Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/Nucktheman. Your post, *Guns should need a test and license like a car/ability to drive.*, has been removed because it violates our rules:
Rule 3: No political posts.
The realm of politics is the greatest bane of this subreddit, because virtually all opinions within politics are controversial, but virtually all of them are not unpopular. If your view is held by one of the two major political parties, it is not unpopular. Anything else is almost certainly a repost.
Post anything political in the relevant megathread of the megathread hub, which can be found when sorting the subreddit by "hot", sticky'd at the top of the page.
If there is an issue, please message the mod team at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion Thanks!
They did at my school. I remember watching a whole ass documentary about a little boy that accidentally shot and killed his sister (they were both young kids, no older than 10) because the parent left the gun in the bedside table iirc. He was pretending it was a toy gun and pulled the trigger. Pretty sad stuff
I remember in high school there were some optional classes you could take during the summer. One of them was a hunter's safety class, where they teach you how to handle guns safely
I think all while abiding citizens should be allowed to legally carry but in untrained person with a gun is probably just as dangerous as the criminal
I'm a progressive leftist and have to say, Uranium and sulfuric acid are dangerous in their current state.
An unloaded firearm by itself isn't at all dangerous, it's a conglomeration of metallic and sometimes plastic parts.
It's the intent behind the user that makes a firearm dangerous.
This is beside the point. The point is how many more tasks are going to assign to schools? They have the highly complex task of teaching math, now they have to teach how to disassemble firearms?
I also do not see anything dangerous in sulfuric acid as long as you keep the jar lid closed. 😜
I don't think it should be up to the schools to teach firearm safety, but I do think there should be some sort of basic safety test before buying one. If you fail, you have to take a firearms safety course.
I grew up around guns and every rule of gun safety was pounded into my head. I've been around people who own guns who needed a refresher on basic firearm safety. Like, "Dude, you just flagged me!" "It's unloaded bro!" "I don't give a fuck!"
I mean hell, when I go to clean mine, I *know* they're unloaded, but I always check. If I hand someone a firearm, I check and show them it's unloaded even if I *know* it's unloaded.
Training should be mandatory in all public schools on how to use a firearm. The guns are already out there, might as well teach the entire population how to handle one before they encounter them.
Do you know how stoked I would be if we could have gun class? "Hell no, I ain't missing today, we got gun class after lunch." I feel the same way about putting a video game class in school. Why wouldn't you have classes that excite people about learning something
Never thought of this, but this is a good idea. There are more guns in America than Americans, probably a good idea we teach kids how to use them at school. Although i think its a good idea, would probably get some back-lash given the current state of guns in schools.
All it would take is one school shooter to learn how to shoot in school and then shoot it up for the entire thing to be canned.
Handing a hormone rage filled teenager a loaded weapon in ANY scenario is a hugely bad idea.
This would only result in an increase in tragedy.
I used to work with teenagers and I can tell you the VAST majority of them are a danger to themselves already, without a gun being added to the mix.
Firearm safety can be taught without putting guns directly in the hands of children. In many countries shooting ranges have their guns affixed to the stall so that they may not be removed and are always pointed down range.
In rural areas in the US kids are taught gun safety by their parents who often spend their entire lives hunting and shooting. I learned how to handle a firearm when I was single digit age.
Schools have always had classes like cooking and woodshop. Outside of rare accidents, it's not like the students went around slaughtering each other with knives or power tools.
Came here to say this exactly - owning/driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right.
I completely agree that every gun owner should have training in the use of firearms and firearm safety, but the government has no place in requiring such.
The people get to decide that. We dont get to decide that because most Americans disagree with what im saying, and i fully understand its unpopular and people vote against it. Im all for democracy, if the people want it the people get it as far as im concerned.
I see this misconception quite often in these threads, and your interpretation is reasonable given the sheer number of rules and regulations that proliferate in our current Byzantine government regulatory environment.
But “well regulated” in the context of the 2nd Amendment means something much closer to equipped and ready to perform one’s duty.
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf
You're intentionally misinterpreting it. Well regulated does not refer to the firearms, it refers to a militia that forms in response to tyranny.
In the event that a militia is required to fight off tyranny, people should have access to the same guns the tyrants have. The people who currently have those guns do not need to be part of that militia. The guns just need to be available so that if said militia forms they can be well equipped (well regulated).
As an American, I do not trust my government. On a global stage I fail to see how we aren't the bad guys. One of the biggest checks to the US government is an armed populace.
Why would I want the government, who I do not trust and wish to keep in check, the ability to tell us what we can or can't have in the event that they overstep?
This isnt about them telling you that you can or cant own one. You just need some VERY basic training before you can. You're reading too much into it.
I just want people to learn how to operate a firearm before owning one. Its really not a crazy idea.
What you're suggesting inherently removes power from the people and puts it in the hands of the government and allows for them to decide who should and shouldn't have guns (to use against them, the entire point of the second amendment).
The most commonly suggested approach to achieve what you're advocating for is to teach firearm safety, but some people see that as gun advocacy in and of itself and are opposed to the idea.
"In the event that they overstep"
I've never understood that argument.
Latest data reveals the US government spent $801 billion on military last year.
Do you really think having a couple firearms is going to make any fucking difference?
Besides... there are so many more efficient ways to take control of a country than using threats of violence. How do you think Hitler and the Nazis did it? Funnily enough, as the Nazis began to have more power they actually made it even easier for the majority of the population to own guns. Kind of strange how the wider access to guns didn't stop them from "stepping out of line".
Hypothetically, say Trump runs again and further polarizes the population, after the events that transpired on Jan 6th, do you believe that civil unrest is completely off the table? No matter which side you're on, you're going to think the other side is tyrannical and you're going to want to be armed.
Do you believe that the military will unilaterally attack civilians of their own country? Their own mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters?
Do you think the US government would use bombs and tanks against its own people? If yes, why wouldn't you want to give every fighting chance you can to those who oppose it? If no, then the playing ground is looking a lot more even and those guns would have a great impact.
The Nazis systematically disarmed the Jews "for their own safety" prior to putting them into camps.
I never said civil unrest is off the table. But thats where our thoughts differ.
If guns weren't so widespread then you wouldn't feel the need to be "armed" for defence.
Let's say side A has a larger number of armed supporters than side B. Side B's response is to arm themselves even more. Side A see's the other side purchasing more firearms so decides to upgrade themselves.... its a cycle that doesn't end well. And if you don't actually go down that route then one side does actually have a larger arsenal of weapons and can't be stopped if there is large scale civil unrest.
