TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

I just want to know who it is you think should decide whether my DH or I should be able to carry one in public?

---

 Who said anything about not letting you carry in public?

flan

---

Dona did.  She said, and I quote:   "Not everyone should own a gun, and certainly not everyone should carry it in public."  Who gets to decide that? 

---

 Holy out of context Batman.

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

The government can't keep track of who is coming in and out of our country with passports.

The government needs to worry about things like, I don't know, running the country.

Not policing my rights.

---

 Than what steps should be taken to prevent both gun accidents and mass shootings? Roll over and accept it is not something we as a country should do. Arming everyone is hardly a good answer either. I have a gun to shoot paper targets with. I would be COMPLETELY useless in a dangerous situation, and would probably make it worse, honestly.  Not everyone should own a gun, and certainly not everyone should carry it in public. Law abiding people who want them already have them. Saying 'oh, we just need MORE people with guns!' doesn't solve anything. 

---

 Accidents, those happen. I don't see how a license to buy ammo would stop accidents.

Mass shootings, show me a mass shooting where the majority of the victims were armed.

Soft targets. You don't see people shooting up police stations.

 

---

But laws and regulations and safeguards need to be in place for all citizens, not just ones that conceal carry. Fact is, a lot of people do not want guns, or want to take the guns they have with them everywhere. I have a gun, but I doubt I could hit somebody with it. My aim sucks, and I don't know if I could point it at a human being anyways.  

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

LL, did you read what came before that? It was in response to the comment that the solution is more guns, and I was commenting that lots of people do not WANT guns.
And people who don't want them, should not have them! People have talked about making it mandatory for teachers to carry guns, for heavens sake!!
People like me, who are nervous, and panic easy, SHOULD NOT have guns in public! SO, I CHOOSE not to bring it there! If I become a teacher (which I may) I would certainly not want to be required to have a gun.
Jeepers creepers.

---

Who is saying anyone should be REQUIRED to have a gun?   

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

I just want to know who it is you think should decide whether my DH or I should be able to carry one in public?

---

 Although, I do think that in order to carry in public you should pass a very basic proficiency test to show you can aim the piece you intend to carry in public.

I would fail. Immediately.

I can barely hit a target from ten paces, nvermind the actual circle I am aiming for.

---

I don't think I disagree with this.   

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

The government can't keep track of who is coming in and out of our country with passports.

The government needs to worry about things like, I don't know, running the country.

Not policing my rights.

---

 Than what steps should be taken to prevent both gun accidents and mass shootings? Roll over and accept it is not something we as a country should do. Arming everyone is hardly a good answer either. I have a gun to shoot paper targets with. I would be COMPLETELY useless in a dangerous situation, and would probably make it worse, honestly.  Not everyone should own a gun, and certainly not everyone should carry it in public. Law abiding people who want them already have them. Saying 'oh, we just need MORE people with guns!' doesn't solve anything. 

---

How is it out of context?  You just got done saying you personally would make things worse carrying a gun in dangerous situation and then went on to say not everyone should own one or carry one in public.

Now, I want to know who you think should get to decide that?  Because we already have laws againt the mentally ill having guns, and criminals having guns, and those laws don't work worth a damn.  We already have a process for concealed carry permits with background checks.  What other laws do you think we need if the government is already doing a piss poor job of handling these laws?  And beyond the laws we already have, who gets to decide who gets to carry a gun? 

---

It was in response to Lily referencing that the solution is more guns. I was saying that is a bad solution, because the people that want them already have them, and the people that don't want them should not have them.

As for who decides that. . . Everyone decides for themselves if they want a gun, or should have a gun.  I would like there to be a basic, mild test for people who want to carry in public, but nothing too complex, just show you can aim. 

---

Well, that should be easy enough.  We already have to go to the sheriff to get fingerprints and a background check.  They put in a firing lane, have you shoot a target.  Not a big deal. 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

The thing that the liberal media likes to ignore is that we HAVE gun control laws. And the government sucks at enforcing them. It is evident by all the criminals with guns.

---

 Where and how?  People say this, and I tend to agree, but what are the details, and how can we help?  What laws are not being enforced? 

