Should there be mandatory training before you can purchase a firearm?

[Uncensored2008]

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

The Socialist enclave of the Peoples Republic of California requires people to take a test and obtain basic firearm safety certification prior to buying a firearm.

Like you, I have no objection to this provided it isn't linked to actual firearms - which the Oligarchs will use to confiscate weapons.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Do you support a repeal of the 2nd amendment and full confiscation of all firearms?

My guess is yes, even if you answer otherwise.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

What will happen is places will make the class cost $400 and make you wait 2-3 months to take it after scheduling said class.

You simply can't trust a gun control nut.

Which is why you can't require a class. BUT a test is fine.

 

[Flash]

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

The Socialist enclave of the Peoples Republic of California requires people to take a test and obtain basic firearm safety certification prior to buying a firearm.

Like you, I have no objection to this provided it isn't linked to actual firearms - which the Oligarchs will use to confiscate weapons.

The problem is that that a test can be used to prohibit Americans citizens from enjoying a right that is protected under the Constitution and specifically says that it can't be infringed.

The Bill of Rights lays out the rights that Americans naturally have that the government is prohibited from taking away. If you fail a test or don't take the test then you have been effectively prohibiting from a right that the Constitution says you have. That is a bad thing.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[


The problem is that that a test can be used to prohibit Americans citizens from enjoying a right that is protected under the Constitution and specifically says that it can't be infringed.

The Bill of Rights lays out the rights that Americans naturally have that the government is prohibited from taking away. If you fail a test or don't take the test then you have been effectively prohibiting from a right that the Constitution says you have. That is a bad thing.

You have a point. Still the requirement that people learn what a safety is and to consider all firearms loaded is common sense. It should be taught in high school.

 

[OKTexas]

[


The problem is that that a test can be used to prohibit Americans citizens from enjoying a right that is protected under the Constitution and specifically says that it can't be infringed.

The Bill of Rights lays out the rights that Americans naturally have that the government is prohibited from taking away. If you fail a test or don't take the test then you have been effectively prohibiting from a right that the Constitution says you have. That is a bad thing.

You have a point. Still the requirement that people learn what a safety is and to consider all firearms loaded is common sense. It should be taught in high school.

It should be taught K-12, too many children find guns and automatically want to play with them, they need to be taught early on they are not toys. Banning the word "gun" in schools does a great disservice to every American.


.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Actually I did.......the problem being the types of guns we can own are being banned and illegal to own. What good is a 6 shooter that you own legally if the criminal has an AR-15 from the black market?????

It's true that it's not up to me......but if so, I'd be willing to take some safety course and even periodic refresher courses....if it meant I could legally own my AR15, AK47, bumpstocks, etc. that are currently being taken away.

Sometimes to get what you want you have to give a little......so 'negotiating your rights' as you say is better than having them taken from you one gun at a time as is currently happening right under your nose.

This is where you are deluding yourself......you will give up on training as a way of telling the anti gunners, see....I will give up a little and support mandatory training, if you back off on what guns I can own. They will say, sure thing. Then, once you have given them the training requirement...as they are making that requirement more and more of a ban on gun ownership through fees and time, and levels of training, they will come back and say, yes...but we now need to take the AR-15 too....

There is no "giving a little" to get a little with extremists...they hate guns, if you own a gun, or worse, carry a gun, they hate you...

That is the math, it is simple, it is clear, but that is what the math is...

and in the meantime they're taking our guns AND imposing other restrictions as well and we're not doing anything proactive to stop it.

You bargain your rights away way too cheaply.

I repeat.....
and in the meantime they're taking our guns AND imposing other restrictions as well and we're not doing anything proactive to stop it.

Seems to me, we are currently giving them away

We’ll see.

My rights are not up for debate, nor review

But what good are those rights if you can't buy the guns? They keep banning more & more guns all the time, next they'll confiscate the ones you already own and in the mean time those rights aren't worth a tinkers damn. You can't just fight for the right to own guns, but for the guns availability as well. It's not just one or the other.....it has to be both, they go hand in hand.

Actually I did.......the problem being the types of guns we can own are being banned and illegal to own. What good is a 6 shooter that you own legally if the criminal has an AR-15 from the black market?????

It's true that it's not up to me......but if so, I'd be willing to take some safety course and even periodic refresher courses....if it meant I could legally own my AR15, AK47, bumpstocks, etc. that are currently being taken away.