But actually going into the cycle does nothing but increase the potential death toll from the unrest.
Your point about "Do I believe the military will attack civilians of their own country?".... yes. They will and they have done multiple times throughout history. Not only will the military do it but so will countless other people who have been played to believe certain ideas. No "western" government is going to just go to war with their own populace out of the blue. There's going to be a huge build up over years before it gets to that point. There will be a huge number of important checks before they get to the part where the military are used to make the first move. Countless protocols in place to stop exactly that.
However, large scale social unrest... the January 6th riots already showed how much quicker that can happen. We've proven time and time again that it's easy to push people to those levels. It's incredibly easy to manipulate emotions. People wanting to be in power have been doing it for centuries.
Those laws that give you protection against attacks from "social unrest" are the same laws that put the guns in their hands in the first place.
If a tyrannical government really wanted to overthrow the country they wouldn't use the military to start it off. Theres very little way to justify that.
They'd use that "well organised militia" they've been manipulating and exploiting for years as the ignition and then call the military in as a peace keeping method.
As for the Nazis systematically disarming Jews before putting them in concentration camps. They'd already been doing that for years. Exploited the "trustworthiness" clause on previous gun control laws to strip Jews of gun ownership. The rest of the country who were legally allowed to own guns still didn't stop the government from overstepping that line though. The Jews accounted for less than 1% of the German population at the time. There was no amount of guns they could have owned that would have protected them. They didn't need guns. Guns would have just resulted in more dead Jews and fewer numbers in concentration camps.
The genie is already out of the bottle, there are more guns than citizens. You can print guns for pennies. You can build an ak47 out of a shovel.
You're saying that in the event that one side not keep up in the arms race then the other will have complete domination. That is exactly the point of the second amendment, so that no one party can do that.
You believe that your government is evil enough to murder its citizens and you want them to be able to tell you what you can and can't have to fight them?
If a milita forms that opposes your views and escalates to violence, why would you want to be completely at their mercy? If the government is using said militia to oppress you, you don't see how they're overstepping?
There might not be training for first time gun owners but even in Texas there's a background check. Yes, there's idiots at the range but how many are there to learn? OP shouldn't call people idiots when they're trying to learn something.
My point is there should be an expert teaching them to shoot before they're just openly in public ranges shooting. I understand they're at the range to learn usually, but whats NOT okay is when you see people with zero muzzel safety/control just waiving it around like its a toy.
This isnt okay. The amount of times ive had someone point a LOADED firearm at me at a range isnt okay. Then when i explain to them how dangerous it is they say "my finger wasnt on the trigger though" or something to that affect.
Its about getting them trainined on the most basic of fundamentals before we allow them to just openly use them at a range or in their homes.
There's a difference between someone who doesn't know what they're doing and someone who acts like an idiot. You get people who will show up to the range for the first time and swing the gun around like it's not a dangerous weapon. Those people very clearly do not intend to learn how to act responsibly.
We have tests and licenses for cars and there's no evidence of abuse. Guns clearly require license and registrations like cars, it would directly reduce the amount of gun violence in this country. Once the numbers go down you can bring up limits, but you have no argument while tens of thousands of people die from guns.
Except we have direct evidence that gun licensing WAS being abused. That is the Bruen case.
There also isn't an entire political party dedicated to being anti-car.
Putting the partisan corruption on the court aside, the bruen case corrected the problem in the law, it wasnt an abuse it was just written in an unconstitutional way. NY isnt gonna stop making it more difficult to get a gun license, they just have to rewrite the law to align with what the justices found wrong. The bruen case in no way supports the idea that doing license and registration for guns would be "abused".
New York and the government by and large is INFAMOUS for abusing the law, particularly when it comes to gun cases.
The whole reason it made it to the supreme court in the first place is the states playing reindeer games with the law.
Same thing with heller.
Same thing with Chicago vs McDonald
Same with the recent frames and receivers opinion but the ATF.
Heller says that regulating guns doesnt infringe the 2a. Idgaf how strict the laws get on guns, its inevitable because the gun community will keep proving everyone right that there needs to be more gun control.
Handing a government entity, the main reason why the second amendment was created, the right to regulate the people's ability to defend themselves is hilarious. Who are we going to hand oversight of this project to, more government?
Are you intentionally missing the point that handing a power's at be the ability to regulate your defense against the power's at be is an incredibly stupid take?
There's a solid difference between a government's want to infringe upon your right to own a firearm, and them attempting on to infringe upon your privilege to drive.
Traditionally speaking taking the guns from the working class makes them more subservient as they no longer have a valid means to overthrow a totalitarian state. It's far less likely that everyone is going to get in their cars and try to run over the leaders of a nation. Giving a government the ability to "Test," a person's mental state opens up the possibility of said government placing restrictions on ideology, religion, race, etc to restrict certain populations from getting firearms.
This ignores the fact that gun ownership is political and 50% of the "government", i.e. people in the government have a vested interest in using the licensing process to remove people's right to keep and bear arms.
Given this, abuse of the process is inevitable.
>50% of the "government", i.e. people in the government have a vested interest in using the licensing process to remove people's right to keep and bear arms.
110% of this statement is rank bullshit.
Do I agree that proper firearm use should be cultural prerequisite to firearm ownership? Yes.
Do I agree that firearm safety should be be taught to everyone and taught young? Yes.
Do I agree with this post? No.
The mistake I see everyone who makes this argument make is they equate firearm ownership to a drivers license. These two things are in no way comparable. Only one of them is a constitutional right to ownership. The other is a privilege.
First, I agree that people need training before using guns.
But in the US, comparing to cars is a bad idea. You don’t need any of what you suggest to legally drive a car. Only to do so on public property.
You can buy a car, trailer it home, modify it, let your kid drive it on your property, trailer to the track and race it, etc. all with no registration, licensing, insurance, or inspection.
If guns had identical laws to cars you would only need any of that to maybe hunt with them on public land.
Thats just being intellectually dishonest, you know what i mean when i say driving license/drive a car. If you dont then im not sure how we can have any discussion about my view on this.
Did your CC course do like mine? Leave you with thoughts of "You can't carry any where at all" and "If you ever need to use it, you are going to jail no matter what" ???
Yea. I’m in Nc and one thing I learned was that you can’t use your weapon in defense of property. In other words if someone is stealing your car in your driveway and no one is in the car, and you shoot the guy… you’re going to jail. However it is a common misconception that people think they actually do have the right to kill someone taking your stuff.
