Does /k/ support any prerequisites to obtaining a firearm? Like background checks, mandatory safety training, mental health check etc?
Nope.
Nope.
If you're too dangerous to own a gun, you shouldn't be on the streets.
That said, I think gun shops would do well to at least offer safety training with purchases.
No.
I'm ultimately against any kind of intelligence test for firearm ownership but sometimes I hear shit in the local gun shop that makes me reconsider the issue.
If you're not a violent felon, or violently crazy/mentally handicapped you should be able to buy any firearm.
While that's not realistic in this world, I'll settle for getting rid of the NFA and Hughe's Amendment if that meant having soem dumb UBC law.
>>29638513
has any of that shit actually ever prevented homicide/mass shootings?
Money or trade in the amount of the price should be a prerequisite.
>>29638541
I'm sure people have died because of improper safety training, yes.
>>29638541
Not in America
Maybe in some tiny homogenous Eurocuck country somewhere, but not here.
>>29638513
While the 2nd amendment as written implies a nation-wide ban on any gun control, I'd like to make some small concessions for concealed weapons. (Prohibition on rifles ignores a decade of aggregate crime data in the US.)
Sadly, those same restrictions on concealed weapons I like are usually defeated by the weapons being concealed. It's only useful for tacking on additional sentencing after a crime is committed, or harrasing otherwise law-abiding citizens.
No.
Of course there needs to be restrictions.
Reasonable measures like universal background checks, initial waiting period, registry etc.
A safety course and licence should be required, just like for driving a car. Also no guns for anybody with a history of violent crime or mental instability.
>>29638623
Get out cuckshit.
>>29638626
You don't need either of those to drive a car though. You can drive with no license on private land all you want.
>>29638513
Show me where in the consitution there are preresquisite requirements for freedom of speech, due process, or owning and bearing arms.
We either
a) Are going to follow the constitution how is was written and intended
b) We are not going to follow the consitution and rule of law doesn't matter.
There is no in-between legally speaking. Any prerequisites are an infringement on the part where it says "shall not be infringed." There is no fine print.
Just a background check is sufficient in my opinion.
>>29638639
Even so, I see no harm in making sure that people know how to safely handle firearms. The licence can basically serve as proof that you completed the course.
>>29638657
Do you need a license to speak freely?
Do you need a license to vote?
>>29638513
Yes, I'd support some sort of universal background check/safety course system if a)it couldn't be used to form a registry of actual guns owned (by nature it would still unfortunately be a de facto registry of gun owners, but at least with plausible deniability) and b) all existing laws restricting firearms no longer apply. no taxes for silencers, SBR, FA, etc.
>>29638513
Privately? No
From a dealer? As long as the background check takes all of 10 seconds like it does now, then I'm fine with it.
>>29638623
>waiting period
But I'm mad now!
>>29638642
You realize that the constitution and the rights in it were written with intentionally vagueness so that they could be adapted to changing times and conditions right? By your logic outlawing harassment is a violation of freedom of speech.
>ITT: I have never read the bill of rights and the rule of law / consitution doesn't matter.
Show me the part of the BoR where it says *as long as background checks and safety classes have been taken.
It doesn't. There is a part that says "Shall not be Infringed"
You either believe in the rule of law or you don't give a fuck about the actual language and purpose of our consitution.
>>29638663
>>29638642
You need to register to vote
>>29638642
So you would support a murderer out on parole being able to purchase an assault rifle?
>>29638670
"Shall not be infringed" is not vague.
>>29638674
No you don't. There's no voter ID laws.
>>29638677
Not that anon, but in theory the justice system should be rehabilitating those kinds of people.
I consider it more of a failure of the prison system than anything.
>>29638677
>assault rifle
Arent those really rare in America?
>>29638518
>>29638530
>>29638531
>>29638534
>>29638541
>>29638542
>>29638615
>>29638626
>>29638637
>>29638642
>>29638666
They warned me about how /k/ would be full of high school dropouts but I didn't believe them.
You guys are so stupid. To the ones saying
>it's muh God given right by my amendment
or
>i don't need no damn license to talk, why I need one for a gun?
It's because if a mentally sick person can have the freedom to talk, what makes you comfortable for them having a gun?
God I love guns but hate the crowds. Too stupid
>>29638681
What amounts to "infringement" to one reasonable mind is not always the same as what it means to another reasonable mind.
>>29638663
Speaking freely isn't going to result in a redneck accidentally shooting his hunting buddy because he didn't know how to safely handle his rifle.
>>29638681
Then I guess nuclear weapons should be up for grabs then? As much as I support gun rights the second amendment clearly needs to be updated.
>inb4 muh sacred constitution
The constitution also originally stated that blacks were equal to three fifths of a person.
>>29638677
If they're dangerous enough to warrant not letting them buy a gun, what are they doing being eligible for parole?
>>29638694
... Have you ever voted before? You have to register to vote. Never mentioned voter id
>>29638694
NC anon here, 30 States have voter ID laws, 11 of which, including mine, have picture laws.
>>29638698
But obviously we don't live in a perfect world, so do you support a murderer out on parole being able to purchase a fully automatic weapon?
Do you support someone who has stated to a policeman he intends to kill people with a weapon being able to receive one?
>>29638513
Mandatory safety training, mental health checks, background checks, that's about it.
>>29638670
I don't think they were, the bill of rights is pretty clear.
However, the founding fathers and intellectuals at the time were strongly against despotism from the grave, which is the appeal that pro-gun people are making by referring to the constitution as being sacrosanct.
The only argument either side can make, should only be made when considering adding another amendment to restrict gun rights. If they cant pass the amendment, they shouldn't be able to touch the guns. If they can, well that's just how the country works.
>>29638706
Infringement is an absolute.
Anything limiting ownership is infringement.
>>29638717
Photo ID laws*
>>29638729
So if a convicted murderer out on parole tells a policeman he intends to purchase a gun and kill as many people as he can with it, you would support his right to purchase a gun?
>>29638708
There's only ~600 accidental firearms deaths each year. In a nation that owns 300,000,000 firearms.
Accidental deaths are a total non-issue. For a comparison, 3500 Americans drown every year.
>>29638513
SHALL
>>29638670
This isnt accurate.
Cite me where the framers or founders felt this was the case. I have gone through all the federalist and anti federalists, the various writings, and the AoC and BoR and our consitution.
They never intended for "adaptation to changing times or conditions" and in fact they had specific easy to understand language so that it could no be misconstrued by future infringers.
