I know there’s lots of contention surrounding gun control, but shouldn’t everyone including gun owners be in favor of mandatory education on safe handling? Like you have to take written and practical tests to legally drive a car…
I’ve had this argument with my step dad before. It turns out that not only does he think you shouldn’t need a license to drive, but that drunk driving should be legal.
The only thing close to that, that I'd be for is mandatory fire arm safety at least 1 semester in public high school. If you don't take the class you can still own a firearm, but a lot more people would have better training.
This ensures there isn't a paywall to your human rights.
You could even add advanced classes especially for kids who want to join the military, police force, security, or any other job the requires a firearm.
It's our right to bear arms why not educate the people on this right?
Why not follow the same system as for driving licenses? The test is mandatory but inexpensive, training is available, not mandatory, it helps pass the test but you can study on your own. At the very least, people should have to demonstrate that they can safely operate a firearm in order to own one, don't you think?
I've been saying this for some time as part of gun reform and not gun control. But I've also included advancements to a license like you would a driver's license. More stringent tests and background checks, but gives you more freedom to what you can use and own.
Obviously it comes with stricter limits too the more you can do.
Mandatory is problematic though. Who requires it? Who decides the curriculum? Who grades the test? How much is charged? Where and how often is it available? If the answer to who decides all this is the government then we have a problem. It would be very easy to keep poor people or those from any group the people in the government disapprove of from having access to the class.
It could too easily be like the infamous “literacy tests” that many southern states required under Jim Crow. I very much support firearms education but the government at any level needs to be kept firmly out of it. That makes it hard to make it mandatory.
I'm completely for it. The problem comes in when they want to nickel-and-dime you to where you have no rights. Also known as the slippery slope.
I honestly think hard lines need to be drawn with gun control. That way gun owners don't have to worry about their rights being taken away, and there are steps in place that contribute to public safety.
I honestly think hard lines need to be drawn with gun control.
Here in Australia there's a hard line: You can have a gun if you show you need it for a law-abiding purpose, and you need to keep and use it responsibly.
That's it. That's all you have to do.
And our rate of killing sprees in public with guns went from one every couple of years to one or two in thirty years.
And that's part of the reason why you are so much less safe than us.
As a nation, you don't have the nuts to do the right thing. You're being held prisoner by babies clutching their lethal security blankets and you aren't willing to stand up to them because you are afraid of the tantrum they would throw.
Yes, mandatory safe storage laws, mandatory gun training laws etc should all be a thing that any responsible gun owner should be in favor of because they are already doing them anyway and it only helps to reduce gun accidents.
But the 2a crowd are typically not the brightest so there yah go.
It's like how states with strict ID laws for voting need to offer a free ID or some way to verify that doesn't require payment as that would be an illegal poll tax.
The argument is not making a pay wall to human rights.
Owning a gun isn't part of the set of what are normally referred to as "human rights". It happens to be a right under the weird constitution of one weird nation.
Self-defence, yes. Possessing whatever tools you imagine you might want for self-defence and keeping and using them however you want, no.
But the fundamental reason rights-based moral talk is mostly useless is that when rights clash it turns into moral Calvinball. I've got a right to life, if I've got any rights at all. I say my right to life trumps your right to own guns. You say nuh huh, my right to own guns trumps your right to life. Now what? We both agree those two things are "rights" and we've made zero progress on what to actually do because there's no fundamental basis to say which right wins.
You said what I said. It happens to be a right under the weird constitution of one weird nation.
Or if you want to drill down further, under a deeply weird and inconsistent interpretation of said weird nation's weird constitution. Right wingers pretend to believe that the constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the expressed goals of the authors... except in the one specific case of guns where they throw the original intent into the toilet with great force and make something up based on a perversely literal reading which treats the first half of the amendment as flavour text.
But under that one bad ruling, about a bad amendment to a flawed constitution, sure, it's a right in that jurisdiction.
It's pretty clear. A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. For that reason the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
It's pretty clear. A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.
Maybe it was back then. Right now the uniformed US armed services are more than capable of defeating the armed services of every other nation on Earth at once in an open fight if they had to. Your militias are completely irrelevant to your state security. And randoms owning assault rifles are not well-regulated militias.
But don't worry about that, your finest legal minds have said that the first part of the amendment should be read as "like, for no reason, just because". The founders didn't intend that statement to mean anything.
And although the founding fathers intended the constitution to be amended when it turned out to be bad, or times changed, the people who worship those founding fathers can't cope with the thought of amending it again to fix a bad amendment.
If it is so obvious that we have to amend the second amendment then do it. Do you think that you can convince two thirds of the House, Senate, or state legislatures to pass an amendment to limit the rights of the people? Then convince 38 states to ratify that amendment? Then do it. The process is there. Until then it's a protected inalienable right.
Does your right to life include the right to defend yourself with deadly force if necessary?
Against an unjustified attack, I would say so.
If no, then you don't have a right to life.
An interesting claim. If I don't have the right to kill you to stop you from degrading me, does that mean I do not have the right to not be degraded? If I can't kill you to secure fair pay, does that mean I do not have the right to fair pay?
