Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jfjacobc t1_j9wano6 wrote

This is why we need actual courses, training, and certification required for firearms owners. That way, only the people who care enough about safety and responsibility would would be willing to go through the hoops to get a gun. You get caught with a gun, and you shouldn't have one? Jailtime at the minimum.

There will always be people who skirt the system and get one illicitly, so we shouldn't remove the option for safe, responsible gun owners to have one as well.

36

[deleted] t1_j9xe1z7 wrote

[removed]

7

jfjacobc t1_j9ximb7 wrote

I mean, yeah, but that's for people convicted of a felony already, and what I'm describing, ideally, wouldn't be a felony.

I believe fines are only punishment for poor people, so that's why I say jail time minimum. That way, even millionaires who illegally acquire a firearm without the proper training would have a consequence.

The purpose of that proposed system isn't to punish but to promote safe, responsible ownership of the greatest force-equalizer we have.

0

onikaizoku11 t1_j9xwrvj wrote

Your heart is in the right place, but you are only adding another layer to a problem. Not solving it. You only get the jail time after a conviction, which comes after a trial, a trial that the wealthy can circumvent for years if not indefinitely in a state like Texas.

I don't profer a solution here, to be clear and honest, but your proposed solution makes stuff worse.

1

faciepalm t1_j9y6ceg wrote

Hardly makes things any worse. It's pretty easy to have a gun license on you at all times while you have a gun, just like your phone or actual license. Shifting the point of legality to no one can unless they have a license from everyone can except felons means that everybody who is illegally using guns will have to be more careful, because they know that just having one gives a reason to check ID.

1

onikaizoku11 t1_j9y9lcw wrote

>I believe fines are only punishment for poor people, so that's why I say jail time minimum. That way, even millionaires who illegally acquire a firearm without the proper training would have a consequence.

Is what I was really pointing at in that comment.

Why are fines mostly only bad for the poorer of us? Because they don't have the same resources. A say $500 fine, just throwing out a realistic figure, is less than a pittance for a wealthy individual, that is food money for half the month for financially struggling people.

Now throw mandatory jail time into the mix, same variables. Rich person can get representation and fight legally much easier than a poor person. Hell, in the case of the affluent, them not even being officially charged for lengthy periods of time after offenses is a real consideration.

For reference, I have lived in a part of Georgia where there is still a law on the books that says every home is required to have a firearm. Throw in the newish law pretty much getting rid of the need for permits of any kind to carry or own here.... Who is hurt more before that commentor's idea? After? The poor guy only now he has jailtime on his record.

2

faciepalm t1_j9ytw34 wrote

I agree with you, except for that example at the end. It shouldn't be too difficult for someone to prove that they are competent and understand the risks behind owning and using a gun to provide themselves with a license, especially if the cost of doing so was waived for the first year or so that it was going to be announced.

Every household being required to own a gun sounds straight out of a state trying to prepare its population for a civil war, huh? I'm not in the US and accustomed to the laws at all, but it is interesting how many carry overs probably exist from so long ago

0

LuangPrabangisinLaos t1_j9yql3l wrote

In Canada greater Montréal has a population of 1.5 million and had 19 firearm related homicides. This is one of the worst years in the last 10.

Philadelphia is an American city of about 1.5 million. Had 512 homocides in 2022 but I can't accurately ascertain how many were from guns.

I can say for 2023 there have been 51 firearm related homocides in 2023 as of Feb 23 in Philly.

It's hard to kill people without easy access to guns, and Canada's primary source of firearms used for murder are from South of the border, because legal gun owners get a background check done every 24 hours and if anything comes up they lose their guns. You don't have a permit? Jail. You have a permit but you didn't follpw your ascribed route to your registered range and your pistol is locked in its box in your trunk? Jail. Personal sale? Complicated.

3

vegabond007 t1_ja01qnd wrote

I have complex feelings about Canada's solution to firearm control. l I do have significant issues with the recent developments.

It's one thing to require these things it's another when the next government comes in and promptly uses it to strip thousands of gun owners who have done nothing wrong of their firearms. Which is why it's such a resisted method of control in the US.

4

LuangPrabangisinLaos t1_ja1fyk8 wrote

Then you're ok with the amount of firearm related homocides, or have a better solution to reduce the number of firearm related crimes? I'm not being sarcastic, it seems like you're up for a sincere discussion.

0

discotim t1_j9z701q wrote

Makes total sense, the more guns that are generally out there, legal or otherwise, the more shootings there will be.