Sometimes to get what you want you have to give a little......so 'negotiating your rights' as you say is better than having them taken from you one gun at a time as is currently happening right under your nose.

This is where you are deluding yourself......you will give up on training as a way of telling the anti gunners, see....I will give up a little and support mandatory training, if you back off on what guns I can own. They will say, sure thing. Then, once you have given them the training requirement...as they are making that requirement more and more of a ban on gun ownership through fees and time, and levels of training, they will come back and say, yes...but we now need to take the AR-15 too....

There is no "giving a little" to get a little with extremists...they hate guns, if you own a gun, or worse, carry a gun, they hate you...

That is the math, it is simple, it is clear, but that is what the math is...

and in the meantime they're taking our guns AND imposing other restrictions as well and we're not doing anything proactive to stop it.

What guns have you had taken away, and by who?

None yet that I currently own........but with more gun laws & restrictions, I may not be able to buy more of a particular style, size or caliber because I live in a liberal wasteland

Leave and take your taxes with you.

I was born & raised here as were both my parents. This is my home & roots run deep. This state at one time was conservative/Republican. IOW, I was here first so they can kiss my ass & get out.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

...None yet that I currently own........but with more gun laws & restrictions, I may not be able to buy more of a particular style, size or caliber because I live in a liberal wasteland

That's OK... you don't need more than a couple, anyway...

Bullshit......who are you to tell me how many I can have

 

[Kondor3]

...Exactly how much training is required by the government to buy a car? I can’t find a single law on any books in regards to it. Maybe you can link to it.

People buy guns to kill.

People buy cars to ride.

Big difference.

But you do, indeed, need to pass multiple tests to obtain a drivers license or to operate a car in most jurisdictions.

Such as Mandatory Drivers' Ed(ucation) in most American high school districts of any respectable quality.

please post a link to the state testing or license to buy a car...

No need.

I've already illustrated the point that there is a big difference between the two, and I did not raise the claim originally, nor move to support. it.

...Criminals will use cars/guns to kill...

Criminals do not buy cars to kill people.

Criminals buy guns to kill people.

Or, more accurately, as a speculative illustration, for every criminal that buys a car to kill, 500,000 criminals buy a gun, instead.

Much easier to carry a gun in your pocket than it is to carry an Chevy in your pocket.

Sorry.

...They don’t care about testing or license laws...

Once effective Gun Control has been extant for a generation or so, there will be very little criminal trafficking in guns.

...Suicidal individuals will use cars/guns to commit suicide...

Same idea... for every suicide that rams a car into an overpass or drives off a bridge or into a river, there are 500,000 who will buy a gun or swallow some pills.

...They don’t care about testing or licensing...

Yep... unless they can't get one without undergoing the testing and licensing... which is exactly what happens, once effective Gun Control has been in effect for a generation or to...

...99% of all gun related deaths are by criminals or suicide...

Here, yu make an excellent case for beginning the Nation's journey towards effective Gun Control.

...Do you have a point? You solve nothing.

The point is to begin 'drying up the market' by requiring that those wishing to possess a firearm begin to shoulder the responsibility that comes with lethal weaponry.

The fix is gradual and multi-generational in nature... not an Instant Gratification sort of solution... for that, you'd need a total ban... most Gun Control folks oppose that.

There will come a day in the not-too-distant future when old-timers will say something to the effect of...

"Ya know... I remember way back in the 20-teens, when you could get a firearm by friggin' mail-order or by just going to a show or filling-out a form or ordering online, or buy 'em under the table outta somebody's trunk on the South Side. Nowadays, you gotta jump through hoops... background checks, licensing, transaction-approvals, weapon registration, mandatory trainings... sheeesh... what a pain in the ass... but it's not all that bad, once you get used to it, and gun deaths around here went wwaaaayy down, once they 'crucified' a few scoff-laws."

Real solutions take time.

 

[Kondor3]

...None yet that I currently own........but with more gun laws & restrictions, I may not be able to buy more of a particular style, size or caliber because I live in a liberal wasteland

That's OK... you don't need more than a couple, anyway...

Bullshit......who are you to tell me how many I can have

The People, who will 'regulate' the "militia' (at-large) 'well' , as provided in the Second Amendment.

Next slide, please.

 

[2aguy]

...Exactly how much training is required by the government to buy a car? I can’t find a single law on any books in regards to it. Maybe you can link to it.

People buy guns to kill.

People buy cars to ride.