I WANT ANSWERS, DAMMIT.  I am sick of the blame game and non-answers and people sitting on their thumbs telling me what WON'T work. 

You are either part of the problem, or part of the solution, and I know what I want to be.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

And yes, we certainly need to do a better job enforcing the laws we have. I do not know where the cracks are though. . . Does anybody know where things are breaking down? What are the cracks in the system, how is it failing? What can WE, as citizens, actually DO?

---

Well, for one - start asking that question instead of clamoring for more laws to be regulated by our incompentant government.  

We have a law against felons owing a gun - make being caught with one a LIFETIME prison offense.  Period.  To enforce this better - have the police make random checks of parolees.  Make it so drug dealers caught with both drugs and guns get a LIFETIME prison sentence, as well as using a gun during the commission of a crime:  armed robbers, etc. shouldn't get a second chance.  Make CRIMINAL use of a gun be the worst thing you can be convicted of.  You need to crack down on the criminals - not law-abiding citizens.   And anyone convicted of murder by gun gets the firing squad.   

---

 But isn't that also creating new things to be regulated by the government?  

And adding a bunch of lifers in prison will be expensive. 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

And yes, we certainly need to do a better job enforcing the laws we have. I do not know where the cracks are though. . . Does anybody know where things are breaking down? What are the cracks in the system, how is it failing? What can WE, as citizens, actually DO?

---

Well, for one - start asking that question instead of clamoring for more laws to be regulated by our incompentant government.  

We have a law against felons owing a gun - make being caught with one a LIFETIME prison offense.  Period.  To enforce this better - have the police make random checks of parolees.  Make it so drug dealers caught with both drugs and guns get a LIFETIME prison sentence, as well as using a gun during the commission of a crime:  armed robbers, etc. shouldn't get a second chance.  Make CRIMINAL use of a gun be the worst thing you can be convicted of.  You need to crack down on the criminals - not law-abiding citizens.   And anyone convicted of murder by gun gets the firing squad.   

---

 But isn't that also creating new things to be regulated by the government?  

And adding a bunch of lifers in prison will be expensive. 

---

As opposed to new gun control laws for law-abiding citizens?  The goal is to make the punishment so harsh, it will be a deterrant.  If you really want to cut down gun violence - you have to deal harshly with those that use guns in the commission of a crime. 

Can a Felon Own a Gun? 5 Loopholes in Federal Law

In 1968, the U.S. Congress passed the Gun Control Act, and it was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. One of the primary purposes of the legislation was to further regulate interstate transfers of firearms. However, the law also reinforced existing federal law that made it illegal for a felon to own a gun. Although Congress had already passed the National Firearms Act of 1934, which made it illegal for felons convicted of a violent crime to own a gun, the Gun Control Act expanded the prohibition to include all felony crimes. 

Despite the intention of the Gun Control Act to prohibit felons from owning guns, there are some loopholes that allow felons to circumvent federal law: 

1. A 1965 amendment to the federal Firearms Act of 1938 allows felons who want to own a gun the ability to apply for "relief from the disability of not being able to possess a gun." If the felon can convince the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that the circumstances surrounding the crime and subsequent felony conviction were such that the felon should not be considered a public safety risk, then the felon may be granted the right to legal gun ownership. 

2. According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, in order to be prohibited from owning a gun, a convicted felon must have been convicted of a crime that is "punishable by imprisonment for more than one year." Although even the least serious felony convictions carry a sentence of up to three years, sentencing guidelines are open to the interpretation of judges. Thus while it would be rare for a felony conviction sentence to be less than one year, it is not impossible. 

3. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, "Felons whose convictions have been set-aside or expunged, or for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored" are not considered "convicted" and thus they would not be prohibited from owning a gun. 

4. Certain "white collar" crimes that result in a felony conviction don't prohibit those felons from owning guns. For example, felony convictions related to antitrust laws, restraint of trade, or unfair trade practices do not carry the same prohibition on gun ownership even if the conviction results in imprisonment for more than a year. 