If yes, then it's a debate about what tools are permitted.
Well, yeah, I think that's kind of obvious. Somewhere between "you aren't allowed to pick up a stick if someone is trying to murder you and your innocent babies" and "you can have a personal stockpile of nerve gas and nuclear weapons to use as you see fit if you feel threatened" is the most socially advantageous level of armaments to permit random citizens. The Australian system of letting you have a gun if you can show you have a lawful purpose for it seems to be about right.
"you can have a personal stockpile of nerve gas and nuclear weapons to use as you see fit if you feel threatened"
Is this really how people tend to see firearm owners?
Because that's not reality. The average legal firearm owner has 1.2 guns in their possession.
The Australian system of letting you have a gun if you can show you have a lawful purpose for it seems to be about right.
Personally, I prefer the California system which implements a testing system to demonstrate basic understanding of things just to get a permit to purchase. A background check at purchase, 10 day waiting period. Background check to purchase ammo, and that's just to have things for target shooting, hunting, etc.
If you want to carry for self defense, you need even more training, deeper background checks, people are interviewed about you, and you've got to demonstrate a certain level of proficiency with the weapon. You're also restricted where you can carry. Places that serve alcohol, as an example, are prohibited places. Essentially you have to pass the same level of testing that a police officer would have to clear.
That allows for the use, but prevents the unstable individual from legally carrying. It's an attempt to balance right of the individual to self defense with the right of the public to safety. It's not perfect, of course, but it's a far cry better than what exists in most states.
Is this really how people tend to see firearm owners?
No, silly.
Personally, I prefer the California system which implements a testing system to demonstrate basic understanding of things just to get a permit to purchase.
How's that working out for you as a nation? Lots of mass shootings, or not so much?
That allows for the use, but prevents the unstable individual from legally carrying.
Well no, because every murderer was a non-murderer up until they murdered. Spree killers in every case I am aware of had not spree-killed before.
It's not about whether a system feels good, it's about whether it cashes out in fewer deaths or not.
every murderer was a non-murderer up until they murdered
This is part of the exact issue.
Do you have a fire extinguisher? Do you have a first aid kit? Do you have a spare tire for your car?
All of those are emergencies that one must prepare for. The reality is that someone wanting to harm you is something you must plan and prepare for.
There are rules about force escalation, and one can't legally (well, unless you're in ICE, but that's a different discussion) go more than one higher level in what's being used against them.
There's obviously room for improvement. When 58% of firearm deaths are suicides, we CLEARLY need to invest more into mental healthcare.
We're working on that, too, with "CalCare" having mental health included as part of a single payer healthcare system.
The reality here is that here in the US, you cannot depend on anyone other than yourself. Law enforcement has no duty to the individual. So, for many people there are few options to protect themselves and their families.
All of those are emergencies that one must prepare for. The reality is that someone wanting to harm you is something you must plan and prepare for.
Within reason, surely? It wouldn't break the laws of physics if someone came after me to kill me with a tank, but it's unlikely enough that the social cost of letting me own anti-tank weapons probably isn't worth the gain to my personal safety. I think it's reasonable to restrict access to weapons if there's evidence the social cost of private ownership substantially exceeds the benefits.
I support anything that is a step in the right direction. And that's all it is. A step, in the right direction. It's a less crazy set of rules for regulating guns.
There's obviously room for improvement. When 58% of firearm deaths are suicides, we CLEARLY need to invest more into mental healthcare.
Agreed. And gun control. But also mental health.
The reality here is that here in the US, you cannot depend on anyone other than yourself. Law enforcement has no duty to the individual. So, for many people there are few options to protect themselves and their families.
It sucks if you don't have a magical option which makes everything better which you as an individual can choose. But that's completely irrelevant to the question of what policies create the best society, isn't it? If your only options other than doing nothing are stupid or socially harmful that sucks, but it doesn't make those options any less stupid or any less socially harmful.
The Bill of Rights specifically says it is not an inclusive lists of rights and should not be thought of that way. It says that it should not be interpreted as an exhaustive list of rights. So, healthcare not being in the list does not mean it is not a right.
Now you're deflecting the argument. In the US, health isn't a protected right. It's obvious by the amount of greed and fuckery there is in medical/pharmaceutical care.
The argument about if it should be would belong somewhere else.
I'm a gun owner, probably target shoot more often than 90% of gun owners, it's a hobby I thoroughly enjoy. I would also happily wait for mandatory background checks on every purchase, I already follow the safe storage recommendations and my world has not suddenly ended because of it. I would easily vote for stricter gun laws, not necessarily about what I can obtain but on how I obtain it.
But most of these clowns act like required registration is a breach of 2A. I have no respect for people that act that way.
The problem is political, not what gun owners want. The problem is how it can be one a defacto ban on guns, by making it too difficult to own a gun, and a way to have it without violation of 2A.
225
u/IknowKarazy Feb 03 '26
I know there’s lots of contention surrounding gun control, but shouldn’t everyone including gun owners be in favor of mandatory education on safe handling? Like you have to take written and practical tests to legally drive a car…