Big difference.

But you do, indeed, need to pass multiple tests to obtain a drivers license or to operate a car in most jurisdictions.

Such as Mandatory Drivers' Ed(ucation) in most American high school districts of any respectable quality.

please post a link to the state testing or license to buy a car...

No need.

I've already illustrated the point that there is a big difference between the two, and I did not raise the claim originally, nor move to support. it.

...Criminals will use cars/guns to kill...

Criminals do not buy cars to kill people.

Criminals buy guns to kill people.

Or, more accurately, as a speculative illustration, for every criminal that buys a car to kill, 500,000 criminals buy a gun, instead.

Much easier to carry a gun in your pocket than it is to carry an Chevy in your pocket.

Sorry.

...They don’t care about testing or license laws...

Once effective Gun Control has been extant for a generation or so, there will be very little criminal trafficking in guns.

...Suicidal individuals will use cars/guns to commit suicide...

Same idea... for every suicide that rams a car into an overpass or drives off a bridge or into a river, there are 500,000 who will buy a gun or swallow some pills.

...They don’t care about testing or licensing...

Yep... unless they can't get one without undergoing the testing and licensing... which is exactly what happens, once effective Gun Control has been in effect for a generation or to...

...99% of all gun related deaths are by criminals or suicide...

Here, yu make an excellent case for beginning the Nation's journey towards effective Gun Control.

...Do you have a point? You solve nothing.

The point is to begin 'drying up the market' by requiring that those wishing to possess a firearm begin to shoulder the responsibility that comes with lethal weaponry.

The fix is gradual and multi-generational in nature... not an Instant Gratification sort of solution... for that, you'd need a total ban... most Gun Control folks oppose that.

There will come a day in the not-too-distant future when old-timers will say something to the effect of...

"Ya know... I remember way back in the 20-teens, when you could get a firearm by friggin' mail-order or by just going to a show or filling-out a form or ordering online, or buy 'em under the table outta somebody's trunk on the South Side. Nowadays, you gotta jump through hoops... background checks, licensing, transaction-approvals, weapon registration, mandatory trainings... sheeesh... what a pain in the ass... but it's not all that bad, once you get used to it, and gun deaths around here went wwaaaayy down, once they 'crucified' a few scoff-laws."

Real solutions take time.

Yes....they dried up the market in Britain....gun crime is increasing across the country....they dried up the market in Sweden.....gun crime and grenade crime is going up.....dittos Mexico...

The only thing you dry up when you stop law abiding people from owning guns is victims....those increase as criminals use guns to rape, rob and murder them...

 

[Kondor3]

...None yet that I currently own........but with more gun laws & restrictions, I may not be able to buy more of a particular style, size or caliber because I live in a liberal wasteland

That's OK... you don't need more than a couple, anyway...

Could you direct me to the occasion when anyone asked you to dictate and approve what they "need"?

Second Amendment.

You are a member of the militia at-large.... the militia of last resort in defense of the Republic... the citizenry.

The People will merely 'regulate' that 'militia' 'well', as provided in the Second Amendment.

Next batter, please.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

This is where you are deluding yourself......you will give up on training as a way of telling the anti gunners, see....I will give up a little and support mandatory training, if you back off on what guns I can own. They will say, sure thing. Then, once you have given them the training requirement...as they are making that requirement more and more of a ban on gun ownership through fees and time, and levels of training, they will come back and say, yes...but we now need to take the AR-15 too....

There is no "giving a little" to get a little with extremists...they hate guns, if you own a gun, or worse, carry a gun, they hate you...

That is the math, it is simple, it is clear, but that is what the math is...

and in the meantime they're taking our guns AND imposing other restrictions as well and we're not doing anything proactive to stop it.

What guns have you had taken away, and by who?

Deerfield just passed a law that all semi automatic weapons are now banned.....they have banned weapons in California, New York, New Jersey......and now local towns are trying to ban and confiscate so sorry, the argment that they aren't coming for guns is no longer possible.....

The statement was "they're taking our guns." That's slightly different than "coming for guns," it indicates they have already been taken.

When they have banned guns in California, New Jersey, and New York, they have taken guns.....they are coming for more guns each day...

Let's not forget the public pressure against stores to sell them even in states that don't have laws banning them. .

 

[Kondor3]

...Exactly how much training is required by the government to buy a car? I can’t find a single law on any books in regards to it. Maybe you can link to it.

