Currently Online 
| sundin13 said: I would personally ban Class #3, but otherwise I think that seems to be a pretty solid plan in regards to firearm legality, however I think it misses a lot of other avenues where we should be attempting to combat this crisis. Namely, universal background checks and restrictions on who can own guns. So, I would add the following: -Every time a firearm changes possession, a background check must be conducted. No exceptions. -Raise the age required to purchase a firearm to 21. -Ban individuals with a history of substance abuse or non-felony domestic violence charges from firearm ownership for a period of time (Research would be necessary to determine how long this period should be). Additionally, violent felons should never get their firearm owning rights returned to them. -All firearms must have a unique serial number. I would also support a firearm registry in order to both improve enforcement and to help solve crimes, but this seems like more of a long term goal than a short term one. Additionally, we should seek to more holistically address crime by seeking to improve access to housing, improve schooling, improve wages, etc, but while I believe this is extremely important, I do think it is a bit of a different discussion. |
The logic behind allowing Class 3 is that Switzerland and the Czech Republic have similar allowances with very low criminality. This strongly hints that other social factors, like income equality and relative social integration are pretty crucial in reducing violent crime.
I can support a 21 year old age limit for Class 2 + in so much as the military also must be limited to 21 year olds or older to join. I think allowing supervised Class 1 for people under 21 years old is fine for hunting and game shooting.
I don't think people with substance abuse issues should necessarily be banned because that creates a disincentive to seek help for one's substance abuse problem, but agree about non-felony domestic violence.
I think there is some fundamental issue with prisons if they don't actually do what their advocates say they do -- reform criminals. If people don't exit prisons reformed there is something fundamental that needs to change about them, as that is the entire ostensible basis for their existence. See: Prisons: A Social Crime and Failure
Personally I think the overwhelming majority of crime is based on people trying to meet their material needs through illegal means. If those material needs are met, the bulk of crimes don't happen. This is what I see as the major difference between the U.S and other developed countries.
