this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
-1 points (47.1% liked)

Conservative

403 readers
10 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I’m with you re: gun control. Tools not toys. Many tools are dangerous enough to require proof of competency and/or purpose. Guns specifically designed to be dangerous, so it’s not unreasonable to expect those tools have greater oversight

A gun should be dangerous. That’s its job.

I’m for reasonable restrictions and I’ll admit that’s a hard term to define without seeing the law proposed. I have no issue with a background check being required for all purchases. With the internet. It’s not that hard now.

I am not against permits for CCW. As long as it’s an easy process that doesn’t make overly difficult. In Nevada I had to take a class , shoot a couple of times and apply for the permit.

I don’t mind bump stocks being banned.

Things like that I find reasonable. Banning assault rifles I do not think is reasonable.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Banning assault rifles I do not think is reasonable.

Yeah I avoid debating weapon class bans because it always amounts to an arbitrary threshold on the scale of potential kill rate, and people sporting desert storm kits at the grocery store do all the talking anyway.

In Nevada I had to take a class, shoot a couple times and apply for a permit.

Training is the regulation I think my fellow progressives should back. Do that correctly and the rest takes care of itself. Anti-gun messaging clearly isn’t working. Instead, embrace gun ownership as a public service wed to demonstrated responsibility and discipline, since safety is the actual goal.

By discipline I mean require training, make it rigorous and cheap, and make regular shooting mandatory for permit renewal. Require inspections for proper maintenance and adherence to storage safety protocols. Offer specialist certifications for more exotic equipment. Basically, make sure would-be gun owners respect the weapon, understand the responsibility they’re taking on, and are equipped to use them safely and proficiently. Done right, civilians seeking military outfitting would face the same requirements as equivalent military personnel, so that they might as well just become a reservist.

Every hooah 2a person I’ve known would be all for this. But they take guns seriously and aren’t contributing to the statistics. The actual unsafe assholes, who make guns a national problem, wouldn’t bother owning guns if there was work involved. It may not be popular (yet) among “liberals” but lots of countries with high rates of gun ownership and low gun violence handle regulation this way.