People buy guns to kill.

People buy cars to ride.

Big difference.

But you do, indeed, need to pass multiple tests to obtain a drivers license or to operate a car in most jurisdictions.

Such as Mandatory Drivers' Ed(ucation) in most American high school districts of any respectable quality.

please post a link to the state testing or license to buy a car...

No need.

I've already illustrated the point that there is a big difference between the two, and I did not raise the claim originally, nor move to support. it.

...Criminals will use cars/guns to kill...

Criminals do not buy cars to kill people.

Criminals buy guns to kill people.

Or, more accurately, as a speculative illustration, for every criminal that buys a car to kill, 500,000 criminals buy a gun, instead.

Much easier to carry a gun in your pocket than it is to carry an Chevy in your pocket.

Sorry.

...They don’t care about testing or license laws...

Once effective Gun Control has been extant for a generation or so, there will be very little criminal trafficking in guns.

...Suicidal individuals will use cars/guns to commit suicide...

Same idea... for every suicide that rams a car into an overpass or drives off a bridge or into a river, there are 500,000 who will buy a gun or swallow some pills.

...They don’t care about testing or licensing...

Yep... unless they can't get one without undergoing the testing and licensing... which is exactly what happens, once effective Gun Control has been in effect for a generation or to...

...99% of all gun related deaths are by criminals or suicide...

Here, yu make an excellent case for beginning the Nation's journey towards effective Gun Control.

...Do you have a point? You solve nothing.

The point is to begin 'drying up the market' by requiring that those wishing to possess a firearm begin to shoulder the responsibility that comes with lethal weaponry.

The fix is gradual and multi-generational in nature... not an Instant Gratification sort of solution... for that, you'd need a total ban... most Gun Control folks oppose that.

There will come a day in the not-too-distant future when old-timers will say something to the effect of...

"Ya know... I remember way back in the 20-teens, when you could get a firearm by friggin' mail-order or by just going to a show or filling-out a form or ordering online, or buy 'em under the table outta somebody's trunk on the South Side. Nowadays, you gotta jump through hoops... background checks, licensing, transaction-approvals, weapon registration, mandatory trainings... sheeesh... what a pain in the ass... but it's not all that bad, once you get used to it, and gun deaths around here went wwaaaayy down, once they 'crucified' a few scoff-laws."

Real solutions take time.

Yes....they dried up the market in Britain....gun crime is increasing across the country....they dried up the market in Sweden.....gun crime and grenade crime is going up.....dittos Mexico...

The only thing you dry up when you stop law abiding people from owning guns is victims....those increase as criminals use guns to rape, rob and murder them...

That has not bee the experience in most developed countries that have implemented a sustainable program of firearms control coupled with widespread firearms ownership.

Nobody is looking to (a) take your guns or (b) stop you from owning them... merely to require you to 'pass muster' and shoulder related responsibilities.

Times have changed... firearms ownership without a measure of personal responsibility and accountability is an idea whose time is fading quickly.

It fades more, each time we have a classroom floor slippery with the blood of dead children.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

...None yet that I currently own........but with more gun laws & restrictions, I may not be able to buy more of a particular style, size or caliber because I live in a liberal wasteland

That's OK... you don't need more than a couple, anyway...

Bullshit......who are you to tell me how many I can have

The People, who will 'regulate' the "militia' (at-large) 'well' , as provided in the Second Amendment.

Next slide, please.

That's how you interpret it, but it reads.......

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


That does not say a limit on how many guns I can 'keep & bear' and neither does 'well regulated'

 

[2aguy]

...Exactly how much training is required by the government to buy a car? I can’t find a single law on any books in regards to it. Maybe you can link to it.

People buy guns to kill.

People buy cars to ride.

Big difference.

But you do, indeed, need to pass multiple tests to obtain a drivers license or to operate a car in most jurisdictions.

Such as Mandatory Drivers' Ed(ucation) in most American high school districts of any respectable quality.

please post a link to the state testing or license to buy a car...

No need.

I've already illustrated the point that there is a big difference between the two, and I did not raise the claim originally, nor move to support. it.

...Criminals will use cars/guns to kill...

Criminals do not buy cars to kill people.

Criminals buy guns to kill people.

Or, more accurately, as a speculative illustration, for every criminal that buys a car to kill, 500,000 criminals buy a gun, instead.

Much easier to carry a gun in your pocket than it is to carry an Chevy in your pocket.