5. Some states will reinstate a felon's right to own a gun after they have served their sentence or gone through a period of "cleansing." For example, according to FindLaw, nonviolent felons in Minnesota state law provides that a felon can legally own a gun as soon as they have finished serving their sentence. In Louisiana, state law provides that after a "cleansing period" of 10 years in which a felon has not been convicted of an additional felony, their right to own a gun may be reinstated.

This article does not constitute legal advice. Check the current gun laws of your state and destination before travel.

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

And yes, we certainly need to do a better job enforcing the laws we have. I do not know where the cracks are though. . . Does anybody know where things are breaking down? What are the cracks in the system, how is it failing? What can WE, as citizens, actually DO?

---

Well, for one - start asking that question instead of clamoring for more laws to be regulated by our incompentant government.  

We have a law against felons owing a gun - make being caught with one a LIFETIME prison offense.  Period.  To enforce this better - have the police make random checks of parolees.  Make it so drug dealers caught with both drugs and guns get a LIFETIME prison sentence, as well as using a gun during the commission of a crime:  armed robbers, etc. shouldn't get a second chance.  Make CRIMINAL use of a gun be the worst thing you can be convicted of.  You need to crack down on the criminals - not law-abiding citizens.   And anyone convicted of murder by gun gets the firing squad.   

---

 But isn't that also creating new things to be regulated by the government?  

And adding a bunch of lifers in prison will be expensive. 

---

As opposed to new gun control laws for law-abiding citizens?  The goal is to make the punishment so harsh, it will be a deterrant.  If you really want to cut down gun violence - you have to deal harshly with those that use guns in the commission of a crime. 

---

 I do agree with that. And I am not necessarily opposed to it, I just don't think our current system could handle it. 

Do you and your DH have guns, LL? How would carrying a license to buy ammo restrict that? It would add an extra step initially, bUT I don't  see how it would infringe later. 

---

My DH has a gun license, I do not, yet.  You need a license to carry a concealed weapon, you don't need a license to own a gun.  I should be able to go into a store and buy ammunition even though I don't carry a gun because I want to practice BEFORE I get a license.  And people shouldn't need a license to buying hunting ammunition or anything else. 

And really, your ideas are a Catch-22.  If you can't buy ammo without a license, but you need to pass a proficiency test to get a license to carry in public, how are you supposed to get proficient?

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Can a Felon Own a Gun? 5 Loopholes in Federal Law

In 1968, the U.S. Congress passed the Gun Control Act, and it was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. One of the primary purposes of the legislation was to further regulate interstate transfers of firearms. However, the law also reinforced existing federal law that made it illegal for a felon to own a gun. Although Congress had already passed the National Firearms Act of 1934, which made it illegal for felons convicted of a violent crime to own a gun, the Gun Control Act expanded the prohibition to include all felony crimes. 

Despite the intention of the Gun Control Act to prohibit felons from owning guns, there are some loopholes that allow felons to circumvent federal law: 

1. A 1965 amendment to the federal Firearms Act of 1938 allows felons who want to own a gun the ability to apply for "relief from the disability of not being able to possess a gun." If the felon can convince the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that the circumstances surrounding the crime and subsequent felony conviction were such that the felon should not be considered a public safety risk, then the felon may be granted the right to legal gun ownership. 

2. According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, in order to be prohibited from owning a gun, a convicted felon must have been convicted of a crime that is "punishable by imprisonment for more than one year." Although even the least serious felony convictions carry a sentence of up to three years, sentencing guidelines are open to the interpretation of judges. Thus while it would be rare for a felony conviction sentence to be less than one year, it is not impossible. 

3. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, "Felons whose convictions have been set-aside or expunged, or for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored" are not considered "convicted" and thus they would not be prohibited from owning a gun. 

4. Certain "white collar" crimes that result in a felony conviction don't prohibit those felons from owning guns. For example, felony convictions related to antitrust laws, restraint of trade, or unfair trade practices do not carry the same prohibition on gun ownership even if the conviction results in imprisonment for more than a year. 

5. Some states will reinstate a felon's right to own a gun after they have served their sentence or gone through a period of "cleansing." For example, according to FindLaw, nonviolent felons in Minnesota state law provides that a felon can legally own a gun as soon as they have finished serving their sentence. In Louisiana, state law provides that after a "cleansing period" of 10 years in which a felon has not been convicted of an additional felony, their right to own a gun may be reinstated.