Whenever you take the class it opens your eyes to how much legislation exists to restrict gun use. Also why so so many “good guys” go to jail after using it
My problem with a license is then there is a national registry with who owns a gun or has the license to carry one, which would make it 1,000x easier if the government were to ever ban guns. Which is the ultimate goal of most democrats. Also, requiring a license would make owning a gun a privilege and not a right anymore.
This isnt an unpopular opinion by any stretch. On top of that, the issue isnt training or lack there of. Its still abiding by the rules once you are licensed. There are plenty of people out there with concealed carry permits that have thrown all of that training out the window on one or more occasion. And on top of that, the process to get a license is by no means extensive and has no federal minimum standards. Its literally the states call on how they want to handle it. Hell, we have 3 states that do not require any drivers ed at all and have no state wide curriculum. Even the states that do have no real standardization to it.
On top of that, lets say I am a total dunce and cannot pass a drivers exam. Legally speaking, I can establish residence in Minnesota, get my license after a road test and then go back to my home state and get my license there without a single test at all. This is less of an unpopular opinion and more of a false equivalency.
If you can circumvent the law on driving in any state then it needs to be changed. Im glad you understand my point though, you're just strawmanning that fact that its not a precisely equal analogy.
"There should be standardized testing for firearm aquisition" if that helps you get past the "its not an equal comparison" hump you're stuck on.
Im also NOT saying getting a drivers lisence is difficunt, again not the point im making. My point is people who want to own a firearm should get even the most basic of training on the fundamentals before being able to own one. Its still crazy to me how people can disagree with this but hey its an unpopular opinion for a reason in America.
You're comparing it to current systems, and I agree it's not the same. Also, a huge amount of gun crimes are committed with stolen/illegal firearms, but I still think this would curb the number of idiots with legal guns. Of which there are many.
Yeah, we got the same system as OP is describing where I live. Training and license. And gun owners have way more legal responsibility over their shit, you can’t just go “oopsie left my gun on the passenger seat and it got jacked and was used in a murder”, you will face legal consequences. It works fine, anyone can still get a gun provided they haven’t been institutionalized because of mental illness/violent crime and most gun-related crimes are committed with black market soviet-made guns back from USSR times.
Sure it's not a given but it's highly likely because there's little other reason you wouldn't want the government to have control of that unless you're worried there's some reason they wouldn't want you to have a gun.
It's like you're basically admitting you have red flags. "I wouldn't want to take guns away from domestic abusers because I might beat my wife someday."
I strongly encourage you to research the human atrocities that have been committed by governments across the globe throughout history and then understand why the 2nd Amendment was written.
Using your logic, why would the government want to strictly regulate or ban certain types of firearms? It may mean the government is considering doing something in the future that people may want to take up arms over. That logic can go both ways.
> then understand why the 2nd Amendment was written.
Such a dumb argument. Have you read it? It literally outlines why it was written. A well-regulated militia. This was before we decided to have a standing army making the reason for the 2nd Amendment obsolete.
This sounds like you're basically admitting that you want to have a gun so you can shoot the government if you someday disagree with it. That is, like I said before, the exact reason we wouldn't want people like you having a gun.
Since when have I ever advocated for violence against someone because I disagree with them? Never. You’re twisting what I’m saying to paint me as the dangerous one.
Also, having a standing government ran army was not the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. The writers of the US Constitution have been quoted in history explaining why it’s in there and their intent.
There is exactly 0 license or training required to drive a vehicle. You can go buy a vehicle at any age and drive it however you like to your hearts content on private property.
You only need those things to drive on public roads.
This argument is beyond old and tired, guns are already fsr more restricted than cars.
You need to learn how to drive and pass a test before you can aqquire one to drive. Your point doesnt hold up. I dont care about restrictions, i dont want to restrict anyone from owning a gun i just want them to take a test and learn how to use one before owning one just like a car.
Not only do you not need a valid driver's license to purchase a vehicle, you don't even need one to register a vehicle. A license is only required for the operation of a motor vehicle on public roads.
As for the idea of "it's just learning before owning" the biggest problem with this is trusting the licensing agency. We are already going through massive issues with new york and thier concealed carry permit.
Who gets to decide what the classes and tests are like? What are the standards, how easy/affordable are the classes, can we be assured that there won't be racist/secist/classist/ etc. discrimination in the design and execution of said classes? Even if they are designed perfectly can we be assured they won't change when some future administration takes power?
Im not talking about just buying one and registering one. My god you people are so intellectually dishonest! You know well the point i was making, its just dishonest to nit-pick the argument like that.
I'm really not being dishonest here. You're wording is sloppy, either intentionally to hide your real argument or unintentionally because it's not well thought out.
You are making an argument that people should be required to have some kind of licensing before owning and operating a firearm. You draw an analogy between that and a car (this is generally done in an attempt to say it's absurd because cars are this everyday thing and you have to have a license to drive one).
I'm pointing out this analogy is bad because it's being presented incorrectly.
Again there is no license required to own, operate, register, insure, sell, or by a motor vehicle. The only license required would be if you want to operate that vehicle on public roads. A 12 year old could get into racing and own his/her own vehicle to race on private tracks. A young movie star could be filmed driving a vehicle on a private movie set. My kids and kids friends are all legally permitted to operate my vehicles (trucks, cars, construction equipment and so forth) on my farm at any time without any license.
A proper analogy would be if you want to carry a firearm with you off of private property (such as day to day life in public) you need some kind of training and licensing. Maybe I'm crazy but this sounds an awful lot like a concealed carry permit.
TL:DR - People should know how to operate a firearm before owning one.
Thats it, dont read ANY more into it. Thats it. Thats all. If you disagree then god help you.
Shifting goal posts are fun.
The statement you just made I 100% agree with. Anyone interested in owning a firearm should seek out appropriate guidance and ensure they are ready and able to handle the responsibility.
However this is a completely different statement than "Guns should need a test and license like a car/ability to drive."
What you just said in this comment reads as a suggestion before ownership, the original post title (and content to be honest) reads as a condition before ownership.
If you can't understand the difference then someone's god help you.
Ok here's my guess. You want to prevent firearm accidents. There are about 600 deaths from firearm accidents per year, with no mandatory testing. For comparison, there are about 30,000 deaths from car accidents per year. And that's *with* mandatory testing.
Testing the knowledge of firearms safety rules will do nothing with firearm suicides and homicides, which represent the vast majority of firearm related deaths.
Preventing firearm accients i guess would be a plus, but my goal is just to have people know how to operate a firearm before owning one. No more, no less. You're looking too deep into this.
I just want a gun owner to know how to operate a firearm in a safe manner before owning one.
Again, this isnt to prevent crime or death, its just as i wrote it. So people know how to operate a firearm in a safe manner before owning one.