Sorry.

...They don’t care about testing or license laws...

Once effective Gun Control has been extant for a generation or so, there will be very little criminal trafficking in guns.

...Suicidal individuals will use cars/guns to commit suicide...

Same idea... for every suicide that rams a car into an overpass or drives off a bridge or into a river, there are 500,000 who will buy a gun or swallow some pills.

...They don’t care about testing or licensing...

Yep... unless they can't get one without undergoing the testing and licensing... which is exactly what happens, once effective Gun Control has been in effect for a generation or to...

...99% of all gun related deaths are by criminals or suicide...

Here, yu make an excellent case for beginning the Nation's journey towards effective Gun Control.

...Do you have a point? You solve nothing.

The point is to begin 'drying up the market' by requiring that those wishing to possess a firearm begin to shoulder the responsibility that comes with lethal weaponry.

The fix is gradual and multi-generational in nature... not an Instant Gratification sort of solution... for that, you'd need a total ban... most Gun Control folks oppose that.

There will come a day in the not-too-distant future when old-timers will say something to the effect of...

"Ya know... I remember way back in the 20-teens, when you could get a firearm by friggin' mail-order or by just going to a show or filling-out a form or ordering online, or buy 'em under the table outta somebody's trunk on the South Side. Nowadays, you gotta jump through hoops... background checks, licensing, transaction-approvals, weapon registration, mandatory trainings... sheeesh... what a pain in the ass... but it's not all that bad, once you get used to it, and gun deaths around here went wwaaaayy down, once they 'crucified' a few scoff-laws."

Real solutions take time.

Yes....they dried up the market in Britain....gun crime is increasing across the country....they dried up the market in Sweden.....gun crime and grenade crime is going up.....dittos Mexico...

The only thing you dry up when you stop law abiding people from owning guns is victims....those increase as criminals use guns to rape, rob and murder them...

That has not bee the experience in most developed countries that have implemented a sustainable program of firearms control coupled with widespread firearms ownership.

Nobody is looking to (a) take your guns or (b) stop you from owning them... merely to require you to 'pass muster' and shoulder related responsibilities.

Times have changed... firearms ownership without a measure of personal responsibility and accountability is an idea whose time is fading quickly.

It fades more, each time we have a classroom floor slippery with the blood of dead children.

You mean except for Britain, Australia, Canada, Sweden.....

The CNN townhall, the D.C. marchers, and the anti gun justices on the Supreme Court have pulled of the mask.....sorry, you can't lie anymore.


And gun crime is going up in Europe and Australia..it is going down here....

Nothing you posted is even remotely accurate or true.....must be nice ....

The U.S., 600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense.......

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Britain...banned guns....

Yorkshire sees highest number of crimes for any county in Britain according to figures

“In particular we’re shocked to see an increase of nearly 30 per cent in weapon possession offences between 2016 and 2017.”

Crimes covered violent and sexual offences, vehicle theft, public order offences, possession of weapons, shoplifting, personal theft, drug crimes, robbery, criminal damage, bicycle thefts and anti-social behaviour.


========

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Daily Mail Online

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent .


========



Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns.

=========



Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.

Top trauma surgeon reveals shocking extent of London’s gun crime

A leading trauma surgeon has told how the number of patients treated for gunshot injuries at a major London hospital has doubled in the last five years.

----

He said the hospital’s major trauma centre had seen a bigger rise in gunshot injuries compared to knife wounds and that the average age of victims was getting younger.

-----

Last year, gun crime offences in London increased for a third year running and by 42 per cent, from 1,793 offences in 2015/16 to 2,544 offences in 2016/17. Police have seized 635 guns off the streets so far this year.

Dr Griffiths, who also teaches medical students, said: “Our numbers of victims of gun injury have doubled [since 2012]. Gunshot injuries represent about 2.5 per cent of our penetrating trauma.

-----

Dr Griffiths said the average age of gun crime victims needing treatment at the hospital had decreased from 25 to the mid to late teens since 2012.

He added that medics at the Barts Health hospital’s major trauma centre in Whitechapel had seen a bigger rise in patients with gun injuries rather than knife wounds and that most were caused by pistols or shotguns.

Met Police commander Jim Stokley, who was also invited to speak at the meeting, said that handguns and shotguns were the weapons of choice and that 46 per cent of London’s gun crime discharges were gang-related.