This article does not constitute legal advice. Check the current gun laws of your state and destination before travel.

 

 

---

 And it would be really easy to add that if a felon who has petitioned and recieved the right to have a gun restored, that any additional crime involving a gun would be punishable by life in prison or the death penalty (if anyone died).

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

And yes, we certainly need to do a better job enforcing the laws we have. I do not know where the cracks are though. . . Does anybody know where things are breaking down? What are the cracks in the system, how is it failing? What can WE, as citizens, actually DO?

---

Well, for one - start asking that question instead of clamoring for more laws to be regulated by our incompentant government.  

We have a law against felons owing a gun - make being caught with one a LIFETIME prison offense.  Period.  To enforce this better - have the police make random checks of parolees.  Make it so drug dealers caught with both drugs and guns get a LIFETIME prison sentence, as well as using a gun during the commission of a crime:  armed robbers, etc. shouldn't get a second chance.  Make CRIMINAL use of a gun be the worst thing you can be convicted of.  You need to crack down on the criminals - not law-abiding citizens.   And anyone convicted of murder by gun gets the firing squad.   

---

 But isn't that also creating new things to be regulated by the government?  

And adding a bunch of lifers in prison will be expensive. 

---

As opposed to new gun control laws for law-abiding citizens?  The goal is to make the punishment so harsh, it will be a deterrant.  If you really want to cut down gun violence - you have to deal harshly with those that use guns in the commission of a crime. 

---

 I do agree with that. And I am not necessarily opposed to it, I just don't think our current system could handle it. 

Do you and your DH have guns, LL? How would carrying a license to buy ammo restrict that? It would add an extra step initially, bUT I don't  see how it would infringe later. 

---

My DH has a gun license, I do not, yet.  You need a license to carry a concealed weapon, you don't need a license to own a gun.  I should be able to go into a store and buy ammunition even though I don't carry a gun because I want to practice BEFORE I get a license.  And people shouldn't need a license to buying hunting ammunition or anything else. 

And really, your ideas are a Catch-22.  If you can't buy ammo without a license, but you need to pass a proficiency test to get a license to carry in public, how are you supposed to get proficient?

---

 That is why the ammo license should be different than a gun license.  You can have one without the other. 

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

And yes, we certainly need to do a better job enforcing the laws we have. I do not know where the cracks are though. . . Does anybody know where things are breaking down? What are the cracks in the system, how is it failing? What can WE, as citizens, actually DO?

---

Well, for one - start asking that question instead of clamoring for more laws to be regulated by our incompentant government.  

We have a law against felons owing a gun - make being caught with one a LIFETIME prison offense.  Period.  To enforce this better - have the police make random checks of parolees.  Make it so drug dealers caught with both drugs and guns get a LIFETIME prison sentence, as well as using a gun during the commission of a crime:  armed robbers, etc. shouldn't get a second chance.  Make CRIMINAL use of a gun be the worst thing you can be convicted of.  You need to crack down on the criminals - not law-abiding citizens.   And anyone convicted of murder by gun gets the firing squad.   

---

 But isn't that also creating new things to be regulated by the government?  

And adding a bunch of lifers in prison will be expensive. 

---

As opposed to new gun control laws for law-abiding citizens?  The goal is to make the punishment so harsh, it will be a deterrant.  If you really want to cut down gun violence - you have to deal harshly with those that use guns in the commission of a crime. 

---

 I do agree with that. And I am not necessarily opposed to it, I just don't think our current system could handle it. 

Do you and your DH have guns, LL? How would carrying a license to buy ammo restrict that? It would add an extra step initially, bUT I don't  see how it would infringe later. 

---

My DH has a gun license, I do not, yet.  You need a license to carry a concealed weapon, you don't need a license to own a gun.  I should be able to go into a store and buy ammunition even though I don't carry a gun because I want to practice BEFORE I get a license.  And people shouldn't need a license to buying hunting ammunition or anything else. 