They never had this intention and no where did the founders or framers consider the "living document" BS they now teach at universities.
You either support RoL or do not. We have a process of amending the consitution, the supreme law of the land.
Harassment is a meaningless word like hate speech. There is no 1st Amendment provision prohibiting "harassing" speech.
>>29638738
WHY IS THE CONVICTED MURDERER OUT ON PAROLE IN THE FIRST PLACE
>>29638694
Guess I found the 16 y/o...who hasn't had government class yet
>>29638708
3/5ths is generous, niggers aren't people and the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>>29638513
SHALL
>>29638749
Because the justice system doesn't work. But it's life.
>>29638714
Don't forget that it's a Sunday so all these middleschoolers aren't in school.
>>29638708
>muh nuclear weapons argument
no. The 2nd Amendment protects the right to KEEP and BEAR *arms*. Those words have meanings.
You can't "keep and bear" a nuclear weapon. It's not a weapon you can "bear".
Explosive devices could all be classified that way. They aren't "arms" that you can "keep and bear". You don't "bear" a grenade or a bazooka or a nuke.
>>29638721
this. if you don't like guns, then pass a constitutional amendment that overrides or amends the 2nd. Until then, "shall not infringe" is pretty simple.
>>29638758
So you admit the system doesn't work, and you think it will prevent him from getting a gun?
>>29638739
ban dangerous military-style assault pools.
Ordinary people shouldn't be allowed pools that are designed for professional olympic athletes or military special forces to train in.
>>29638703
I'm a CRNA, that's hardly a high school dropout.
>>29638677
I believe in the Rule of Law above all else. Sorry if that is a hard concept to understand.
On parole? So is he imprisoned or is he a free man? Free men who have served their time should get all their rights reinstated as was originally intended.
>>29638703
I actually study consitutional law in school. What do you do friend?
It doesnt matter about your feelings or how hard it is to understand that we have rights.
Yes, until we amend the consitution a "mentally sick person" can own a gun.
You either believe in inalienable rights or you dont. Rule of Law or rule of men.
No one cares what you are comfortable with.
Crack a book sometime.
>>29638746
>There is no 1st Amendment provision prohibiting "harassing" speech.
And yet harassment is still illegal, and nobody challenges it under their right to freedom of speech.
>>29638534
>If you're not a violent felon, or violently crazy/mentally handicapped you should be able to buy any firearm.
This. Even non-violent felons still should have the right.
>>29638766
REKT
>>29638783
Even violent felons should.
If they're still dangerous, what are they doing not behind bars?
>>29638703
Poor quality b8 m8.
1/10, I replied.
>>29638513
>background checks
No, but they'd be nice to have as an option. Straw purchasing completely defeats doing this though.
>Mandatory safety training
Sounds like a good idea but no, knowing how to use the gun isn't what makes you safe, it's establishing safe habits. Also, if someone needs to defend themselves now, I don't want there to be some bullshit waiting period/licensing.
>mental health checks
Would be wonderful but our current psych/mental health system is shit. Most of the time psychologists are just pill dispensaries. I also don't like the idea of someone being able to arbitrarily say "NO GUNS FOR YOUUUUU" and then chalk it up to some BS unprovable condition. You'd have to have some appeal system. And even if all this is implemented, you could still have straw purchasing or simple theft of a firearm, which defeats this whole thing. For example, the sandy hook shooter was 17, couldn't buy a gun, and murdered his Mom to acquire them.
I know all this stuff sounds reasonable, but when you really think about these ideas, you discover they just don't work.
>>29638788
Good point.
So really only the mentally unstable then.
>>29638513
Keep the hood safe H
>>29638796
Nope. Even the mentally unstable, by the same logic. If they're dangerous, why aren't they in an asylum?
>>29638782
Ah i understand you now.
Well the supreme law of the land makes it so that law is null and void. Nobody challenging it is irrelevant.
The consitution is the supreme law and so called "laws" that violate it are not law at all
You dont believe in Rule of Law, just admit it. You care about muh feels and how comfortable you are and not upsetting the infringers.
>>29638775
Hmm 1 okay career. Not bad anon.
>>29638777
>constitutional law
Lol criminal justice or prelaw? Either way I know you're retarded. Good luck getting into law school with that degree.
I studied CE, working as a CE, and the thought that some retard or gang member can freely walk up to buy a gun is just ridiculous.
>>29638513
I'm okay with a background check, but only if it can be done quickly (no waiting period) and if a concealed carry permit takes its place.
Other then that, fuck no.
I also believe you should be able to purchase pistols at 18.
Rifles are more deadly anyways
>>29638812
And yet even with background check requirements they still easily get guns.
>>29638797
>>29638670
Whatever vagueness you see in it was intended to err in the benefit of the citizens.
>>29638513
Maybe a test to ensure the person knows how to safely use it. They could also teach gun safety in schools.
>>29638513
You can't prevent felons from owning guns anyway. Finishing an 80% lower is easy as fuck.
I do think that a mandatory training certificate would be nice, however, in order to not infringe on the right to bear arms, it would have to be included in the middle school curriculum.
"Oh, what, Ms.SoccerMum? You think your child shouldn't be given firearms education? That's your decision ma'am, but you're barring her from owning a gun, ever. Good day ma'am."
(not true of course, adults could ask to take that class for free, but I wonder how she'd feel to have her kid's rights infringed, while other kids get to enjoy their 2nd amendment).
Get your certificate at 12. You can now enjoy guns forever.
>>29638818
Exactly.
How hard would it be to take a 3-4 hour safety course (here in Texas we do 6 hour course for DL) before going to buy a gun?
People are so stupid everywhere it hurts anon.
You know with all this debate about gun rights, it makes me wonder why the legislation doesn't creep on ammo sales and distribution instead if The Man is serious about gun control.
Sure it might jack up ammo prices but from an economic standpoint so would black market prices hence could potentially reduce illegal access to them from a financial standpoint.
>>29638657
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Where the fuck does it changes with the times because of vague ness
>>29638670
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Show me the vagueness.
Fucking commie shit
>>29638860
How is a safety course an infringement on your rights?
If you are a retard and can't pass a one time safety course you literally don't deserve a firearm.
>>29638846
You're missing the point.
Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and they have wildly rampant gun violence.
It's like the old proverb, "Locks only stop the honest man".