He said: “We believe that a lot of it is associated with the drugs trade, and by that I mean people dealing drugs at street level and disagreements between different gangs.”

Violent crime on the rise in every corner of the country, figures suggest

But analysis of the figures force by force, showed the full extent of the problem, with only one constabulary, Nottinghamshire, recording a reduction in violent offences.

The vast majority of police forces actually witnessed double digit rises in violent crime, with Northumbria posting a 95 per cent increase year on year.

Of the other forces, Durham Police recorded a 73 per cent rise; West Yorkshire was up 48 per cent; Avon and Somerset 45 per cent; Dorset 39 per cent and Warwickshire 37 per cent.

Elsewhere Humberside, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Wiltshire and Dyfed Powys all saw violence rise by more than a quarter year on year.

 

[2aguy]

...Exactly how much training is required by the government to buy a car? I can’t find a single law on any books in regards to it. Maybe you can link to it.

People buy guns to kill.

People buy cars to ride.

Big difference.

But you do, indeed, need to pass multiple tests to obtain a drivers license or to operate a car in most jurisdictions.

Such as Mandatory Drivers' Ed(ucation) in most American high school districts of any respectable quality.

please post a link to the state testing or license to buy a car...

No need.

I've already illustrated the point that there is a big difference between the two, and I did not raise the claim originally, nor move to support. it.

...Criminals will use cars/guns to kill...

Criminals do not buy cars to kill people.

Criminals buy guns to kill people.

Or, more accurately, as a speculative illustration, for every criminal that buys a car to kill, 500,000 criminals buy a gun, instead.

Much easier to carry a gun in your pocket than it is to carry an Chevy in your pocket.

Sorry.

...They don’t care about testing or license laws...

Once effective Gun Control has been extant for a generation or so, there will be very little criminal trafficking in guns.

...Suicidal individuals will use cars/guns to commit suicide...

Same idea... for every suicide that rams a car into an overpass or drives off a bridge or into a river, there are 500,000 who will buy a gun or swallow some pills.

...They don’t care about testing or licensing...

Yep... unless they can't get one without undergoing the testing and licensing... which is exactly what happens, once effective Gun Control has been in effect for a generation or to...

...99% of all gun related deaths are by criminals or suicide...

Here, yu make an excellent case for beginning the Nation's journey towards effective Gun Control.

...Do you have a point? You solve nothing.

The point is to begin 'drying up the market' by requiring that those wishing to possess a firearm begin to shoulder the responsibility that comes with lethal weaponry.

The fix is gradual and multi-generational in nature... not an Instant Gratification sort of solution... for that, you'd need a total ban... most Gun Control folks oppose that.

There will come a day in the not-too-distant future when old-timers will say something to the effect of...

"Ya know... I remember way back in the 20-teens, when you could get a firearm by friggin' mail-order or by just going to a show or filling-out a form or ordering online, or buy 'em under the table outta somebody's trunk on the South Side. Nowadays, you gotta jump through hoops... background checks, licensing, transaction-approvals, weapon registration, mandatory trainings... sheeesh... what a pain in the ass... but it's not all that bad, once you get used to it, and gun deaths around here went wwaaaayy down, once they 'crucified' a few scoff-laws."

Real solutions take time.

Yes....they dried up the market in Britain....gun crime is increasing across the country....they dried up the market in Sweden.....gun crime and grenade crime is going up.....dittos Mexico...

The only thing you dry up when you stop law abiding people from owning guns is victims....those increase as criminals use guns to rape, rob and murder them...

That has not bee the experience in most developed countries that have implemented a sustainable program of firearms control coupled with widespread firearms ownership.

Nobody is looking to (a) take your guns or (b) stop you from owning them... merely to require you to 'pass muster' and shoulder related responsibilities.

Times have changed... firearms ownership without a measure of personal responsibility and accountability is an idea whose time is fading quickly.

It fades more, each time we have a classroom floor slippery with the blood of dead children.

Nothing you posted is even true or accurate......

Does Gun Control Reduce Murder? Let’s Run The Numbers Globally



Let’s look at the countries with the highest concentrations of gun ownership (excluding Yemen and Iraq as active war zones). Guns per murder in those countries are,

1. United States at 20,967,
2. Uruguay at 3,777,
3. Norway at 55,893,
4. France at 19,747,
5. Austria at 59,608,
6. Germany at 35,647,
7. Switzerland at 35,435,
8. New Zealand at 24,835, and
9. Greece at 26,471.