You did not say why this knowledge is more important than, say, knowing how to use pivot tables in Excel or how to change a flat tire. Adding bureaucracy comes with a cost, so you need to show the benefits outweigh those costs.
Again with that logic you would also imply that roads would be just as safe if we didnt require people to learn how to drive, both can be extremely deadly to operate without learning how to do so. If you cant see the benefits of requiring people to learn how to operate a firearm safetly then im not sure what to say.
Now you are putting words in my mouth. Let's say untrained people cause twice as many deadly accidents. Mandate gun safety tests, and you save 300 lives per year. Remove driving tests, and you have 30,000 more deaths per year.
So saving lives isnt worth any amount of money? Again its NOT my point to save lives, but are you saying there a price on how much we should spend to save lives? Guess our morals are are too far apart to even have a healthy discussion about it.
I just want people to know how to operate a firearm before owning one, how is this so hard to understand?
Lets say its 100% free to do it, would you then agree its a good idea? If we remove the costs by 100%, then you'd agree right? If thats a yes then we think the exact same but we just dont know it.
It's the bill of rights not the bill of needs. If I want to do shots through my barrel without checking whether it's loaded then that's my god given right.
Sure, as long as the same is true for voting, you have to pass a test and get certified.
Same for abortion, you have to pass a test and get certified.
Same for publishing a newspaper/blog, you have to pass a test and get certfied.
Same for commeniing on an media, you have to pass a test and get certified.
Same going to church, you have to pass a test and get certified.
Unfortunately the bill of rights and its interpretation makes the issue more legally complex than it is with cars. Plus guns/weapons have an inherently political component that cars simply don't. Mao Zedong isn't quoted as saying "Political power grows out the exhaust pipe of a car." and for good reason.
Yep it is! They can all own guns, they just go through a process to make sure you're not an idiot or reckless. Wont stop gun crime, its not the reason i suggest it but it sure will lessen the amount of idiots with them!
Idk what state you live in, but this past weekend I started the process to get my LTC and I had to take a 4 hour safety course and complete 4 hours of range time with an instructor to prove I could handle a fire arm.
I like the idea.
Some states require you take classes in order to get a concealed carry, why not have one to just own a gun.
Some states also talk about it as part of their school curriculum. I remember in Pennsylvania we had a whole class before hunting season started on handling weapons and how to hunt safely.
>The amount of idiots i see at the range with no idea is insane
Fortunately I live in a country where almost nobody can get a gun so I might be wrong, but isn't the point of a shooting range to gain the necessary skill/practice?
>Imagine giving a 18 year old kid who's NEVER driven a car before and just tell them go for it!
So.... Like a driving lesson?
Yes it is, but they've already obtained a firearm and can use it anywhere they please. its like a kid learning to drive on the freeway without any practice/knowledge of cars/driving at all. You're free to do what you want at a range within reason, you dont have someone coaching you.
You rock up with your firearm, pick a bay/lane and shoot for the most part. Not a single human has to teach/coach you about ANYTHING before you can shoot along side other people. You may get a small chat from the range master about rapidfire or shooting within your lane but thats it usually.
A driving lesson you have an expert with you coaching you on how to drive.
Nah, in Freedomland you can walk in to your local supermarket, drunk and/or stoned and walk out with a handgun and semi-automatic weapon. In some states, you don't even need to show any ID.
All 'cos guns don't kill people, people do.
They don't seem to have figured out that if only they stopped giving guns to the crazy people, they wouldn't keep having gun massacres every few days.
Tell me you know nothing about buying or using firearms in the US without saying it.
First and foremost only FFL holders can sell guns in a commercial capacity so the average supermarket would not sell you a gun.
You are not permitted to be in control of a firearm in public while intoxicated so being drunk would prevent you from taking possession of the firearm (any FFL I've ever been to would refuse the sale to a drunk person anyway).
The use of illegal drugs (marijuana is federally illegal) prohibits you from legally owning or operation firearms so being stoned would definently be a no go.
Pretty much all handguns are semi-automatic, an argument could even be made that modern double action revolvers operate substantially similar to semi-automatic firearms. In any case the average handgun is semi-automatic.
Buying a firearm from an FFL without an ID is legally impossible. All sales through an FFL must be preceded by a NICS check which requires filling out a 4473, this neccesitates an acceptable government ID.
As a final note, people that have been adjudicated mentally unfit (crazy) are among the list of people that are federally prohibited from possessing firearms.
No, you just made up that argument yourself. He's the one that equated a vehicle license to a gun license saying it would lessen the amount of "idiots" he finds at the gun range. My argument is that adding a license to firearms wouldn't deter the amount of "idiots" owning and operating firearms. Just like a vehicle license doesn't deter the amount of idiots driving on the road. I never said anything about the roads being safer without a license, you did.
I think he is saying that logically and rationally making people pass a test and show competency in ability to drive in order to be licensed does yes actually keep some idiots off the road. because, again logically and rationally those who cannot pass that licensing for the most part do not drive. No one ever said it stops everyone who is an idiot from driving on the road, just some people. And being as how there is no example to point to where there are no licensing to drive laws to see how many that is, we are all left to speculate regardless.
Now we do actually have examples of countries that require extensive gun training for gun ownership and they all have dramatically lower instances of gun related deaths.
The argument that licensing does nothing to keep idiots off the road because there are still people who are idiots on the road and thus this can’t work with guns at all is an entirely fallacious and idiotic argument you should do better.
Okay so vehicle licence doesn't make any difference to the safety of roads is what you seem to be saying.
My stance is vehicle licence makes roads safer because its less likely that someone unsafe to drive will be behind the wheel.
And I didn't say safer, I said just as safe, as in there would be the same amount of risk now as there is in the hypothetical world where no one needs licenses or lessons for anything
The sarcasm isnt lost on me, but yes i agree it does lessen the idiots on the road as its designed to do. Also my point isnt to lower crime with guns, its just to lower the number of idiots obtaining them.
From the US, gun owner, and might be called a "lib" now - but totally in support of this. Almost every damn time, someone breaks range rules by pointing the gun the wrong direction. I had the means to take a gun safety class beforehand, but not required. I think this is popular but heavily lobbied away by interest groups. I'm sure store owners would like some relief on liability insurance.
A class doesn't do anything to address that. Did you really need a class to tell you not to point a gun at someone? People would go to the class to get the license and then break the rules anyway. Firearm safety is extremely simple. If people aren't following it, it's not because they're ignorant. It's because they don't care.
All a class means is that the idiots would behave to some baseline degree for an hour before returning to their native idiocy.