Besides, as I've said, accidental gun deaths are exceedingly rare. ~600 a year, out of 300,000,000. Most gun deaths are on purpose. I don't see how safety courses would prevent that.
>>29638623
>waiting period
>literally legislating "fuck you for not being able to magically foretell a threat to your life"
>>29638849
Some faggot in NYC proposed limiting ammo purchases.
>>29638878
>chicago
The surrounding areas do not have strict gun laws though.
Do you faggots ever consider that Chicago has strict gun laws BECAUSE it's dangerous? It's not dangerous BECAUSE it has strict gun laws, otherwise every eurocuck country would be as dangerous as chicago.
>>29638882
these fucking retards think that laws like that will actually help.
That, or they just want to inconvenience law-abiding citizens.
Seriously, if some autistic kid wants to shoot up his highschool, ammo purchase limits won't do shit. It will just make him spend a week or two extra buying ammo for it. Not that it takes much ammo to shoot up a school anyways.
>>29638878
I think we all know the niggers are the problem there, not the laws.
>>29638872
Is the founders thought a safety course be a requirement, then they'd put it in 2A, wouldn't they?
>>29638903
many european countries do have higher violent crime rates than the US. Let's look at a european city overrun with niggers and sandniggers and examine the crime rates.
>>29638878
>I don't see how safety courses would prevent that.
They wouldn't prevent the non-accidental deaths. However, they'd make getting guns easier and faster.
>>29638916
Murder rates would be more accurate when discussing gun laws, since guns are more often fatal than other weapons.
>>29638878
Look buddy, I'm not trying to take anyone guns away.
What I'm saying is we need stricter laws to buy them from a point in time. Stricter as in a course in safety right before buying it.
Hopefully we can even bar anyone with at least a high school degree without being able to purchase one. Then due time associates.
>>29638911
THAT IS MY POINT.
The laws cannot stop niggers from getting guns.
>>29638924
How could more bureaucracy possibly make getting guns easier and faster? Remember, I can already walk into Wal-mart and walk out with a gun in 5 minutes.
>>29638703
Maybe go to Reddit. You might feel more at home with the faggots over there.
>>29638903
lol no
Illinois as a whole has extremely strict gun laws. People can't just waltz out of state, go to Fudd n Co. gun shop in the middle of Iowa or Indiana and buy a gun. You can't buy a gun with an out-of-state ID, you have to have some form of residency to buy a gun in the state your in.
A lot of the guns used in Crime come from Chicago. Gangs will take some kid with no criminal history, have him go through all the hoops to get a FOID card, and straw purchase through him. Either that, or they'll get a gun that's been in criminal circulation since the 90's.
>>29638942
Not him, but you're saying because I have a GED I wouldn't be able to own a gun?
>>29638942
tightening requirements to get the implements of self-defense disproportionately harms the lower classes: those who do not have the time or the money to spare to take a course, and yet simultaneously those who arguably need the right to self-defense the most. Raising barriers to entry will do more harm than good, and it will do that harm to those who are least able to recover.
>>29638942
Why? What problem are you trying to solve?
As I've said several times already, only ~600 people are shot and killed accidentally each year.
For a comparison, 3500 people drown each year. Should we require a safety course to own a pool?
poor people should not be allowed to vote or own guns.
>>29638977
How about no?
>>29638977
I can get down with this if you add blacks and mexicans to that list.
I'm fine wit background checks. I think since it is a right, firearms safety classes need to be mandatory for high school seniors. Make it part of education, and its not infringing on that right.
>>29638967
GED is high school equivalent isn't it? You'd know if you actually got it >>29638968
So those who don't have the time or money to get a course shouldn't get a license to drive either? Or better yet, they're poor so why should they even get a gun if they don't have the money?
>>29638975
So why don't you take those 600 deaths and think about how much smaller it can be without accidents.
>>29639001
>why should they even get a gun if they don't have the money?
because the right to self-defense is not derived from economic class or social standing. There's a reason companies like Hi-Point exist: they fulfill a market need.
>>29639001
It is already small enough.
If you want to save lives, why not start with the things that actually cause the most accidental deaths?
Pools cause over 6 times as many accidental deaths as guns.
>>29639001
It's not really an equivalent.
I got it because of medical issues, and could no longer stay in school. Most colleges won't accept it even with a SAT score of 2100. So I'm forced to do 2 years at a community college, then move on to a state school.
>>29638718
This is bait.
As long g as you're not hurting or killing any one do whatever you want
Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness
If I kill someone with whatever object that have no human characteristics then I'm taking someone's life liberty and pursuit of happiness away from them.
Congrats on being retarded.
Owning something thing should not be illegal but hurting someone should
>>29639010
Alright I can see I struck a nerve since you're being kind of dumb.
Pools are dangerous to those who aren't trained in them.
BUT how many deaths are caused by clicks or just people full of hate drowning the other person? Now hopefully you're smart enough to see the relationship I just did because I'm not telling you.
>>29639037
That's 3500 accidental drowning deaths, not murders.
No safety course will ever prevent someone from killing someone on purpose.
>>29638703
>>29638742
NOT
>>29639037
>implying that a safety course will prevent someone "full of hate" from killing someone
accident A causes 3500 deaths per year
accident B causes 600 deaths per year
You're more concerned with passing sweeping restrictions and legislation to try and reduce B's frequency.
You're a silly person.
>>29638513
No, anyone that isn't safe to own a gun isn't safe to roam freely either.
>>29639048
A safety course is just an example of the actions we should take.
OP said background checks. We can do a lot with that. So why shouldn't they be required?
>>29638541
I'm patriotic as fuck, but hear me out. Some kind of one time basic knowledge test could benefit gun owners, and weaken gun centralization advocates.
Pretty often, we compare guns to cars to prove how retarded leftists are on gun control (picture related). So if they are so similar, then it likely makes sense that, like cars, there should be a very basic knowledge requirement to own them. The classes would be dirt cheap, but it could be subsidized for poor people (welfare recipients). It would be a simple quiz with 10 to 20 questions regarding safe use of firearms and how they work. You only need to get 80% of the questions correct to pass. Even idiots could pass it with some basic studying. I seriously doubt anyone wouldn't be able to own a gun because they were too stupid or poor to pass/take the test.
It is a good idea because there will be less dumbasses accidentally shooting themselves or otherwise furthering the cause of gun centralization advocates. So, in theory, this would, in a way, PROTECT gun rights.
