monocle_layton said:
"The US President quietly signed a bill which would roll back an Obama-era regulation demanding gun checks for people with mental illnesses in February this year. The law, which was first finalised in December, aimed to add people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database."
I don't think that's the issue represented. The bill would prevent someone who may be homicidal or scizophrenic from obtaining a dangerous weapon. What would we lose by not allowing the mentioned people from owninf a firearm? |
that's true.
at minimum anyone with a history of pyschological issues should be barred from buying a gun. Or at minimum heavier restrictions on automatic rifles or whatever. I'm a huge proponent for gun laws, allowing citizens to own guns, because the majority of people who legally obtain a firearm (registered from a store) are using them safely and for defense. That and you don't want to have all your guns in the hands of the military/police, on the off chance they became tyrannical. But that said, I honestly don't see why someone needs more than a double barrel shotgun or standard rifle to defend themselves
No reason someone needs an UZI or AK 47 to protect their family. Or IF someone really wants to have those maybe they should be required to take some tests, regular handling and accuracy safety tests, etc.
A middle ground seems reasonable. The USA is far too big and different to expect people not to own guns. The concept of telling someone who lives in a poverty stricken urban area with tons of criminals who will get guns illegally, that they can't own a gun too- that's absurd. I can't emphasize enough that the black market for guns is gigantic and that the biggest people hurt be strong gun laws are the law abiding citizens. Because- newsflash- a repeat offender criminal isn't going to follow the law and listen if you ban guns.
But, yeah, if someone wants to own a heavy automatic weapon I don't think it'd be unfair to require them to take some serious training and potentially even verify they're sound of mind. within reason of course