Norway is a particularly interesting example. It has 10 times the gun ownership rate of the United Kingdom, but only half the murder rate.

When one excludes Iraq and Yemen, not one of the countries on the list of the 10 highest rates of gun ownership also appears on the list of the top ten highest murder rates. In fact, the countries with the highest murder rates have markedly low gun ownership rates.

1. El Savador (108.64 murders per 100,000/5800 guns per 100,000)
2. Honduras (63.75/6200)
3. Venezuela (57.15/10,700)
4. Jamaica (43.21/8,100)
5. Lesotho (38/2,700)
6. Belize (34.4/10,000)
7. South Africa (34.27/12,700)
8. Guatemala (31.21/13,100)
9. Trinidad (30.88/1,600)
10. Bahamas (29.81/5,300)

It really doesn’t matter how you slice this data.

The conclusion is inescapable: High concentrations of private, legal gun ownership do not correlate positively to increased murders. Indeed, you can look at almost any slice of data and conclude the opposite: Higher private ownership of guns can be strongly correlated to lower murder rates.

The data also exposes some myths I have heard about gun control. For example, I’ve heard activists tout Australia, which supposedly banned all guns. Australia has advanced a number of gun control measures over the years. Nevertheless, according to the data, Australia has a rate of private ownership of guns of 13,100 per 100,000 and a murder rate of .98.

Australia has almost twice as many guns per capita as the United Kingdom, for example, and a comparable murder rate. New Zealand has almost twice as many guns per capita as Australia but a lower crime rate.

Countries with both a low rate of private gun ownership and a low murder rate exist, but they are clearly data outliers. These include the Netherlands (3,900 guns per 100,000, for a murder rate of .61) the United Kingdom (6,200 guns per 100,000, for a murder rate of .92), Japan, and Portugal. Places like Norway, Austria, Switzerland, and Germany overwhelm those examples because they all have high rates of gun ownership and enviable crime rates.

-------

The ratio of murders per gun works as a decent measure for how responsible a country’s citizens are with their firearms. Measured in this light, an owner of a private legal gun in America measures as one of the most responsible in the world. A gun in America is 387 times less likely to be used in a murder than in El Salvador. Even in Japan, which has one of the lowest murder and gun ownership rates in the world, there are ten times as many murders per gun than in America.

 

[OKTexas]

...None yet that I currently own........but with more gun laws & restrictions, I may not be able to buy more of a particular style, size or caliber because I live in a liberal wasteland

That's OK... you don't need more than a couple, anyway...

Could you direct me to the occasion when anyone asked you to dictate and approve what they "need"?

Second Amendment.

You are a member of the militia at-large.... the militia of last resort in defense of the Republic... the citizenry.

The People will merely 'regulate' that 'militia' 'well', as provided in the Second Amendment.

Next batter, please.

Repeating the same propaganda over and over doesn't make it true, the right of the "people" to keep and carry firearms is unrelated to militia service. The right to self defense with equal or greater firepower than what a bad guy might have, is unrelated to militia service. Sucks to be you I guess.


.

 

[Andylusion]

So I was right, an age limit is an infringement. Kids should be allowed to carry at school. It's the only way to be safe.

Shoulds, coulds and woulds don't matter ... The Bill of Rights applies to all citizens including young people.

What Pop23 was referring to is ...
There is no age requirement in federal law that prohibits a child from owning/possessing a rifle and ammunition.
Some states respect that ... And likewise don't restrict children from owning/possessing rifles.

There is however a federal law the prohibits certain people (regardless of age) from possessing a firearm within 1000 feet of a school.

.

And isn't it amazing how many shootings happen in gun-free zones.

 

[Kondor3]

...None yet that I currently own........but with more gun laws & restrictions, I may not be able to buy more of a particular style, size or caliber because I live in a liberal wasteland

That's OK... you don't need more than a couple, anyway...

Bullshit......who are you to tell me how many I can have

The People, who will 'regulate' the "militia' (at-large) 'well' , as provided in the Second Amendment.

Next slide, please.

That's how you interpret it, but it reads.......

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


That does not say a limit on how many guns I can 'keep & bear' and neither does 'well regulated'

'well regulated' means what The People want it to mean, through the endeavors of their Legislative branch, and what the Judicial branch allows.

We'll let you know what that means at the voting booth, as Americans start sniffing around for NRA contributions to Congressional and Senatorial campaigns.

Change is coming.