The only way this could go wrong is if the class became too expensive over time, or if the requirements to pass were stricter.
Just something to consider. It has pros, but also cons.
Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.
>>29639079
We already have background checks, and yet people still misuse guns.
>>29639081
None of the common regulation of cars applies to car ownership. You can own a car with no license, no plates, and drive it as fast as you want with no seatbelt on your own land.
>>29639081
>>29639059
>>29639048
>>29638975
>muh other deaths
>>29639081
>Just something to consider. It has pros, but also cons.
No, it doesn't. It has one con: the government can keep changing the test to make it harder. If anyone thinks this would help, you haven't studied history enough to know that the government takes a mile when we give them an inch.
No other right has conditions.
>>29638513
FIRST, my personal belief is any non felon who hasn't exhibited and been diagnosed with serious nmental illness who has taken etiquette safety training should be able to own any rifle or hand gun on the market.
That being said.....
>Does /k/ support any prerequisites to obtaining a firearm?
Only the sane anons capable of rational thought with a firm grasp of logic. Only edgy underageB& anarchists think anyone should be able to walk into any LGS and walk out with a gun.This is the mark of an immature mind that has yet to grasp the complexities of civilized life in modern societies.
There will always be a percentage of humanity that is capable and willing to commit violence and denying the need to deal with them is inviting murder and mayhem into your communities.
We have driver education with testing that keeps you from behind the wheel in you can't achieve a certain lever of competency. Should we cease driver training because anyone who makes the effort can steal a car? This is the illogical thinking of those who say people can steal guns or otherwise acquire them illegally.
It's not a simple question and those who make short concrete statements are idiots.
>>29638703
You almost fooled me. Almost.
>>29639134
CORRECTION....fug
>FIRST, my personal belief is any non VIOLENT felon
Violence is the key in my opinion
>>29639111
1) The UK does not count murders like we do. If you find a body that was obviously murdered, but no one is ever convicted, then that death is not counted as a homicide.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm
2) Look at the places with the most gun deaths. They're also the places most overrun by gangs. Chicago, Detroit, LA, DC. If you aren't in a gang, the US is no more dangerous than Australia.
An instant background check.
And 30min. gun safety course should be required. If not before hand than within 30 days of purchase.
To many idiots learn about guns from watching TV.
>>29639165
Fuck you. What exactly is a 30 minute course going to do, and who will pay for it?
>>29639134
You do not need a license to drive. You only need a license to drive on public streets.
You can drive with no license on your own land.
>>29639171
5 minutes is enough to learn gun safety and operation.
>>29639165
What do you hope to accomplish with that 30min safety course?
I don't want any fucking retards to have guns. Autist, suicidal, anxious, Idgaf you can't have guns. If you are any of these things then don't fucking tell anyone and fix the problem yourself. If you can do that then you can handle guns. If you can't then you are ineligible to handle weapons.
>>29638703
>high school dropouts
Indeed.
>>29639171
DO NOT FUCKING POINT YOUR GUN AT ANYONE YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO KILL. KEEP YOUR FUCKING FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOU'RE READY TO SHOOT. VERIFY YOUR TARGET, CHECK THE BACKGROUND. TREAT ALL FIREARMS AS LOADED UNTIL SECURELY CHECKED.
Shouted at them by a drill sergeant for 30 minutes.
>>29638703
Nigger let me tell you something. It is a God given right
In a world inhabited by the evil of humanity it is impossible to live without weapons
If you don't support free and completely unrestricted right of bearing arms you might as well support the mass genocide of every person on earth
TL;dr you're Satan
>>29639181
The mentally ill are both less likely to commit a violent crime, and more likely to be a victim of violent crime, than the average person.
>>29638805
Bull fucking shit. I've tried to kill myself more times than I can count since I was 14. Every fucking time I leave the hospital I relapse again. Hell,once I lied so I could get out sooner and try again. Its not as simple as HUR DUR NOT IN ASYLUM MUST BE STABLE. Granted,Last time I tried I was seventeen. Maybe adults are treated signifantly different,but I doubt it. The adult psych ward was next door and it seemed to work the same. I agree that mental illness shouldn't stop you from owning a gun,but we should at least have a system to stop really unstable people from owning guns. Maybe have a therapist or psychiatrist sign off on it if you have a history.
>>29639134
>This is the mark of an immature mind that has yet to grasp the complexities of civilized life in modern societies.
Your belief that gun control is in any way effective is the mark of a moron who's never taken a cursory glance at a crime statistic in his life. There is no gun control in modern history that has demonstrably reduced violent crime rates. It is a failed concept. When you cannot demonstrate that your restriction on freedom conveys some greater benefit, it is absolutely amoral.
>>29639184
I'd want that job.
>>29639194
>The system failed
>lets require more of it
>>29639203
>someone reoffends are being released from prison
>that obviously dint work so lets stop imprisoning people11!!
>>29639194
>Maybe have a therapist or psychiatrist sign off on it if you have a history.
But you see, what if the therapist is ardently anti-gun? You have some light depression, but love guns and shooting them, the hobby gives you satisfaction and improves your condition. Therapist finds out about this? NO MORE GUNS, FUCK YOU. People here in Finland have to literally choose between owning guns or going to a shrink, since getting treatment has a massive chance of you losing your guns.
>mfw this entire thread
>>29639221
Don't you think the psychiatrist who has spent 7 years of their life training and many years after specialising should be the one to say if someone's safe rather than someone who's very pro-gun?
You don't question a psychiatrists opinion on anything else they do.
>>29639219
No more like:
>someone reoffends after being released from prison
>be more careful next time and have stricter requirements to meet to be eligible for release
>>29639081
This.
I recently went to a new gun range.
Before allowing me to shoot i had to watch a ten min video.
At first i was a little pissed.
But when i thought about it, how many idiots were saved from themselves by this video.
>>29639235
not necessarily.
and yes, I do.
>>29639237
So
>system didn't work
>let's have more system
>>29639235
>Don't you think the psychiatrist who has spent 7 years of their life training and many years after specialising should be the one to say if someone's safe rather than someone who's very pro-gun?
How does the shrink know my mental state better than I?
>You don't question a psychiatrists opinion on anything else they do.
Yes, I sure as fuck do.
>>29638530
This, anything else is just our rights being stripped away piecemeal.
>>29639081
You'll never "weaken" gun control advocacy, it grows larger constantly, all atempts to negotiate a "reasonable" compromise merely empower them more, as has already been shown many times.
