Gun control or no gun control....what do you think of this idea?

Question

There are lots of different views on gun control vs. the right to bear arms. I can see most all side of this issue, and I think that I may have thought of a solution that could satisfy most people!
What if, before being issued a gun permit, people were required to take and pass a course involving learning how to shoot like a marksman, as well as gun safety and responsible firearm ownership! Then following the course....or maybe prior to it, they would be required to have an in-depth psychological evaluation! Do you agree that this would help to solve many of the saftey issues that can go with gun ownership? It is my feeling that we have to consider the reason the right to bear arms was put into the bill of rights in the first place....which is to protect us from the possibility of a tyrannical government. The first thing a government has always done, whenever Martial Law , was declared, was to confuscate the firearms of the citizenry!

Many of you have made some really good points so far, and I thank you! THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT FROM ALL DIFFERENT ANGLES, BY ALL OF US!I am against banning guns, of course, and I am against the government being too involved. I am just trying to figure this all out, just like everyone else is. It is a complicated issue, and it is not all just black and white. There is also a great deal of grey!

Answer 1

Very good question. We don't allow people to drive a motor vehicle without demonstrating that they have mastered its operation. I believe in the right to bear arms, but also see the need to insure the publics safety.

Answer 2

Guns are a big motivation for criminals to play it safe, and may prevent more crime than they cause. Limiting ownership is a tough thing to do, too. Think about it- many drugs are strictly illegal, but they find their way into the wrong hands. Guns would be smuggled in more than they already are under tihgter controls. Shooting like a marksman wouldn't help for self defense much, since most self defense involving guns does not invovle firing the weapon, but just using it to intimidate, and most encounters of that kind happen in close quarters. This would just be a hassle to many gun owners. Guns do greatly increase the lethality of someone who is already bent on killing. The Virginia Tech shooting has become one of the most tragic violent crimes in American history, and guns did allow the killer to do what he did. Still, if someone is demented enough to murder, the person will find a way to do it, with or without guns. The psycological testing might no work either, because many people appear to be completely sane when they are deeply trouble, and can lie their way out of suspicion. Gun control is a tricky issue, but paradoxiaclly, having the freedom to own guns may keep the country less at risk because of the huge intimidation factor.

Answer 3

You said mentioned at the end you interpret the reason for the 2nd Amendment was to protect against a tyrannical govt (agreed). Then why would you have that same govt assess you psychologically "sound" enough for a gun purchase?

It is not just "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

As to the safety course: How do you think the State run driving tests and training prepare you or assess your ability to drive? I think very poorly. The NRA offers FREE gun safety training today. See you can put stringent requirements on privelage (driving) but it is much harder (in a legal sense) with a Constitutional right.

BTW those who say a well regulated militia means it is for some type of State militia. The Supreme court has opinioned on many occasions that the "right of the people" in the 2nd Amendment is the same as "the right of the people" in the first Amendment for free speech, peacefully assemble etc.
In other words the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the right of the indvidual not of the state.

Answer 4

In an ideal situation, I think you would have struck a reasonable balance.

There ARE different levels of testing/licensing for owning a gun versus a concealed carry permit. (Just because you can own a gun doesn't mean you can carry it around!) Most states that have concealed carry permits DO require a full day of training - on responsibility, safety, and a practical target shoot.

Problems I see are - who decides what "passing" for the psych test are? The tests are expensive, who pays? How "in-depth" would the tests be? How can you guarantee my privacy?

So, currently, if someone wanted a rifle to go hunting with, they don't need to get a concealed carry permit - they just do a background check.


I do understand what you are saying also - and I *tend* to think that everyone should take a basic safety course (They are often free at local gun shops)

Answer 5

This is a general comment to anyone interested in this topic:

I'm one of those "crazy" people folks like to be afraid of, and guess what, I'm a married, middle aged woman with a college degree living on disability (and hubby's retirement income and savings) and I sew doll clothes for little girls. I also go deer hunting with my husband every fall and shoot woodchucks in the yard when they raid my vegetable garden. I'm such a MENACE to society!! Every time someone goes off and does something horribly violent, somehow I have to be answerable for it as a scapegoat, one of those mentally ill people you all are afraid of. MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE ARE NO MORE VIOLENT ON AVERAGE THAN PEOPLE WITHOUT MENTAL ILLNESS. It is discrimination and fear that makes people label us as crazies. I just cry a lot and think about dying a lot when I am really really depressed, and then we put the guns someplace else! I would NEVER shoot anyone, in fact, the shooters are always male. Maybe we shouldn't let young men have guns anymore, that is the answer. . .

