And I could be more clear too. But 1st a question, does your license to buy incorporate universal background checks? Or would I remain free to buy or sell to someone without getting approval. For example if I want to sell to my brother in law whom I know is perfectly legal (and capable of safely handling firearms) would it be a crime if he didn’t have a “license to buy”?
In my mind, the point of the deal is to make it so the license to buy is easy enough that anyone capable of safely handling the firearm, having the el-cheapo safety course, and passing a one-time NICS check, gets the license. Then if you transfer it to him, you snap a photo of his license for your records and the transfer is known by all future parties (like law enforcement) to have transpired legally, and not as a straw purchase.
Passing it to him without the course would be no different than a straw purchase, technically speaking, so yes it would be breaking the law. But it wouldn’t be very likely that anyone would find out about it unless the gun is later recovered in a crime.
Your response first — that much of the problem can be traced to irresponsibility. Well, yeah, but most of that is intentional, either criminal or suicides. Neither of which gun safety/responsibility training is likely to affect.
You might be right, but I’m not so sure. I know of two people who have committed suicide by firearm. I highly suspect if the firearm wasn’t in their possession when they went through their bout of suicidal thoughts, that they’d both still be alive. I also strongly suspect that if the true numbers were taught as part of a training class, including the imperative to responsibly sequester your own firearm if you’re suicidal, to not only them but all their gun owning family members and friends, that they might be alive today.
I do absolutely think a training class could help with that, and that is 2/3rds of the overall problem. That’s an opinion, and it’s not heavily data driven, but the limited amount of research I’ve been able to scare up on the topic seems to back that up. Follow the links back to the second article.
The number of true “accidents” is almost not statistically measurable.
That’s not totally true either. It’s relatively small, but it’s there. Again, numbers in the second article, which links back to some great work by fivethirtyeight.
But back to may main point. What in step 3 actually accomplishes anything towards the goal of reducing criminal use of firearms, or suicides by firearms?
Criminal, not much, other than perhaps building connections between new gun owners and the responsible community that could steer them away from crime. Suicide, I definitely think could be reduced by awareness.
As I said earlier, though, any of the 3 “steps” could provide a benefit in isolation.
And to summarize, I think your series of articles petty much destroys the gun control arguments by demonstrating that none of the “common sense” proposals would have any measurable effect on the misuse of firearms.
Thank you. Share them if you feel the notion.