>>29639253
>How does the shrink know my mental state better than I?
Because that's the nature of mental illness. People often think they're not mentally ill when they are. Are you retarded?
>>29639179
Hopefull placate a bunch of liberal gun grabbers.
And quite possibly teach a few idiots not to shoot themselves or others.
>>29639271
And psychiatrists often think you're not mentally ill when you obviously are, see trannies.
>>29639235
>Patient No.931 wants to buy a gun
>I don't like guns and don't want any one to own guns
>Declined
What if the psychiatrist was very pro gun and simply signed off on everyone who applied?
If a psychiatrist tells you are mentally insane when you just came in for something small like you haven't been feeling well, doesn't that raise any questions?
>>29639275
1) You will never placate gun grabbers. They will just demand more. You'll institute your 30min course, and a year or two later, someone will get shot and there will be a media circus around it. They will then go right back to bitching about "common sense" gun reform.
2) Only ~600 people are accidentally shot to death. No big deal. 6 times as many people accidentally drown, but nobody cries for common sense pool reform.
>>29638739
>In a nation that owns 300,000,000 firearms.
Please stop using this number, it's much clser to 500,000,000 now. There have been over 100,000,000 successful background checks since President Obama won his first general election for president.
another fun fact is that the civilian population in America owns and controls more ammunition than the three largest military's on the planet.
>>29639292
because the motives aren't to actually fix anything. They just have a problem with the average citizen owning a firearm. No amount of concessions will make them say "ok, this is enough now" short of full gun and weapon bans like the UK.
>>29638882
Municipalities in CA have implemented ID checks for ammo purchases, no hunting with lead and Gavin/ the Assembly will find another one to pass on the state level
>>29639271
There's a difference between depression and schizophrenia, you know. Not all mental health issues turn you into a dangerous mess.
>>29638513
>background checks
All this does is push felon firearm sales to the black market or private sales where it's harder to trace the sale. But this is only important in cases where the weapon is the key piece of evidence. But as long as it's illegal to sell guns to felons, fun stores need background checking systems to comply with the law and be safe from accusation. I'm also sure they don't like the idea of selling guns to felons either. What does bug me is our justice system has so many felonies that have nothing to do with violence, those people deserve guns when they've done their time.
>mandatory safety training, mental health check etc?
I love safety training but I prefer shall not be infringed.
Mental health checks are fucking impossible. The only reliable evidence someone is crazy is if it's in their medical record, which is not obtainable by anyone selling a firearm or even a court of law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physician%E2%80%93patient_privilege
There's no way to know if someone is violent based off the fact they are crazy. Most crazy people aren't violent at all, and our society is now stigmatizing them.
There's also no due process system for that, you can't be convicted of being crazy. No due process means infringement. You'd have better luck taking guns from the legally blind, and they'll tell you to go fuck yourself.
>>29639203
I never said it worked,and It should be fixed,but the point still stands that it isn't as simple as people are only let out when they're safe. Meds can stop working properly for a lot of reasons.
>>29639311
Exactly. The only solution then is outright refusal to cooperate with gun grabbers in any way.
>>29639320
So check up on them. But don't go arbitrarily restricting their rights.
>>29639253
If you are planning a suicide or mass shooting,what the fuck would stop you then?
It seems to me that with firearms ownership being a core principle of your constitution safe handling and basic marksmanship should be included in education. I'm not American though, so it's really not my place to say.
>>29639235
>You don't question a psychiatrists opinion on anything else they do.
Psychiatrists have a bad reputation for not knowing what the fuck they are talking about. They're just an opinion and someone to vent to for most patients. Even doctors who deal with hard science are commonly fucking morons.
You didn't answer his concerns either. A psychiatrist could be politically motivated in his opinion about you. And sick people could deliberately avoid treatment because of the potential to lose their rights/privileges. It's called phase 2. People strategize against the law and produce unintended consequences.
>>29638513
No.
Anti-gunners love to implement "reasonable-sounding" policies and then abuse the shit out of them.
Mandatory safety training? Here, take this course that is only taught in one place in the state, costs $1200, and has a seven month wait time.
Mental health check? Have your rights revoked without due process because someone who hates you feels like calling the cops on you.
ANY increase in gun control, no matter how ostensibly minor, is an attempt to erode your 2nd amendment rights.
>>29639235
Also this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physician%E2%80%93patient_privilege
No doctor or psychiatrist who has standards would consider this system ethical. Their mission is to help patients, not whisper is the court's ear.
>>29638878
>It's like the old proverb, "Locks only stop the honest man".
I've never hear that one - maybe because it's completely retarded.
An honest man wouldn't even try the door.
>>29639365
It used to be. Schools used to have marksmanship classes.
>>29639342
exactly.
The only people who should be trusted to deal with gun safety and accident prevention are pro-gun groups. Pro-gun groups can run training courses, safety courses, etc. like they already do. And you know, if people want the government to do something, have the government subsidize those courses and pay to advertise them. But no government regulations forcing them.
>>29639394
Locks sure don't stop criminals. They just cut them off with bolt cutters, or break a window.
>>29639350
What would stop him from driving a car into a crowd of people while hosing them down with an improvised flamethrower made from a super soaker?
>>29639350
Nothing, of course. Any sane person of atleast normal intellect will be able to plan and conduct a mass shooting if he wants to. The only way to efficiently stop it from happening is to have armed citizens.
>>29639350
>If you are planning a suicide or mass shooting,what the fuck would stop you then?
You seem to be under the assumption that anything could stop those things.
When I buy a gun from anyone, is the guy going to call my doctor or check the mental health registry?
SHALL NOT INFRINGE!
Yes, but
>>29638530
>If you're too dangerous to own a gun, you shouldn't be on the streets.
it is hard to argue about.
>>29638513
No.
However, I think it speaks to your character if you don't seek private training. If you don't, and you cause harm, I think the legal consequences for your actions should be greater.
>>29639424
Except there aren't any sane people conducting mass shootings.
I could support a licence if it meant greater freedom for those who obtain a licence.
For example, having some sort of driver's test equivalent where you show up at your own expense, bring your ammo and gun, shoot some targets, prove you know how to not kill yourself, etc. would be totally fine if it meant I could buy SBRs and suppressors without the NFA ever being involved.
Let me take an "enhanced" firearm safety course and give me a gold star on my licence to purchase machine guns too.
>>29639173
>You can drive with no license on your own land.
