#a gun for every adult

Do you think society would see any benefit in preparing our youth for proper gun handling procedures? All public high schools teaching the basics of gun ownership and then all adults receive a gun upon graduation if they passed the necessary courses.

I think it would better prepare citizens to combat their enemies so I'm all for it.

As long as they excluded people with mental or physical disabilities that would hinder the safe operation of a firearm as well as felons I would have little problem with this. Although providing every adult a pistol at government expense may raise taxes a little.

But the inequality, students in the inner city schools will graduate with a pistol, people in poor rural school districts while get an old musket after graduating, and people in the rich, shoreline towns will graduate having m4s.

Never seen a gun in my life, don't know anyone who owns one and I'm happy if things stay that way.

What about people who don't want to ever use a gun?

I don't believe giving anyone any sort of firearm training would benefit our current society. If anything I think the movement should be away from any use of firearms as they are totally not needed in everyday life.

@deeliman: I'm pretty sure if such a thing was passed they would give pacifists the option to opt out like they currently get the option to be exempt from the draft.

@o0squishy0o: Nothing wrong with teaching people the proper use of one since it could help reduce negligent discharges. Trying to push towards a society without guns in the US would probably cause issues with people who support the Second Amendment.

i think we need to teach more children that the world is an utterly terrifying place with criminals and terrorists behind every tree ready to destroy their way of life.

then as a response they'll all just go out and buy guns to defend themselves.

@korvus: wow where do u live? I am the only person I know without a gun. Well and some girls too but some do shoot, hunt, have CCW.

@AutoPilotOn: Netherlands, but I'm originally from Portugal.

@korvus: oh not US shoulda figured lol

@AutoPilotOn: Sorry, should have specified. While I think the TC had the US in mind he didn't specify =)

We'd probably get a lot more kids accidentally shooting themselves.

Monthly mental wellness evaluations should be mandatory for something like this because suicide rates by gunshot are higher in homes with gun owners.

I have no problem with people owning guns and using them for sports shooting or hunting. I don't like the idea of people carrying just for protection, but I know that I can't stop states from making laws for concealed carry.

It's the open carry laws that bother me the most. To me, that's just asking for something bad to happen.

Suicide rates would go up.

More guns means more gun deaths. Simple math. I have no problem with a responsible adult owning a gun, but I dont want them to be widespread. Too many idiots out there.

That may be true, but using that same logic, more knives and cars would do the same thing regarding deaths caused by these things and there are "idiots" who use these things daily. You could also say more guns means more security and peace of mind.

These are my responses. Not to mention, if anyone develops any ill intentions with a gun, its gonna be that much harder to take them down than taking down some indiscipline whelp that's using a gun...

Why do you put a # at the beginning of all your topics?

I would think that diplomacy would be a better way to deal with your "enemies" than simply shooting them.

@4myAmuzumament: People having knives and cars doesn't tend to lead to cases of people luring would-be thieves into their homes and then murdering them.

Is that a rampant and recurring problem somewhere? If people owned more guns, wouldn't you think there would be less would-be thieves since they know there's a high chance their victim can end their life? I feel if there was a pro-gun agenda in the midst, crimes caused by guns would decline.

Here's an example.

Also, newsflash: there is a pro-gun agenda in the midst. It's part of the reason that there's little to no legislation being passed regulating firearms. Like how the NRA goes into a tizzy when someone suggests that we actually put some diligence into fucking background checks.

This is a misleading statistic. The fact that suicide rates by firearms is higher when guns are present does not mean suicide rates are higher overall because of the prescence of a firearm. If someone wants to kill themselves, they'll do it whether they have access to a gun or not.

Should there even be firearm regulations passed? It's common knowledge that regulations hurt lawful gun owners more than criminals who could care less about illegally owning guns.

As far as I can tell, the reasons for doing that with a firearm are it is supposed to be quick, painless, and comparably important is that suicide is usually a decision made without much thought; and with haste. Those reasons must make a gun a tool of choice considering that is how most males commit that act. According the information I have found in my research of this unpleasant subject, women mostly choose poisoning themselves rather than anything else. Therefore, what you said is not entirely true.

Guns are bad mkay

Someone is far more likely to kill themselves if its instant and easier.

thats a stupid argument. People like things that are easy, dont like things that are difficult. When taking a life becomes as easy as wiggling a finger, yes more people are going to be willing to do it.

Hell people pay thousands of dollars for liposuction, when they could just stop eating cheeseburgers and achieve the same results. Lets say i invented a product that allowed you to get the same results of a 90 minute gym routine by just wiggling your index finger. Do you think alot of people not willing to goto the gym for 90 minutes a day would be interested in that product? I guarantee they would be. When something is easier, more people are willing to do it.

Legally, you can't do that. That would be the government discriminating against a person because of a disability.

No they shouldn't give people guns. It is not the government's job to provide you with the means with which to exercise your rights. They are simply not allowed to prohibit the free exercise there of.

Oh really? Can you prove this? Because they try all the time and get sued for it. You can't discriminate based on a disability. In fact, government is required to make allowances for disabilities.

By that logic, if there were less access to guns, wouldn't there also be a lot less would-be thieves since they would feel less safe entering a home with a pocket knife instead of a gun?

Word.

Joining the military is not a right. Neither is operating a motor vehicle.

There are no laws on the books that prohibit blind people from purchasing a firearm. Only laws that apply are to the permit process that require the permit holder show competence. So if a blind person can shoot and hit a target, they can own a gun.

I don't have any enemies I wish to combat... not with guns at least. I think it's a stupid idea.

You have no idea what ppl capable of when they're "Carried Away" !

And I'm trying to explain to you, based on personal & professional experience, it's not. They cannot put restrictions specific to disabilities. They can make requirements that would inhibit someone with disabilities performing an act, but they cannot specifically prohibit someone from doing something because of their status as disabled.

The military cannot say that because you are paralyzed, you can not enlist. They can say that the requirement to enlist is that you must be able to have free movement of the legs and then establish a set of parameters for which a person must fall within in order to qualify. Likewise, the government can't say that retarded people can't get licenses. They must establish a baseline for safe operation of a motor vehicle. Whether the person is able to meet that baseline is dependent on their abilities, not their disability status.

A government program can't say that because you are physically or mentally disabled, you cannot take advantage of this program that you meet all the other per-requisites for. It's the same as saying that they can't do it because they're black or they're a woman. All the government can do is establish the baseline requirements for safe behavior within that program. Furthermore, you actually have to give them the opportunity to fail to meet that baseline.

You're excluding them on the basis of being mentally or physically disabled, not on being unable to safely operate the firearm. Lawsuit.

And this premise is hilarious considering that for the last 50 years the school system has done everything it can to push any kind of firearms education out of their system. They simply preach fear and to run and get a parent.

I don't have any issue with having well advertised programs to teach people about proper firearm safety and operation, but I would rather people be taught young by their family, neighbors, etc. That's the way it was done for hundreds of years and I'd rather keep those traditions then change them in favor of some new initative that is controlled and funded by a government institution.

However, I can see the use for something like this in NYC, Chicago, Boston because nearly all have no access to the learning tools.

No.

Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. I'm all for shooting being a part of phys. ed. but the only thing we need to do is ensure that if someone wants to buy a gun that they're able to do so free from government nonsense.

No one should be forced to own a gun, nor should they be banned from owning one. Obviously those with felonies and mental disorders shouldn't be allowed to own one.

@4myAmuzumament: Very detailed answer. I wonder how us Europeans do it =)