• @Fecundpossum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    167 months ago

    Lefty gun owner here, and we haven’t done “nothing” but certainly not enough. Gun control advocates have always done things that feel good and do nothing to prevent violence. Magazine capacity bans (one columbine shooter had 14 ten round ban compliant mags) and bans on cosmetic features like heat shrouds and pistol grips do absolutely nothing to keep anyone safer. People will just train to be effective with pesky ban compliant features, or, you know, ignore the law.

    Michigan did something great in response to a school shooting. If a child or otherwise restricted person gains access to your firearms and harms someone, you get slapped with a major felony, a law that’s already been put to use a few times. So it basically makes a safe mandatory by placing the fear of a lengthy sentence on leaving your guns out for kids to grab. It’s something.

    Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing an actual proficiency test, one that weeds out the lowest common denominator. I have sought training and education consistently over years to participate in competitive shooting events, and I’ve literally shot with cops that I wouldn’t let clean their gun in my kitchen. The “test” for a concealed carry license is a joke, id like to see a true test of safety knowledge to even own a firearm.

      • @Fecundpossum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        27 months ago

        That’s one part of Canadian law I could be okay with. Keep carry permits (with additional training and testing). Keep American castle doctrine and self defense laws that provide protection for reasonable use of force. Add a fast track to purchase for victims of domestic abuse or stalking.

        I’m unwavering in my belief that people should have the right to lethally defend from mortal threats and sexual assault. Canadian law affords very little legal protection for such cases. That’s at least one part we get right.