I want a bunch of new gun restrictions, but I’m not against gun ownership. I want required training, required gun safes, background checks, and extra strict laws around higher magazine and fire rate weapons. So while most people would describe me as “anti gun”, (I think it’s just common sense), I totally support responsible gun ownership especially if you’re in a marginalized group that is legitimately in danger.
I think better checks is must have. I live in a dark blue state and, my uncle (who is a diagnosed schizophrenic to the point where he’s not allowed to have a job because he can’t tell what is real versus what the voices in his head is telling him) is able to walk a few miles down the road to the gun shop walk in and be out with any gun of his choosing in roughly 30-40 minutes, and he has done so on more than one occasion.
What’s even more obnoxious is the gun shop owner who we know as a family friend, finds it funny. I find it fucking scary.
I’m kinda like you, but I believe it should be tiered. Kinda like how someone with a normal driver’s license can’t (or at least, isn’t supposed to) drive a big rig. If you want a belt-fed machine gun then you gotta get the license that lets you own a belt-fed machine gun, but the requirements are gonna be a lot heavier than the license that lets you own a typical break-action double-barrel shotgun.
I also think there need to be legal requirements for storage, a legal definition for what constitutes a gun box/safe (because many containers advertised for “gun storage” are extremely flimsy), and automatic charges against the gun owner in the event their firearm is used in a crime. It’s your job to make sure your kid doesn’t get your gun and shoot a school. If it happens, your ass is on the line and you’d better have a really good excuse, like your kid knocked you out, tied you up, got a blowtorch and cut through your safe.
Why not just restrict magazines and call it a day? Because my thought is that proper gun control can allow the enthusiasts still have fun with their brownings, AKs and tommyguns while still ensuring the weapons don’t fall into the wrong hands. I’m certain it’s possible to walk that line, I’ve heard Finland already has a similar system in place, where you have to be a registered collector or museum to own anything other than a basic hunting rifle (which, iirc, requires a license to begin with), yet it seems like Finland doesn’t have anywhere near the same problems as the US.
Many countries with gun control do have a tiered system. There are normally still some guns that are totally prohibited, but there are normally distinctions between hunting rifles and handguns and semi autos.
I’m a Canadian and recently got me (non-restricted) permit. Basically let’s me have a certain variety of long-guns, no handguns, automatic, etc.
There was a required course on safe gun ownership and usage I had to take in order to get a signed paper necessary to apply for the permit (actually getting the permit has some other paperwork, criminal/mental-health check etc to fully qualify). Nothing onerous, it was done on a Saturday.
If I wanted a restricted firearm, that’s an additional and somewhat more in-depth course and check.
There are various legal stipulations for when I buy a firearm, including requirements for safe-storage/transport, whether they can be used. We don’t have carry laws. If I’m not at a range/show/etc, out hunting, or getting the firearm serviced I shouldn’t have it on me. I can’t load it until I’m on the range or at the hunting/target area. It can’t be discharged within city limits except at a range, etc.
This has all seemed pretty reasonable to me, and US style carry-culture where some dude at a Walmart night be carrying a loaded firearm frankly freaks me out, but I fully support the idea of responsible gun ownership for the purpose of target shooting, collection, or hunting.
I want a bunch of new gun restrictions, but I’m not against gun ownership. I want required training, required gun safes, background checks, and extra strict laws around higher magazine and fire rate weapons. So while most people would describe me as “anti gun”, (I think it’s just common sense), I totally support responsible gun ownership especially if you’re in a marginalized group that is legitimately in danger.
Perhaps the gun nuts know they wouldn’t qualify for most common sense restrictions.
Or they’re concerned that the restrictions will be tailored against them on a political basis.
I think better checks is must have. I live in a dark blue state and, my uncle (who is a diagnosed schizophrenic to the point where he’s not allowed to have a job because he can’t tell what is real versus what the voices in his head is telling him) is able to walk a few miles down the road to the gun shop walk in and be out with any gun of his choosing in roughly 30-40 minutes, and he has done so on more than one occasion.
What’s even more obnoxious is the gun shop owner who we know as a family friend, finds it funny. I find it fucking scary.
I’m kinda like you, but I believe it should be tiered. Kinda like how someone with a normal driver’s license can’t (or at least, isn’t supposed to) drive a big rig. If you want a belt-fed machine gun then you gotta get the license that lets you own a belt-fed machine gun, but the requirements are gonna be a lot heavier than the license that lets you own a typical break-action double-barrel shotgun.
I also think there need to be legal requirements for storage, a legal definition for what constitutes a gun box/safe (because many containers advertised for “gun storage” are extremely flimsy), and automatic charges against the gun owner in the event their firearm is used in a crime. It’s your job to make sure your kid doesn’t get your gun and shoot a school. If it happens, your ass is on the line and you’d better have a really good excuse, like your kid knocked you out, tied you up, got a blowtorch and cut through your safe.
Why not just restrict magazines and call it a day? Because my thought is that proper gun control can allow the enthusiasts still have fun with their brownings, AKs and tommyguns while still ensuring the weapons don’t fall into the wrong hands. I’m certain it’s possible to walk that line, I’ve heard Finland already has a similar system in place, where you have to be a registered collector or museum to own anything other than a basic hunting rifle (which, iirc, requires a license to begin with), yet it seems like Finland doesn’t have anywhere near the same problems as the US.
Many countries with gun control do have a tiered system. There are normally still some guns that are totally prohibited, but there are normally distinctions between hunting rifles and handguns and semi autos.
I’m a Canadian and recently got me (non-restricted) permit. Basically let’s me have a certain variety of long-guns, no handguns, automatic, etc.
There was a required course on safe gun ownership and usage I had to take in order to get a signed paper necessary to apply for the permit (actually getting the permit has some other paperwork, criminal/mental-health check etc to fully qualify). Nothing onerous, it was done on a Saturday.
If I wanted a restricted firearm, that’s an additional and somewhat more in-depth course and check.
There are various legal stipulations for when I buy a firearm, including requirements for safe-storage/transport, whether they can be used. We don’t have carry laws. If I’m not at a range/show/etc, out hunting, or getting the firearm serviced I shouldn’t have it on me. I can’t load it until I’m on the range or at the hunting/target area. It can’t be discharged within city limits except at a range, etc.
This has all seemed pretty reasonable to me, and US style carry-culture where some dude at a Walmart night be carrying a loaded firearm frankly freaks me out, but I fully support the idea of responsible gun ownership for the purpose of target shooting, collection, or hunting.