That's a great point and you prove how complicated it becomes trying to keep a population of 380 million people civil. That's really what we're talking about. What steps can be taken to keep guns out of the hands of the violent and mentally defective. WiIl you agree on this much anon? Will you then say we should not take steps to keep guns out of the hands of the people I just mentioned?
Answer the question at the bottom of my post and we can continue this debate
>>29639197
>There is no gun control in modern history that has demonstrably reduced violent crime rates.
But that's not true. You're lumping all the retarded bullshit liberal leftists heap into legislation . If you read the whole post you had to see this.
>"FIRST, my personal belief is any non felon who hasn't exhibited and been diagnosed with serious mental illness who has taken etiquette safety training should be able to own any rifle or hand gun on the market."
I'm for any law abiding citizen owning any rifle or handgun on the market. I'm also in support of organized militia's having the same weapons and ordinance any platoon sized unit in the Army or Marine Corps has.
I just don't hide from the FACT that not everyone can live in a polite civilized society. Therefore we have to have laws.
Please answer one simple question with a yes or a no anon.
Do you believe every American should have free access to rifles and handguns.
Answer the question and we can go from there.
>>29639508
Pretty sure a lot of the school shooters would be classified as sane. Just pushed too far and without help.
>>29639520
The NFA shouldn't exist in the first place.
It's not a compromise to trade one right for another.
It's like if I stole your car, and offered to return it in exchange for your credit card. Does that sound like a compromise to you?
>>29639555
I agree. I have no issue whatsoever with being able to buy a brand new HMG off the rack at Wal-Mart.
I do understand however that the bullshit we have in place will not be fixed until every neo-liberal is genocided and burned alive so you have to deal with the bullshit.
>>29639315
>What does bug me is our justice system has so many felonies that have nothing to do with violence, those people deserve guns when they've done their time.
That's not all. Note that you can't purchase a gun if you're a fugitive from justice. You can be classified a 'fugitive from justice' if you missed a court date for something minor, like a traffic citation.
>>29639508
>Except there aren't any sane people conducting mass shootings.
Canaries in the coal mine. Our schools and workplaces are toxic and deserving of mass shootings - it's just that saner people have more ability to tolerate it without breaking.
source: "Going Postal" by Mark Ames
>>29639533
I won't. For two reasons. First, If someone is too dangerous to trust with a gun, either because they're a violent felon or because they're mentally ill/disabled, they shouldn't be walking the streets. Even if your regulation manages to be 100% effective at preventing dangerous felons and the insane from getting guns, it won't stop them from getting knives, cars, or gasoline.
Second, as I explained before, it's never enough with gun grabbers. Say we acquiesce to whatever minor legislation you suggest. In 10 years, it'll be criticized for being full of "loopholes" and you'll be right back to crying about common sense gun reform.
>>29638703
Unless you worship the Cuck queen.
The right to defense is a given right, no matter who you worship.
>>29639365
Historically many schools had jr. Rotc , marksmenship/ hunting / 4h clubs.
But this has ended
>>29639586
I can't debate with a man who refuses to state for the record when they draw a line. This is cowadice.
Your refusal to draw a line make me think you are of the mind that Shall not be infringed = no matter what a mans done he should not be punished or segregated from polite society.
You are no different than the grabbers who want every last one of our guns confiscated. It sounds good but in reality would send us back to the caves we left millennia ago.
>>29639678
I draw the line at any restriction at all. No regulation whatsoever.
If someone commits some crime and serves their time, they should get their rights back. This whole thing where your criminal record haunts you for decades after you get out is a big reason we have so much recidivism. Faggots like you won't let the past stay in the past.
>>29638623
Waiting periods only prevent suicides.
>>29639705
this
If the person is truly regretful for their past actions, and are actively seeking treatment to get better, I see no reason to fuck them over and keep them from having jobs and regular lives
>>29639186
>If you don't support free and completely unrestricted right of bearing arms you might as well support the mass genocide of every person on earth
"You are above even The Baiter. I hereby award you the title of Big Baiter. You are a true retard."
>>29639203
He's saying it should be changed and fixed so it does work, you ignorant mongoloid.
>>29638513
I think mental health checks, and background checks sound like a good idea, but it's a slippery slope. If the government can get these passed with no objections, then they can keeping inching the laws forward until there are no guns left.
>>29639736
Tbh that's a damn good reason to have waiting periods then
no niggers would be good enough
>>29639736
>>29639945
We should have waiting periods on perscription drugs, razors, elevators, etc. too then. Fuck off.
It's not my responsibility to stop or delay your suicide.
>>29638653
Thank you, my sensible sir.
>>29639945
Eh, it's only people 55 years and older.
>>29639705
>>29639753
Again, the opposite side of Fienstien and Bloomberg. Extremistsd never find consensus and ultimately rule by force. Extremists can get nothing done in our constitutional republic and the grabbers abject failure to enact any gun control legislation after the tragedy at Sandy Hook proves that.The extremes should always be ignored, shunned and made fun of.
You're both extremists, whether you're able to see it or not..
>>29638513
no, not at all
>>29638626
You make it sound like testing for mental instability is easy and black and white.
>First of all that world require weeks per person being tested
>even then there's Still NO finite yes/no on mental stability
>most IMPORTANTLY gobment would make it as STRICT AS POSSIBLE.
OH. your dog died and you were depressed so you got some anti-depressents for a few months? No guns for you
You were in a war zone? You could develop PTSD
No guns for you
Work load is heavy and difficult so You show signs of being stressed? No gun for you
>>29638513
Yes.
Though i would prefer it was something like a driver's license that you get by default. and they revoke it or suspend it when something that would flag a no on background check.
So you could just show it and walk out with your gun.
>no restrictions of any kind to own a firearm
>however, if gun is used in crime the penalties are SEVERE AS FUCK
>>29638513
I support background checks as long as they are free, near instantaneous, and no record of it kept. It is the only thing that prevents a criminal with a record from strolling into a gun store and walking out with what he wants.
Makes it a lot harder for him to get one if he doesn't know someone willing to sell.
>>29639988
>extremist
>believes in the constitution as-written
>extremist
fuck off.
you're the one who believes that if a person commits a crime, AFTER they have "done the time", they should still have their fundamental rights PERMANENTLY stripped from them.
so fuck you. YOU are the extremist.