So far as classes go, in our state we have to take a gun safety course to get a hunting license, and take a course for a concealed carry permit. I didn't take the safety course because I was old enough to be grandfathered in, but I'm one heck of a shot anyhow.

I'm sure you know a lot of mentally ill people, they just don't speak up, they hide when these horrible things happen. One thing to add, in rural areas, guns are a vital tool, you need them! in city areas, people keep guns for defense. Hunting rifles are almost never the issue (some people are snipers, that's the exception).

Answer 6

Why do cons and gun lovers have this aversion to the word,"control?"

We accept "control" in so many other areas of life.

We accept "traffic control."
We accept "quality control" regarding food and drugs.
We accept things like OSHA regulations because they protect the worker from unscupulous or otherwise ignorant employers.

But oh, God...don't put controls on my acquiring a GUN!!!

I will accept the fact that "no screen is fine enough" to weed out all the crazy people...but that doesn't mean we don't need screening.

You gotta just LOVE some of these con gun lovers, man...

They're perfectly cool with the "Patriot Act." Sure...give the government clear access to the lending records of our public libraries (as if there's sensitive material in there). Let the government snoop wherever they like...but ohhhh, no databases regarding gun ownership!

Answer 7

""What if, before being issued a gun permit, people were required to take and pass a course involving learning how to shoot like a marksman, as well as gun safety and responsible firearm ownership! ""

You mean like the hunters safety course that I took 25 years ago.
Gun permit owners have generally taken Hunter's Safety and also the Conceal and Carry course as well. So I understand your point I am just saying they already do.

Answer 8

There is no asterisk in the Second Amendment. I have an inalienable right to purchase, keep, and bear firearms. It doesn't say a word about permits, or waiting periods, or so-called "assault" weapons. It says simply, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


EDIT: What's gray? Either the Second Amendment means what it says, or it does not. I can imagine the outcry from the weepy left if someone were to claim that the First Amendment doesn't realllllly protect free speech because (fill in excuse here). They'd be going apesh*t! Why do they not become equally enraged when people wish to fiddle with the Second?

Answer 9

I think gun control needs to be issued. Guns (and people) kill.

Think about the Virginia Tec situation. Someone sold a gun to some crazy South Korean and we went off on a shooting rampage. If we had control of who sells guns and bullets, there wouldn't be as many (or none) dead.

It's a bigger situation than it seems. I mean, you have the Vice President who doesn't even know how to use one.



I believe for you to own a gun, you need to have it registered and inspected every year. I think you need to take a class on how to use it and take care of it. And I think you need yourself evaluated, so if you are crazy, they won't let you have one in your possession.

Yes, there will be some leaks and stuff. But there will always be leaks. There are leaks right now with both guns and knives. But if we can do something to somewhat control the situation, why not do it??

Answer 10

Gun Control...(or MORE gun control)...won't solve a thing...if we made it illegal to be an average citizen and own a gun then the only ppl who would have gun's would be the criminals...(they would manage to get ahold of them ) I think we need more firearm education....teach ppl how to properly handle that gun....cuz frankly...if someone came into my home or school etc... carrying a gun and trying to shoot ppl....don't think for a min I wouldn't drop them where they stand and never blink or lose a min of sleep....

I don't need the government telling me how to protect myself on top of all the other stuff I'm told how to do....I love my country but I do feel that perhaps we are being OVER governed on a lot of issues....

Answer 11

I dont think it would work. from what I understand gun control laws are ment to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, people who shouldent have guns anyway. said criminals would simply get guns the way they have been getting them for years. Illeagly.

By your thoughts about the psychologial evaluation, you are probably worried about college students buying guns, and the recent VT occurance.

My solution as barbaric as it may seem is not more gun control, its simply more guns. If there had been an ROTC, or US armed forces personel on that campus who had ben armed, or even just other armed students the casualties might have been greatly reduced because dude would have gotten shot himself before he got to the 4th person.

If you outlaw guns only Outlaws have guns. give citizens the pwer to protect them selves.