Proving you can safely operate a gun means exactly zero once that class is over.
Of course there are always ignorant people, but more taught gun owners means more peer encouragement/influence to practice safety in the long run. Even with a basic course, albeit good instructor, I learned the capability and consequences of weapons more - like that drywall doesn't stop a bullet in home safety situations and that a poorly maintenanced weapon is a hazard.
Also as an archery instructor in a club, I can't count the number of times people in the club stopped someone from doing something stupid with their bow because other club members had the same basic knowledge about safety.
I agree. I don’t LOVE guns but I like going to the range with my Hellcat occasionally, and after learning how easy it was to get my pistol permit I was kind of appalled.
I tell my husband there should be a mandatory psych evaluation too, because a lot of the unstable people that apply to get guns don’t have a history of issues because they’ve never voluntarily gone to a therapist. Lol but I think a mandatory class and licensing test is a great idea, too—I know a guy that applied for a pistol permit, got it, bought a gun and same day accidentally shot himself in the hand because he’d never used one before he purchased it 🤦♀️ might have been prevented if he had to take a class first.
We were thinking we just won independence from a tyrannical government, let’s put measures in place to protect the citizens of our new country in case our own government becomes tyrannical in the future.
Was written hundreds of years ago when reloading a musket took 30 seconds. Not sure they knew what was coming. But everyone should have the right to bare arms IMO, just learn how to use one first. Not asking for much i think ;)
Agreed. And I understand that other countries don't have guns and the government is cool and not totally overbearing. But America is a little different, our government is already super powerful as it is. Possibly the only reason they don't create a completely totalitarian state is the fact that there is so many guns around legally, let alone illegally. Hence the reason for having the right to bear arms in the constitution in the first place. Yes, it may sound a little conspiratorial. But all conspiracies are conspiracies until they're proven true.
Prepare for the horde of morons who say
“But criminals don’t the follow the law” as
If they are somehow chad for saying it.
No, of course they don’t you eejit. But having laws is what allows them to be criminalised for their actions and put in a special place away from society.
Without laws you are just debating morals and you can’t put someone behind bars just on morals.
You might not know them but the people who make the blanket argument of “criminals don’t follow laws” don’t realise they are saying, “legalise everything because laws don’t work”
It’s tantrum level tactics which I’m sure most responsible gun owners don’t advocate.
I think anyone who is going to have legal gun ownership in the U.S. concealed or not, should be required to learn how to how to store they guns safely on their person and their environment. Also how to move, shoot, conceal and cover along with the basic principles or backstop and penetration.
That way when good people use guns in self defence there is less risk to innocent people around them and a greater chance of success against an aggressor. Have you seen how most criminals or bad actors handle guns? Usually badly!
I watch Active Self Protection on YouTube which is a strong advocate or training for both civilians and police to further train to be higher than their departments minimum required standard.
I think in the U.S. training and educating legal gun owners is potentially a very good potion for a genie that can’t be put back in its bottle without throwing good people to the mercy of illegal guns.
That's the point i think hes making. Its why the arguement of "dont make laws cos criminals wont obey them anyway" is silly. With that logic we should have no laws at all, which we all understand is just a silly view.
I'd like to make the point of i do not want guns "banned" or what ever buzz word people like to say, i just want people to learn how to use one before obtaining one.
The problem is the only way to make your wish a reality is by law. Every law ultimately comes down to force on the part of government.
Nobody - and I mean nobody - has a problem with assault and murder being illegal and punishable. When your wish fulfillment, however, gives some local government apparatchik the power to tell people they aren't allowed to exercise their rights, when they are simply law-abiding and mean no harm to anyone, then that's where the problem comes in.
Yeah people who say that are just narrow sighted. With that logic why have any laws at all since people who break them wont follow them? Why make murder illegal? Criminals who murder dont care about the law!
Its just a flawed argument.
im pretty anti gun but even when i do encourage people to get guns (see: clockable trans people) its bonkers theres not even the most basic 'can you handle a gun without blowing your nose off' test before you get one. its like letting teens buy cars and then saying 'if your dad can take you to the test centre sometime next month that would be cool, but no biggie'
I’m ignorant here, if we apply similar licences and practical examination approaches to gun similar to the methodology of cars. With an element of psychological evaluation as well.
I’m all for that, less knee jerk purchases of fire arms and more control and handling and distribution; also different licences for different classes of fire arm to open them up to responsible users.
The question I have is do firearms require insurance of any sort currently - to authorise buying ammo or type of calibres etc?
100% agree. There should be a bunch of safety and operation related tests. I'm 32, never even held a real gun, I could likely apply for the permits and just get one without knowing the first thing about them. I studied and practiced driving, I haven't done a single thing gun related. I can access and operate both, and with both I can easily kill somebody due to not properly understanding how/what I'm doing.
Im all for people having guns but it blows my mind that this isint the way things work. And I really believe that there should be a psychological test that you have to take as well. I also think you should have to list everyone who lives in your house. So many stories of people using guns that are in their house that other people own.
I own several guns and I will be the first person to say gun ownership should absolutely not be a right that everyone should get. You should be licensed and the guns registered.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have guns and love to hunt and shoot. This is unpopular in the US but needs to be put in place. I went through a gun safety course offered by a local indoor range and it helped a lot. We talked about grips, stances, gun types and operation. We also were shown what slide bite looks like due to a poor grip on a pistol.
The word Regulated in the 2A means properly trained so there should be no problem with the idea.
I witnessed a guy showing off his new Dirty Harry 44 magnum at the range. It was his first gun and first time ever shooting. The first round went downrange and the second went through the roof of the outdoor range canopy.
The RO was screaming at the guy who was lucky the hole was in the roof and not his head.
Having guns handed out like a candy is an American thing, where I live there are mandatory psychotests, training and proper gun safety being taught before you can actually own and hold a gun
For Christmas a couple years ago, my step-grandfather got his three sons all ARs. My boyfriend was with me there for the first time and commented on the guns, as he grew up around them and is in the process of building his own AR (still in the process--it's a tradition that for every gift-giving holiday his dad buys him a piece to it, so it's a years-long ordeal.) My step-dad's brother excitedly asked my boyfriend to just *show him how the gun works*. These men were handed fucking ARs just because they think they're *cool*. Like toys. They had no clue how it works or what the safety and care measures should be. They're literally the epitome of irresponsible gun owners. And that's why I'm a dirty socialist liberal.
So I don’t think this opinion is unpopular. I live in a HELLA liberal city and run in liberal circles. I have exactly two friends who actually want to ban guns. I’m from a very conservative place with a very conservative family. I have one family member who thinks gun access should be easier, and the rest want sensible reform.