2

Romano16 t1_ja09cc0 wrote

The argument is that the 2nd amendment says nothing about being “certified” to being able to buy a gun AND the people who fought against the British Empire during the American Revolutionary War weren’t exactly all certified officers prior to switching sides many were rural farmers

2

SpaceTabs t1_j9xt9kt wrote

Never happen. Even if it did, it would become the equivalent of putting Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. It would be as popular as reconstruction in the south.

There's a half billion guns. Only about one percent of gun owners are The Complete Angler type.

1

discotim t1_j9y2vsa wrote

There must be some solution to this problem. It is a uniquely American problem.

7

UniversalMomentum t1_ja0z651 wrote

I think we should lock up violent people much longer so the risk vs reward is much worse for violent behavior across the board.

Gun regulations take forever to have an impact and you mostly just kind of punish a bunch of people who weren't going to commit crimes trying to catch the few who might. It's a bit of a sucky strategy with low pay off that causes a lot of pushback. Accountability sounds great, but that's kind of like thinking car insurance would make car accidents rare because you're accountable for your driving. It's easy to say, but how do you make people accountable in a way that changes their behavior BEFORE they do something stupid? This requires them to like learn stuff.. which means low probability of success and very long adoption time to get results.

I'm not against the idea so much as I don't think it will work fast enough to notice much impact, so the investment of effort tends to not produce much result.

I'd rather replace all the CCTV with smart cameras that tie into rapid respnse police forces. So basically if you fuck around in public there is always a camera that can detect violent behavior or sounds and get the police there, probably eventually with a drone because that's the fastest.

Camera/mic/call for public violence and a drone gets there in like 3 minutes. If that's how it worked a lot less people would be willing to commit crime in public because a police drone would be on them recording them, shining lights on them so fast they have to stay in the shadows more... which means crime is harder to commit.

We are going to get smart camera and more camera anyway so I don't see any real intrusion of privacy issue, just public cameras that automate reporting crime and rapid response to get police there so fast it basically scares criminals how fast they can show up. Once that is setup it would be a major deterrent for most crime and not cost much at all AND it works on most crime vs just gun crimes.

1

squazify t1_j9x5gz5 wrote

This is the kind of solution that just makes it harder for poor folks to acquire firearms. Sounds like this was an intentional shooting, I doubt any training would have prevented it. While training is important, beauricratic and punitive measures like this won't do much.

−9

Big_D_Cyrus t1_j9xantb wrote

Wait until you find out firearms cost money

9

squazify t1_j9xbn9y wrote

Yes, but it's the same thing as when you need to get a tax stamp for a suppressor. There's no benefit to requiring it other than creating an arbitrary wealth barrier.

−1

Big_D_Cyrus t1_j9xcrhp wrote

Quite a jump from training classes to a tax stamp for a suppressor. Classes are certainly reasonable.

6

[deleted] t1_j9xd3sl wrote

[removed]

3

Big_D_Cyrus t1_j9xd8no wrote

You implying gun classes won't save anyone from being shot is classic toxic gun culture

1

[deleted] t1_j9xdffc wrote

[removed]

3

Big_D_Cyrus t1_j9xdjsd wrote

You know are on the wrong side when you are attacking education

2

[deleted] t1_j9xdky3 wrote

[removed]

2

Big_D_Cyrus t1_j9xe179 wrote

Says the person who came at me with, "but it wouldn't have prevented this." You attacked me for wanting people to be educated about guns. Never wrote that it would have prevented this . But you clearly read what you want

1

jfjacobc t1_j9xjgco wrote

You make good points man, you're probably right in saying training and certification wouldn't have prevented this shooting. Maybe if she had her own gun, she could have protected herself. Maybe she still would have died. We'll never know.

My point is, there is no law that could have saved her life, so we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of progress, and I think mandatory training for potential gun owners is progress.

2

[deleted] t1_j9xnj7h wrote

[removed]

1

jfjacobc t1_j9xtxsi wrote

Not going to lie, I didn't read the article. That was pretty much my point though, some situations are just un-legislatable. However irrelevant to this particular incident training may have been, it would still be a net benefit to a gun-laden society like ours. I was just using this article as an excuse to open dialogue on the topic is all.

1

TabularBeastv2 t1_ja14szn wrote

I definitely think we should require training/certification before a gun can be purchased, just make the classes/tests free and easily accessible. Adding gun safety and education to public school curriculum can be helpful too.

1

jfjacobc t1_j9xjr6k wrote

If having a base level of competency and firearm safety isn't a benefit, I don't know what is. You're right about the potential to alienate poorer gun owners, but to be frank, if you can afford a taurus and a couple of boxes of ammo, you can afford a weekend class.

3

AustinLurkerDude t1_j9xnzpz wrote

Also car licensing and insurance. Makes it tough on poor ppl, they need to be exempted from any safety requirements that cost money.

2