And really, your ideas are a Catch-22.  If you can't buy ammo without a license, but you need to pass a proficiency test to get a license to carry in public, how are you supposed to get proficient?

---

 That is why the ammo license should be different than a gun license.  You can have one without the other. 

---

 And this license,  would you just flash it or maybe need to scan it? 

Will there be records kept? 

Say you do get it passed that a person needs a license,  but the crazy Mas shootings and such continue. 

Then what?

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

My right was restored.

But here is the thing.

My felony conviction is in another state and over 20 years ago.

So I don't know how much that plays into it.

---

This is nothing against you personally, but I really don't think convicted felons every need to have the right to own a gun.  It would just be one of those consequences that felons have to live with. 

---

 I also have the right to vote again. 

And have been summoned to jury duty since.

If there has been no criminal activity, and it was a one time thing. 

Why not?

A lesson learned is a good thing.

If a person can prove they have learned their lesson, why continue to punish them?

---

Let me ask you this - how long were you in jail when you were convicted of a felony? 

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

And yes, we certainly need to do a better job enforcing the laws we have. I do not know where the cracks are though. . . Does anybody know where things are breaking down? What are the cracks in the system, how is it failing? What can WE, as citizens, actually DO?

---

Well, for one - start asking that question instead of clamoring for more laws to be regulated by our incompentant government.  

We have a law against felons owing a gun - make being caught with one a LIFETIME prison offense.  Period.  To enforce this better - have the police make random checks of parolees.  Make it so drug dealers caught with both drugs and guns get a LIFETIME prison sentence, as well as using a gun during the commission of a crime:  armed robbers, etc. shouldn't get a second chance.  Make CRIMINAL use of a gun be the worst thing you can be convicted of.  You need to crack down on the criminals - not law-abiding citizens.   And anyone convicted of murder by gun gets the firing squad.   

---

 But isn't that also creating new things to be regulated by the government?  

And adding a bunch of lifers in prison will be expensive. 

---

As opposed to new gun control laws for law-abiding citizens?  The goal is to make the punishment so harsh, it will be a deterrant.  If you really want to cut down gun violence - you have to deal harshly with those that use guns in the commission of a crime. 

---

 I do agree with that. And I am not necessarily opposed to it, I just don't think our current system could handle it. 

Do you and your DH have guns, LL? How would carrying a license to buy ammo restrict that? It would add an extra step initially, bUT I don't  see how it would infringe later. 

---

My DH has a gun license, I do not, yet.  You need a license to carry a concealed weapon, you don't need a license to own a gun.  I should be able to go into a store and buy ammunition even though I don't carry a gun because I want to practice BEFORE I get a license.  And people shouldn't need a license to buying hunting ammunition or anything else. 

And really, your ideas are a Catch-22.  If you can't buy ammo without a license, but you need to pass a proficiency test to get a license to carry in public, how are you supposed to get proficient?

---

 That is why the ammo license should be different than a gun license.  You can have one without the other. 

---

1) And this license,  would you just flash it or maybe need to scan it? 

2) Will there be records kept? 

3) Say you do get it passed that a person needs a license,  but the crazy Mas shootings and such continue. 

Then what?

 

---

 1) scan it. 

2) No, although someone probably would want to try and keep records. 

3) No idea. I like LL'S ideas of harsher punishment though. In an ideal world, the two would be implemented together, limiting the ability and hopefully the desire to commit the crimes simultaneously.  

Mental health needs a serious overhaul as well, and is definitely part of the problem. 

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

My right was restored.

But here is the thing.

My felony conviction is in another state and over 20 years ago.

So I don't know how much that plays into it.

---

This is nothing against you personally, but I really don't think convicted felons every need to have the right to own a gun.  It would just be one of those consequences that felons have to live with. 

---

 I also have the right to vote again. 

And have been summoned to jury duty since.

If there has been no criminal activity, and it was a one time thing. 

Why not?

A lesson learned is a good thing.

If a person can prove they have learned their lesson, why continue to punish them?

---

Let me ask you this - how long were you in jail when you were convicted of a felony? 

---

 I never served jail time after I pled guilty.

I had 2 years probation.

It was transferred from Indiana to Georgia.