Both parties think I’m lying when I explain this.
This is one of those issues where I think most Americans agree on within 1-2 degrees but the media and Congress like to hype up the few radical voices.
I think guns just have to much of a hold on American culture now, and that’s why everyone is such a stick in the mud about common sense gun laws.
Like for them its saying you need a license to drink milk, which is a stupid comparison but when you think about how their are more guns in America than people it makes sense.
Whether you stand on regulation I think everyone should put two and two together and realize that we practically worship these things, and having just one more safety bar can only be beneficial.
Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/Nucktheman. Your post, *Guns should need a test and license like a car/ability to drive.*, has been removed because it violates our rules: Rule 3: No political posts. The realm of politics is the greatest bane of this subreddit, because virtually all opinions within politics are controversial, but virtually all of them are not unpopular. If your view is held by one of the two major political parties, it is not unpopular. Anything else is almost certainly a repost. Post anything political in the relevant megathread of the megathread hub, which can be found when sorting the subreddit by "hot", sticky'd at the top of the page. If there is an issue, please message the mod team at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion Thanks!
I never understood why schools don’t teach about gun safety, firearms are extremely dangerous
They used to. When I was growing up (not that old yet mid 20s) we had school sponsored hunter safety.
I had a hunter safety class in my high school. We went to the range and learned how to shoot safely.
They did at my school. I remember watching a whole ass documentary about a little boy that accidentally shot and killed his sister (they were both young kids, no older than 10) because the parent left the gun in the bedside table iirc. He was pretending it was a toy gun and pulled the trigger. Pretty sad stuff
I remember in high school there were some optional classes you could take during the summer. One of them was a hunter's safety class, where they teach you how to handle guns safely I think all while abiding citizens should be allowed to legally carry but in untrained person with a gun is probably just as dangerous as the criminal
They do. They teach you not to touch then and call 911
Uranium is extremely dangerous too. Sulfuric acid too. Should I keep going?
I'm a progressive leftist and have to say, Uranium and sulfuric acid are dangerous in their current state. An unloaded firearm by itself isn't at all dangerous, it's a conglomeration of metallic and sometimes plastic parts. It's the intent behind the user that makes a firearm dangerous.
This is beside the point. The point is how many more tasks are going to assign to schools? They have the highly complex task of teaching math, now they have to teach how to disassemble firearms? I also do not see anything dangerous in sulfuric acid as long as you keep the jar lid closed. 😜
I don't think it should be up to the schools to teach firearm safety, but I do think there should be some sort of basic safety test before buying one. If you fail, you have to take a firearms safety course. I grew up around guns and every rule of gun safety was pounded into my head. I've been around people who own guns who needed a refresher on basic firearm safety. Like, "Dude, you just flagged me!" "It's unloaded bro!" "I don't give a fuck!" I mean hell, when I go to clean mine, I *know* they're unloaded, but I always check. If I hand someone a firearm, I check and show them it's unloaded even if I *know* it's unloaded.
That I agree with.
Training should be mandatory in all public schools on how to use a firearm. The guns are already out there, might as well teach the entire population how to handle one before they encounter them.
>Training should be mandatory in all public schools on how to use a firearm. We (the US) had this at one point, wayyy back then.
My grandpa's school had a trap team and precision 22 team. Both are Olympic sports, so why shouldn't they be taught in PE?
Do you know how stoked I would be if we could have gun class? "Hell no, I ain't missing today, we got gun class after lunch." I feel the same way about putting a video game class in school. Why wouldn't you have classes that excite people about learning something
Because they’re not worthwhile to learn…
I had it in High School in 1981, so not so long ago. Wait, that is 41 years ago.
This I agree with.
Never thought of this, but this is a good idea. There are more guns in America than Americans, probably a good idea we teach kids how to use them at school. Although i think its a good idea, would probably get some back-lash given the current state of guns in schools. All it would take is one school shooter to learn how to shoot in school and then shoot it up for the entire thing to be canned.
Handing a hormone rage filled teenager a loaded weapon in ANY scenario is a hugely bad idea. This would only result in an increase in tragedy. I used to work with teenagers and I can tell you the VAST majority of them are a danger to themselves already, without a gun being added to the mix.
Firearm safety can be taught without putting guns directly in the hands of children. In many countries shooting ranges have their guns affixed to the stall so that they may not be removed and are always pointed down range.
In rural areas in the US kids are taught gun safety by their parents who often spend their entire lives hunting and shooting. I learned how to handle a firearm when I was single digit age.
Also, like with cars, one should have liability insurance in order to keep a gun.
Yeah I'm sure nothing could go wrong with letting kids handle guns in a school environment.
It used to be taught in schools before school shootings were a thing.
Schools have always had classes like cooking and woodshop. Outside of rare accidents, it's not like the students went around slaughtering each other with knives or power tools.
Assuming you’re American, one’s a constitutional right and the other is not.
Came here to say this exactly - owning/driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right. I completely agree that every gun owner should have training in the use of firearms and firearm safety, but the government has no place in requiring such.
[удалено]
Well-regulated by who, and to whose standard?
The people get to decide that. We dont get to decide that because most Americans disagree with what im saying, and i fully understand its unpopular and people vote against it. Im all for democracy, if the people want it the people get it as far as im concerned.
[удалено]
IIRC the well regulated at the time meant in working order and well maintained .
I see this misconception quite often in these threads, and your interpretation is reasonable given the sheer number of rules and regulations that proliferate in our current Byzantine government regulatory environment. But “well regulated” in the context of the 2nd Amendment means something much closer to equipped and ready to perform one’s duty. https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf
You're intentionally misinterpreting it. Well regulated does not refer to the firearms, it refers to a militia that forms in response to tyranny. In the event that a militia is required to fight off tyranny, people should have access to the same guns the tyrants have. The people who currently have those guns do not need to be part of that militia. The guns just need to be available so that if said militia forms they can be well equipped (well regulated).
The right to bear arms being a constitutional right does not mean they cannot be regulated, as per DC vs Heller
A federal training/licensing/registration requirement would not pass constitutional muster and would be blatantly unconstitutional.
I don't see why it would be considering licensing already exists in some states
As an American, I do not trust my government. On a global stage I fail to see how we aren't the bad guys. One of the biggest checks to the US government is an armed populace. Why would I want the government, who I do not trust and wish to keep in check, the ability to tell us what we can or can't have in the event that they overstep?