>>29639814
Don't lie if you could own a nuke you would
If I had it my way we would've glassed all the gooks Jews and niggers a long time ago
For as much shit as /k/ gives /pol/ when it leaks, I didn't know the scale of the political ineptitude on this page. Really too bad. Almost every one of the posts here contains what they do because they wouldn't say it in person, or if they did, they'd be embarrassed about how wrong they were.
>>29638513
If you want to reduce crime then institute background checks prior to having kids not for buying a gun.
>>29640030
Dont commit felonies
Are you talking about a double jeopardy thing?
>>29640072
The gun problem will be solved weather any of you agree with it or not. If you disagree enough to act on it, you'll be placed far away from people who just want to live life; right where you belong.
>>29638674
That's to prevent fraud.
>>29640093
the whole idea of legal punishment is a punishment that fits the crime.
Why should someone who has been freed from jail and is now a free man still not have their rights? Then why not keep ALL criminals in jail, forever?
>>29639001
600 deaths in a population of 323 million. yuuuge problem!
>>29640018
Punishment shouldn't be any different than committing the same crime with any other weapon. A baseball bat, knife, etc. can be used to kill you just as dead as a gun.
>>29640108
basically, if you believe that someone who has committed a crime should permanently lose their 2nd Amendment rights, then why not other rights?
>>29640108
Because it costs 30 grand a year to keep a person in jail and nothing to deny NICS.
Plus, when the convict inevitably reoffends, they probably have a piece on them, and that puts them away for longer.
I think there should be voluntary certifications through the cmp like the nra has except cheaper and with somekind of perk.
They could be a requirement for the sheriff's to host them with open enrollment. The perk would be better relation with local law enforcement.
Instead of investing in more background checks, I think they could offer a voucher to subsidize gun safes.
Like whatever. The only thing that should be mandatory is a safety test for carry, questions about safe backdrops etc but we all know tests and facts are racist.
>>29638677
Yes. If you've paid your debt to society you're free to go. It just means the cops will shoot his ass dead if he resists arrest next time.
>>29638708
>Then I guess nuclear weapons should be up for grabs then?
Actually yes. We had privately owned top of the line warships in the 18th century. The sole use of nuclear weapons for a private citizen of the US is deterrent against invasion or a tyrannical government... which are both the intent of the Second Amendment in the first place. We should bring privateers back too, I'd love to have my own frigate, or a schooner with a Ma Deuce on the prow.
>>29640148
the nuclear weapon thing is retarded.
you don't have a constitutional right to keep and bear radioactive material. So howabout we include nukes in the 2nd A, but you're still not gonna have anybody having them because the 2nd A doesn't protect owning radioactive uranium and shit.
and yes, you should be able to have a boat and mount a large gun on it.
>>29638653
>Just a background check is sufficient in my opinion.
>>29639973
>Thank you, my sensible sir.
But what are we checking for gentlemen?
Checkmate.
>>29638513
No you should have been taught growing up how to safely handle firearms and now that you are an adult you are your own master and you get to say what you are capable of. Training programs should be an opinions for those who want it but it shouldn't be mandatory
>>29638775
You can be a registered CRNA by the time you leave high school or take a simple course, it's not actually that much of a challenge. You effectively read a machine and Jack off old guys.
>>29640183
>tfw no firearm safety courses in high school
>>29640162
>you don't have a constitutional right to keep and bear radioactive material.
You would have if they had known it existed. Fissile material is the physical embodiment of "don't tread on me."
>>29640169
Criminal history?
>Swede
I think the american constitution would allow you to own artillery. I'm not sure that's such a good idea..
I don't think mentally ill people (tough call on who counts) should own guns. But I also think they should be making that call during their sane moments. There should be the possibility to write yourself out of gun ownership.
And writing yourself back in. Just put up a voluntary barrier.
>>29640162
here's what the laws would be if they were constitutional and logical:
1) all vehicles are permitted. So yes, privately owned tanks, ships, fighter jets, etc. This is already the case.
2) all ARMS are legal to own AND carry. ARMS includes weapons that you are able to keep and "bear". So no, you're not allowed a crew-served artillery cannon (debatable though), or have the gun on your tank operational, because that's not an ARM that you can BEAR, it's a weapon mounted on a vehicle. A machine gun, however, would be fine. So yes, privately owned humvees with .50 cals. would be fine.
3) nukes or large bombs, explosives, missiles, etc. are not protected because A) they are pretty much never ARMS that you can KEEP or BEAR. You can't "bear" a missile, it's a heavy weapon with a launcher. A nuke or even a large bomb is also not an ARM that you can BEAR, but further, the radioactive material and/or the specific explosive material would not be protected.
the gaps and grey areas would be with explosives. Is a grenade launcher allowed? Rocket launchers? Cannons? Hard to say. That's the big grey area.
but everything else is solved. ALL man-portable firearms are allowed. The key is KEEP and BEAR. They define the term "ARMS"
>>29640240
maybe. but we can't know because it didn't happen. We can only go based on how the constitution IS, not how it may have been
>>29640224
Maybe one day they will be back. I know I grew up in California and was blessed with a childhood away from the liberalism and I was actually taught good values and educated about firearms in an fun and educational manner that encouraged it to become a life long hobbie.
>>29640277
>I think the american constitution would allow you to own artillery.
Yes.
> I'm not sure that's such a good idea..
Alaska is empty enough that you could legit use it as a home defense weapon in most of the state.
>>29638706
>>29638729
>>29638738
That's what it's saying right..
>>29638992
He already said poor people
>>29638764
A counterpoint, half of what was being done at Lexington and Concord was the seizure of privately owned cannons. All weapons which the conventional military posses should be allowable for citizens to own.
>>29640278
>or have the gun on your tank operational
Bullshit, that should totally be allowed.
>>29640030
I miss being as young as you. Everything is black and white. As you get older and wiser you find things are much more grey. There are no simple answers but here is mine.
Someone willing to commit acts of violence doesn't deserve to walk among the civilized. Period. That's some extreme shit.
Anons like you always say the things you just said but you NEVER offer solutions to protecting the rest of us from violent people.
What do you suggest anon, selling guns lie we sell food and clothes? DO you really believe that?
>>29640290
>>29640277
Fun fact it is completely legal for Americans to owb artillery pieces and operational tanks,anti-aircraft guns, rocketlaunchers ect.
Tons of people do own and shoot these things but it's not common because of the expense and paperwork
>>29640341
Found the psyops/gungrabber/retard.
