• Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    What I always find hilarious is that the people who claim to be very well versed in firearms safety are the ones who oppose the idea of making people get a license to use one. They’ll tell you that you shouldn’t even talk about gun laws unless you can tell a .45 from a 9 mm in the dark, but feel that anyone, no matter how drunk or crazy, should be able to buy a gun.

    • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Gunowners don’t like licenses because if the goverment can decide who owns guns, then they’ll use it to keep guns out of the hands of people they don’t like.

      New York City abuses its may-issue system to prevent anyone from obtaining a license to carry concealed, unless you pay high bribes to the police (or are police).

      Most gun laws disproportionately affect the poor. Polities such as New York State require people undergo a certified training course before they can purchase a handgun (police excepted of course). I see people complaining that a single day of voting is insufficent, that their hourly job doesn’t leave them a window to go vote. This is much worse with a carry course, where you have to perfectly attend multiple classes that you’re paying hundreds of dollars to attend. It’s a steep cost to exercise a right.

      These are addressable problems: all handgun licenses should be shall-issue if you meet the requirements, mandated training courses should be free and people should be compensated for their time like jury duty.

      As for the “you shouldn’t even talk about gun laws unless you can tell a .45 from a 9 mm in the dark” part/is that really so unreasonable, minus the hyperbole? When Republicans use phrases like “If it’s a legitimate rape, the body has ways of shutting it down” and then try to claim that life starts when the heart does, is it OK that they are wildly wrong about the human body and are trying to legislate it?

        • Xrfauxtard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can buy a car and own it and operate it on private property without a license. A more direct comparison would be a driver’s license would be like a concealed carry license, licensing it to be possessed/operated in public.

          • RavenFellBlade@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There is no legal or philosophical right to a modern firearm in the Constitution, either. The founders couldn’t have predicted the ease with which a single individual could commit mass murder just 50 years later when the firearms of their time took half a minute to reload. One person alone can kill as many people in a minute with a single semi-auto rifle and sufficient ammo as over a dozen militiamen of the day. To suggest the founders intended to include modern weapons is a stretch well beyond the breaking point of reason or logic.

            • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Just need to prove a basic knowledge of gun safety

              So you would have no problem with the government requiring proof of literacy before you can vote? After all, every child is taught how to read in school, so it’s just a basic check to see if a person can comprehend the ballot.

                • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  As another person commented somewhere in this thread, the availability of weapons is at a low point historically. Back in the 1930s, a person could order a machine gun in the mail and have it shipped to their house. Until 1986, people could purchase new machine guns at their local shop after a good amount of paperwork.

                  You’re correct that banning semi-autos would lead to reduced deaths in mass shootings, but it’s just putting a bandaid over a greivous societal wound. I don’t feel that enough thought is put into why people are going on suicidal rampages against children or minorities, there’s just a “people be cray” attitude then they push for disarmament.

                  Without addressing that societal problem, I just see weapon control becoming more and more stringent in response to the unsolved problems in society. Banning Semi-autos today may reduce deaths, but it’ll be lever-actions tomorrow, then bolt-actions, then knives, then vehicles.

                  If I were dictator, I would temporarily add semi-autos to the NFA list (along with giving them the resources to process applications promptly) to stop new sales and transfers without stricter checks. Then I would put effort into determining the causes of those rampages and fixing them.

                  Male socialization, political radicalization, and media contagion are three factors I think lead to these rampages, and to merely remove guns from the situation is the societal equivalent of locking someone in a padded room and declaring the problem solved.

                  • Malfeasant@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    locking someone in a padded room and declaring the problem solved.

                    Worse than that, it’s locking everybody in a padded room. And the ones who need to be in there the most know the tricks to escape… Or hold the keys.

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        . It’s a steep cost to exercise a right.

        So, where you live, guns are handed out for free?

    • GooseFinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In your opinion, what new benefits would requiring a license to own guns have? How will requiring this license supplement existing laws? Specifically, how would this change improve the gun “problem?”

      Maybe the people you talk to who claim to be well versed in firearm safety oppose licensing requirements like this because they’re well versed in existing gun laws and the culture war against ownership? Not because “muh guns!”

      Your grandparents could’ve mail-ordered machine guns to their doorstep, no background check required. Hell, when they were kids, they could’ve walked into a corner store and bought a rifle with their saved up lunch money. That’s what my grandpa did.

      If gun laws have only gotten stricter over this time, then why are mass shootings essentially a new thing? What changed between now and then that could explain it? Living conditions have plummeted, people are poorer, breaking the poverty cycle is basically impossible, our public schools aren’t getting proper funding, prisons are cruel and don’t reform, college tuition has skyrocketed, healthcare has become inaccessible, women are losing bodily rights, etc.

      Unfucking our society in all the ways our corporate and political elite have fucked it would do more to curb violence than anything else. Why would anyone mindlessly kill others if society’s worth living in?

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        You funny. It’s like you’ve never heard of children dying because the parents left guns out, or insane people buying guns.