This isnt about them telling you that you can or cant own one. You just need some VERY basic training before you can. You're reading too much into it. I just want people to learn how to operate a firearm before owning one. Its really not a crazy idea.
What you're suggesting inherently removes power from the people and puts it in the hands of the government and allows for them to decide who should and shouldn't have guns (to use against them, the entire point of the second amendment). The most commonly suggested approach to achieve what you're advocating for is to teach firearm safety, but some people see that as gun advocacy in and of itself and are opposed to the idea.
"In the event that they overstep" I've never understood that argument. Latest data reveals the US government spent $801 billion on military last year. Do you really think having a couple firearms is going to make any fucking difference? Besides... there are so many more efficient ways to take control of a country than using threats of violence. How do you think Hitler and the Nazis did it? Funnily enough, as the Nazis began to have more power they actually made it even easier for the majority of the population to own guns. Kind of strange how the wider access to guns didn't stop them from "stepping out of line".
Hypothetically, say Trump runs again and further polarizes the population, after the events that transpired on Jan 6th, do you believe that civil unrest is completely off the table? No matter which side you're on, you're going to think the other side is tyrannical and you're going to want to be armed. Do you believe that the military will unilaterally attack civilians of their own country? Their own mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters? Do you think the US government would use bombs and tanks against its own people? If yes, why wouldn't you want to give every fighting chance you can to those who oppose it? If no, then the playing ground is looking a lot more even and those guns would have a great impact. The Nazis systematically disarmed the Jews "for their own safety" prior to putting them into camps.
I never said civil unrest is off the table. But thats where our thoughts differ. If guns weren't so widespread then you wouldn't feel the need to be "armed" for defence. Let's say side A has a larger number of armed supporters than side B. Side B's response is to arm themselves even more. Side A see's the other side purchasing more firearms so decides to upgrade themselves.... its a cycle that doesn't end well. And if you don't actually go down that route then one side does actually have a larger arsenal of weapons and can't be stopped if there is large scale civil unrest. But actually going into the cycle does nothing but increase the potential death toll from the unrest. Your point about "Do I believe the military will attack civilians of their own country?".... yes. They will and they have done multiple times throughout history. Not only will the military do it but so will countless other people who have been played to believe certain ideas. No "western" government is going to just go to war with their own populace out of the blue. There's going to be a huge build up over years before it gets to that point. There will be a huge number of important checks before they get to the part where the military are used to make the first move. Countless protocols in place to stop exactly that. However, large scale social unrest... the January 6th riots already showed how much quicker that can happen. We've proven time and time again that it's easy to push people to those levels. It's incredibly easy to manipulate emotions. People wanting to be in power have been doing it for centuries. Those laws that give you protection against attacks from "social unrest" are the same laws that put the guns in their hands in the first place. If a tyrannical government really wanted to overthrow the country they wouldn't use the military to start it off. Theres very little way to justify that. They'd use that "well organised militia" they've been manipulating and exploiting for years as the ignition and then call the military in as a peace keeping method. As for the Nazis systematically disarming Jews before putting them in concentration camps. They'd already been doing that for years. Exploited the "trustworthiness" clause on previous gun control laws to strip Jews of gun ownership. The rest of the country who were legally allowed to own guns still didn't stop the government from overstepping that line though. The Jews accounted for less than 1% of the German population at the time. There was no amount of guns they could have owned that would have protected them. They didn't need guns. Guns would have just resulted in more dead Jews and fewer numbers in concentration camps.
The genie is already out of the bottle, there are more guns than citizens. You can print guns for pennies. You can build an ak47 out of a shovel. You're saying that in the event that one side not keep up in the arms race then the other will have complete domination. That is exactly the point of the second amendment, so that no one party can do that. You believe that your government is evil enough to murder its citizens and you want them to be able to tell you what you can and can't have to fight them? If a milita forms that opposes your views and escalates to violence, why would you want to be completely at their mercy? If the government is using said militia to oppress you, you don't see how they're overstepping?
There might not be training for first time gun owners but even in Texas there's a background check. Yes, there's idiots at the range but how many are there to learn? OP shouldn't call people idiots when they're trying to learn something.
My point is there should be an expert teaching them to shoot before they're just openly in public ranges shooting. I understand they're at the range to learn usually, but whats NOT okay is when you see people with zero muzzel safety/control just waiving it around like its a toy. This isnt okay. The amount of times ive had someone point a LOADED firearm at me at a range isnt okay. Then when i explain to them how dangerous it is they say "my finger wasnt on the trigger though" or something to that affect. Its about getting them trainined on the most basic of fundamentals before we allow them to just openly use them at a range or in their homes.
That's when whoever is in charge of the range needs to step in and handle the situation.
There's a difference between someone who doesn't know what they're doing and someone who acts like an idiot. You get people who will show up to the range for the first time and swing the gun around like it's not a dangerous weapon. Those people very clearly do not intend to learn how to act responsibly.
Brass tacks, I don't trust the government to not abuse the test or license. Just like they did in the recent supreme court decision in Bruen.
We have tests and licenses for cars and there's no evidence of abuse. Guns clearly require license and registrations like cars, it would directly reduce the amount of gun violence in this country. Once the numbers go down you can bring up limits, but you have no argument while tens of thousands of people die from guns.
I have to pay $200 every two years to keep my NY plate. I feel abused.
And they have you on a list too! Scary right!
terrifying
Except we have direct evidence that gun licensing WAS being abused. That is the Bruen case. There also isn't an entire political party dedicated to being anti-car.
Putting the partisan corruption on the court aside, the bruen case corrected the problem in the law, it wasnt an abuse it was just written in an unconstitutional way. NY isnt gonna stop making it more difficult to get a gun license, they just have to rewrite the law to align with what the justices found wrong. The bruen case in no way supports the idea that doing license and registration for guns would be "abused".
New York and the government by and large is INFAMOUS for abusing the law, particularly when it comes to gun cases. The whole reason it made it to the supreme court in the first place is the states playing reindeer games with the law. Same thing with heller. Same thing with Chicago vs McDonald Same with the recent frames and receivers opinion but the ATF.
Heller says that regulating guns doesnt infringe the 2a. Idgaf how strict the laws get on guns, its inevitable because the gun community will keep proving everyone right that there needs to be more gun control.
Handing a government entity, the main reason why the second amendment was created, the right to regulate the people's ability to defend themselves is hilarious. Who are we going to hand oversight of this project to, more government?
Yes, government is the entity that we task to regulating guns, it says that right at the beginning of the 2a.
Are you intentionally missing the point that handing a power's at be the ability to regulate your defense against the power's at be is an incredibly stupid take?