>Someone willing to commit acts of violence doesn't deserve to walk among the civilized. Period. That's some extreme shit.
...he writes on a board chock full of current and former infantry.
>Anons like you always say the things you just said but you NEVER offer solutions to protecting the rest of us from violent people.
Nut up and learn how to protect yourself with firearms.
>>29640341
>Someone willing to commit acts of violence doesn't deserve to walk among the civilized.
Then don't let them, and you won't have to worry about how freely you sell guns.
>>29638764
>bear
>to carry or possess arms
Yes it has a double meaning. But in combination with "shall not be infringed". The basic idea is that you don't have gun-restricting laws.
Don't try and defend the constitution as a well thought out law. This was a time well before you had weaponry capable of such immense devastation as we do now. And especially weapons which don't hold you well accountable. Drones, ICBM's, artillery to some extent, IED's/mines.
>>29640343
>Tons of people do own and shoot these things but it's not common because of the expense and paperwork
Pretty nuts. But I suppose your society hasn't collapsed because of it yet.
>>29640278
The point of the amendment and the spirit of the document is that the people have greater power then the state and any possible outside enemies.
>>29640341
>Someone willing to commit acts of violence doesn't deserve to walk among the civilized. Period. That's some extreme shit.
So we now do political oppression? Revolutionary anarchists should be permanently detained for their political views?
>>29640379
George Washington would have loved ICBMs.
>What a remarkable invention! Can it reach London?
>>29640336
It is. People shoot tank guns in Arizona
>>29638513
I support all background checks, mental health checks, and trainings needed. Like some other anons have mentioned, if you have a violent record, you should not be able to legally obtain a firearm. Mental health issues too. Trainings can and will help reduce AD/ND.
>>29638513
As a masshole severely limited;
I do support very few paper trails if only to stop shit getting worse for the rest of us.
>It's an owners obligation to keep records of their shit.
>If they sell something, have some kind of receipt. Something signed and dated.
>Guns found at crimes that are traced back to owners who sold them to criminals get a 'Fool me once' rule where if your privately sold firearms show up at another crime scene you are also charged, within certain statutes and circumstances.
>National safety course provided by local LE and national carry license with a 'Shall issue' clause.
Some people scream for 2A ONLY PERMIT NEEDED but while I am a heavy supporter, I think it would be best to at least ensure anyone who wants to own firearms is required to have a safety course and pass a check on the issuing of their license.
>>29639315
I like the cut f your jib and would like to subscribe to your newsletter
>>29638513
>criminals will follow the law with these new laws!
commies pls go
>>29640322
which is why I said it's a grey area. Personally I agree, and would lean towards allowing cannons and such. But I could live with not including them and classifying them outside of "arms which can be kept and born".
>>29640336
sure, the problem is that it's not an arm that can be kept and born, it's a large destructive device.
Like I said, personally I would say cannons and such can be allowed. But I can see the argument against it, and hence why I said it was a grey area.
>>29640341
>selling guns like we sell food and clothes
why not? How about we sell guns like we sell knives, cars, bats, etc.
>>29640343
I'm willing to concede that I'm not familiar with those laws, and if that's the case, then great.
>>29640403
I know, I'm responding to that guy's theoretical ideals.
>>29640379
They had mines and bombs back then. They had artillery back then. Drone's and ICBM's aren't magic, you're just as accountable with those. I'd say MORE accountable. If you find a body with a 9mm bullet wound, you just know someone with a 9mm shot them. If an ICBM gets used, it's easily tracked. They aren't stealthy at all. You know exactly where it came from.
>>29640407
How are you supposed to know if the person you are selling to is a "criminal"?
>>29640407
>I think it would be best to at least ensure anyone who wants to own firearms is required to have a safety course and pass a check on the issuing of their license.
To achieve what? There's only 600 accidental firearms deaths each year. For a comparison, 3500 people accidentally drown every year. If accidental firearms deaths are a public health problem, drowning must be a public health catastrophe.
If you are pro-gun, you must fight the gun grabbers tooth and nail. You of all people, being from the People's Republic of Massachusetts, should know they'll never stop. "Compromise" with them now, and in 10 years they'll want more "compromise". The only answer is total resistance.
>>29640379
I think it WAS pretty well thought-out. The argument that they couldn't conceive of more powerful weapons is silly.
At that time, guns like the Puckle Gun, or the Girandoni Air Rifle, already existed. They were rapid fire weapons, not just single-shot muskets. And explosives, mines, bombs, etc. certainly existed, as well as cannons.
Drones are not a fucking weapon. It's a small RC aircraft. Irrelevant.
>>29640384
yes, I know.
>>29640403
good to know. In such a case, then there's no problem. If they're already allowed, case closed on that.
Again, the nuke argument is stupid. It's the essence of a strawman, and an argument ad absurdum.
>>29640122
dubs
>basically, if you believe that someone who has committed a crime should permanently lose their 2nd Amendment rights, then why not other rights?
They do lode other rights. The right to vote. In many states the right to hold a business licenses and others. In my opinion far to many things have been elevated to felonious status, largely because of feels and that's a huge problem but felonies demand serious consequences. The should never be the same.
>>29640379
It's really not a big deal. You can fly to Vietnam or Cambodia right now and shoot rpgs at a car on a shooting range for like $15.
Just because someones hobby involves spending hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to keep his panzer two running does not mean it has any effect on society. The idea that if everything was legal that there would be chaos is a myth. Tens of millions of people in the US strap on guns and wear them on a daily basis. The only places where we have a significant violent crime rate involving shootings is in liberal run cities where it's fucking illegal to even think about a gun but there are still like 50 niggers shooting each other every night in the street.
Europe is going to come around or get swallowed up by Islam. They are raping your women in the street and your libshits governments are encouraging it
>>29640481
And you don't think that has anything to do with recidivism?
Someone commits one crime when they're 19, and it ruins their entire life, and you still expect them to not turn to crime again?
>>29638513
>background checks
I don't support but I don't mind as long as they don't take a fucking long ass time
>mandatory safety training
anything beyond the seller having to telling new buyers how to operate it is a no
>mental health check
no, however these guys should be being treated in a mental hospital in the first place.
>>29640221
>You can be a registered CRNA by the time you leave high school or take a simple course, it's not actually that much of a challenge. You effectively read a machine and Jack off old guys.
As an old guy I need to know where to find one of these wonderful CRNA's please.
>>29640526
btw for reference I am a New Yorker so that might heavily affect my opinions