I was 20 at the time.

 

---

 See.  This is part of my issue.  You were convicted of a felony, and didn't serve any time in prison.  That happens a lot, and I don't really think you "served your time".  Sorry.  That's not against you so much as the system.   I think never being able to own a gun is a proper additional punishment for a felony.

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

My right was restored.

But here is the thing.

My felony conviction is in another state and over 20 years ago.

So I don't know how much that plays into it.

---

This is nothing against you personally, but I really don't think convicted felons every need to have the right to own a gun.  It would just be one of those consequences that felons have to live with. 

---

 I also have the right to vote again. 

And have been summoned to jury duty since.

If there has been no criminal activity, and it was a one time thing. 

Why not?

A lesson learned is a good thing.

If a person can prove they have learned their lesson, why continue to punish them?

---

Let me ask you this - how long were you in jail when you were convicted of a felony? 

---

 I never served jail time after I pled guilty.

I had 2 years probation.

It was transferred from Indiana to Georgia.

I was 20 at the time.

 

---

 See.  This is part of my issue.  You were convicted of a felony, and didn't serve any time in prison.  That happens a lot, and I don't really think you "served your time".  Sorry.  That's not against you so much as the system.   I think never being able to own a gun is a proper additional punishment for a felony.

---

 Well, two years of probation, I couldn't leave the county.

Well over 20 in restitution. 

And my big part in the crime? I was in the car. My fingerprints were not on a single gun that was found.

I wasn't innocent. I never claimed to be. 

But I did sit in county for 2 very long weeks and I did go through a year of courts and I pled guilty cause I knew I was wrong.

Since then, I have gotten one speeding ticket. 

So a person can never rehabilitate? No one can ever earn a second chance? 

So glad ya'll ain't judges.

 

---

Sure, you can rehabilitate, but that doesn't mean there are not lasting consequences for your actions.  And you were convicted of a crime that involved guns.  You would be on my list of people never able to own one again.  Sorry. 

huskerbb wrote:

---

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

So, whenever there is an article posted, or the government says anything about gun control, the internet explodes with all the reasons it won't work.

So, Geeks, what can WE come up with?

The problem being twofold: gun accidents (especially involving children) and obviously, bad guys with guns, including mass shootings.

One idea: Firearm safety classes in school, starting very young, discussing how you NEVER approach a gun unless an adult is present, and working all the way up through high school with how to safely disable a selection of the most common (to the specific area) gun types.

Second idea: Requiring a license to buy ammunition. Right now, there are no background checks on private party sales. So, John could legally own a gun that he purchased in a shop, after a background check, and he can legally sell it to Bob without one, even though Bob is a convicted felon and would not pass the background check. But, Bob can buy ammo whenever and wherever he wants.

Requiring a license to buy ammo would not close that loophole, but it makes it smaller. The license would requiring annual  renewal, and extensive background check, and will be electronically scanned at every purchase, in theory.

Similarly, requiring a license to SELL ammo. The license wouldn't require much, just the vendors' demonstrating their capability to keep the ammo in a secure location, and a computer that can access the database of people who are legal to purchase ammo, ie, the ability to scan in the license and check it is valid an not fake.

Banning ALL online sales, of guns and ammo.  Period. End of story. If caught either buying or selling, both parties get charged with arms dealing. And that is that.

---

 No.  All you are doing is making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to buy guns or ammo.  NONE of your proposals would have any effect on criminals, or on children since people with children who are not criminals could still acquire guns.

 

all this gun control crap is nonsense.

 

the homicide rate I this country has been HALVED since the early 90's.  At the same time, the number of guns owned by private citizens has DOUBLED.  More guns does NOT equate to more gun violence.

as far as accidents go, each is tragic--but the frequency is so low it doesn't even register as a cause of death for children.

---

 The accidental gun deaths are targeted by the firearm safety classes in school, not an ammo license.  

And I have never seen any studies of if people who aquire their gun illegally buy their ammo legally or not, but I am assuming that since their is no control at all on buying ammo that they can. 

Right now, criminals can legally buy ammo. I am trying to close that loophole. Perhaps it is not a good plan. What are your ideas, husker?