledge the fact that there are dozens of gun laws on the books that don't work. If you spent the same energy getting the guns out of the hands of criminals you will be far more sucessful in preventing future attacks. There are millions of illegal guns on the streets, why dont you care about them?
...the government already has power over your guns? If you have a criminal record or mental illness record you won't receive a weapon, and if you somehow manage to derp the multiple choice test in California you also won't get the gun.
Again, what I'm saying is that we need to reform the current gun safety requirements as they don't do jack shit and can be overhauled to have a more positive impact.
You just keep skipping over these training courses as If they don't exist. Is there a reason why you won't acknowledge the bigger issue of dealing with all the illegal firearms on the street? why not work on taking away criminals illegal weapons first? Why is it so important to you to add extra red tape, yet not enforce the tape that is already there?
in addition to a behind the wheel test. Is no one aware of the testing procedures of how to get a driver's license? You have to show proficiency behind the wheel.
http://www.ct.gov/dmv/cwp/view.asp?a=805&q=469194
Yes that's what I have been trying to tell you for 3 days. As I have said this vary's state by state and typically pertain to actually using the firearm in a legal manor.
I would still like to hear your reasonings for not enforcing the current gun laws while adding new ones. It's illegal to own a fully automatic firearm unless your police, military, or a federal firearms dealer, yet the streets are full of them. Don't you think it would be prudent to try to collect some of those before adding new useless laws?
If you think that the people will rise up if their overlords go too far then watch this
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r1W6lINpkQ]Two Irving Women Claim Assault, Humiliation Following DPS Roadside Cavity Search - YouTube[/ame]
That could have been your sister, mother, wife or girlfriend.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r1W6lINpkQ]Two Irving Women Claim Assault, Humiliation Following DPS Roadside Cavity Search - YouTube[/ame]
That could have been your sister, mother, wife or girlfriend.
- The notion that gun/rifle carnage can be eliminated by limiting purchase to those deemed qualified and fit to own is factually and logically erroneous. Witness the Lanza matter: mother (qualified and fit) purchases weapons of destruction and spends time at local shooting range waiting for the "End of Days." While waiting, she keeps weapons in tidy, affluent house until 'unqualified' 'unfit' son takes weapons while mom sleeps. He then blows her brains out before going off to dispatch the innocents. Lesson: Possession of these weapons should be prohibited, in futuro and retroactively.
Sounds good to me.
Let's start with the police and military.
Since they have the most dangerous weapons in the greatest numbers, and we've seen that anyone is capable of using these weapons for evil regardless of the legality of their possession, it only makes sense to disarm them as well.
Hence the problem! Too much power over our guns!
The 2nd amendment said 'don't touch em,' not "only regulate a smidge."
I feel we've gone over this before. Let me sum up the flow for you:
You: We should just regulate guns a tiny bit more so columbine shootings can't happen.
Us: They happen regardless of any possible regulation. Meanwhile, the existing regulation is too strict and defeats the point of the 2nd amendment.
You: But it'd be ok if we just regulated them a tad bit more to stop those crazy columbine shooters, right?
Us: :error: facepalm.gif :error:
C'mon man, you're just not being logical. When are you going to realize that what you propose simultaneously harms our freedoms while helping nothing at all you want it to help???
Then why so many so suddenly? Without the 2nd amendment, a Honey Badger gov't has nothing to fear.
People like you are as dangerous as the actual shooters.
I've specifically said that I think increased safety testing and training for gun owners should help reduce accidental injury and fatalities in the US. I don't think these increases will reduce the amount of killing sprees but that is because the killing sprees are caused by other issues than gun availability.
You're just condescendingly pandering at this point, read what I've been arguing. I think we should overhaul our safety testing for gun ownership significantly, which should make gun owners safer, which should reduce accidental firearm injuries significantly. These are all good things.
And we specifically countered that those are more regulations and they'll reduce the number of guns in the hands of the citizenry.
So you admit that it won't help solve this problem...
I'm really not. I've read every post of yours and I hear you loud and clear: You want to regulate legal guns more.
Meanwhile, those regulations give both the government and the criminals more power while taking power away from the good guys... Even if only slightly.
Think this hasn't been tried before? Here's a quick hint of how it will go in modern days:
Dems: Guns need to be completely overhauled, let's start from scratch and regulate everything...
Repugs: Nope. If you even think about it we'll easily get organized against obombacare and finally get it removed this time...
Dems: Ah crap. Nevermind. How about we just both agree to raise taxes on the middle class instead?
Repugs: Deal.
So are Unicorns.
...You can't have any unicorns though.
Face it dchuk; what you're calling for can't be achieved and will in fact hurt good people more than it helps them.