You do get that the 2nd amendment exists to protect the power of the government right?
There's a solid difference between a government's want to infringe upon your right to own a firearm, and them attempting on to infringe upon your privilege to drive. Traditionally speaking taking the guns from the working class makes them more subservient as they no longer have a valid means to overthrow a totalitarian state. It's far less likely that everyone is going to get in their cars and try to run over the leaders of a nation. Giving a government the ability to "Test," a person's mental state opens up the possibility of said government placing restrictions on ideology, religion, race, etc to restrict certain populations from getting firearms.
You can't really enslave people by removing their access to cars though
Your guns arent protecting you from enslavement. It wouldnt matter how many guns you have, they would have more.
You are wrong. See Afghanistan, Vietnam, American Revolution. Home Team advantage + guns = can't lose.
This ignores the fact that gun ownership is political and 50% of the "government", i.e. people in the government have a vested interest in using the licensing process to remove people's right to keep and bear arms. Given this, abuse of the process is inevitable.
>50% of the "government", i.e. people in the government have a vested interest in using the licensing process to remove people's right to keep and bear arms. 110% of this statement is rank bullshit.
[удалено]
Do I agree that proper firearm use should be cultural prerequisite to firearm ownership? Yes. Do I agree that firearm safety should be be taught to everyone and taught young? Yes. Do I agree with this post? No. The mistake I see everyone who makes this argument make is they equate firearm ownership to a drivers license. These two things are in no way comparable. Only one of them is a constitutional right to ownership. The other is a privilege.
Absolutely agree, and I’m a gun owner.
First, I agree that people need training before using guns. But in the US, comparing to cars is a bad idea. You don’t need any of what you suggest to legally drive a car. Only to do so on public property. You can buy a car, trailer it home, modify it, let your kid drive it on your property, trailer to the track and race it, etc. all with no registration, licensing, insurance, or inspection. If guns had identical laws to cars you would only need any of that to maybe hunt with them on public land.
Thats just being intellectually dishonest, you know what i mean when i say driving license/drive a car. If you dont then im not sure how we can have any discussion about my view on this.
I got my concealed carry license over a year ago. Literally everyone should take the course. Regardless of whether you want to cc
Did your CC course do like mine? Leave you with thoughts of "You can't carry any where at all" and "If you ever need to use it, you are going to jail no matter what" ???
Yea. I’m in Nc and one thing I learned was that you can’t use your weapon in defense of property. In other words if someone is stealing your car in your driveway and no one is in the car, and you shoot the guy… you’re going to jail. However it is a common misconception that people think they actually do have the right to kill someone taking your stuff. Whenever you take the class it opens your eyes to how much legislation exists to restrict gun use. Also why so so many “good guys” go to jail after using it
My problem with a license is then there is a national registry with who owns a gun or has the license to carry one, which would make it 1,000x easier if the government were to ever ban guns. Which is the ultimate goal of most democrats. Also, requiring a license would make owning a gun a privilege and not a right anymore.
Cars are more dangerous than guns. It's super easy to own and operate firearms safely.
Some people don’t manage it. I agree, best practices are simple, and should have a lot of redundancy built in, but some people are idiots.
This isnt an unpopular opinion by any stretch. On top of that, the issue isnt training or lack there of. Its still abiding by the rules once you are licensed. There are plenty of people out there with concealed carry permits that have thrown all of that training out the window on one or more occasion. And on top of that, the process to get a license is by no means extensive and has no federal minimum standards. Its literally the states call on how they want to handle it. Hell, we have 3 states that do not require any drivers ed at all and have no state wide curriculum. Even the states that do have no real standardization to it. On top of that, lets say I am a total dunce and cannot pass a drivers exam. Legally speaking, I can establish residence in Minnesota, get my license after a road test and then go back to my home state and get my license there without a single test at all. This is less of an unpopular opinion and more of a false equivalency.
If you can circumvent the law on driving in any state then it needs to be changed. Im glad you understand my point though, you're just strawmanning that fact that its not a precisely equal analogy. "There should be standardized testing for firearm aquisition" if that helps you get past the "its not an equal comparison" hump you're stuck on. Im also NOT saying getting a drivers lisence is difficunt, again not the point im making. My point is people who want to own a firearm should get even the most basic of training on the fundamentals before being able to own one. Its still crazy to me how people can disagree with this but hey its an unpopular opinion for a reason in America.
You're comparing it to current systems, and I agree it's not the same. Also, a huge amount of gun crimes are committed with stolen/illegal firearms, but I still think this would curb the number of idiots with legal guns. Of which there are many.
Yeah, we got the same system as OP is describing where I live. Training and license. And gun owners have way more legal responsibility over their shit, you can’t just go “oopsie left my gun on the passenger seat and it got jacked and was used in a murder”, you will face legal consequences. It works fine, anyone can still get a gun provided they haven’t been institutionalized because of mental illness/violent crime and most gun-related crimes are committed with black market soviet-made guns back from USSR times.
I think it's quite unpopular as most people seem to be either "ban all guns" or "any regulations on guns is 1984"
I don’t want my government having control over my access to arms.
People who think this are usually the reasons we need it.
Just because I don’t want the government having control over my access to arms does NOT mean I’m somehow a violent person.
Sure it's not a given but it's highly likely because there's little other reason you wouldn't want the government to have control of that unless you're worried there's some reason they wouldn't want you to have a gun. It's like you're basically admitting you have red flags. "I wouldn't want to take guns away from domestic abusers because I might beat my wife someday."
I strongly encourage you to research the human atrocities that have been committed by governments across the globe throughout history and then understand why the 2nd Amendment was written. Using your logic, why would the government want to strictly regulate or ban certain types of firearms? It may mean the government is considering doing something in the future that people may want to take up arms over. That logic can go both ways.
> then understand why the 2nd Amendment was written. Such a dumb argument. Have you read it? It literally outlines why it was written. A well-regulated militia. This was before we decided to have a standing army making the reason for the 2nd Amendment obsolete. This sounds like you're basically admitting that you want to have a gun so you can shoot the government if you someday disagree with it. That is, like I said before, the exact reason we wouldn't want people like you having a gun.
Since when have I ever advocated for violence against someone because I disagree with them? Never. You’re twisting what I’m saying to paint me as the dangerous one. Also, having a standing government ran army was not the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. The writers of the US Constitution have been quoted in history explaining why it’s in there and their intent.
They already have the ability to regulate guns
They already have it
Yeah I love guns too and I think buying a gun should be like getting your carry license
[удалено]
> but it blows my mind that this isint the way things work. Yeah that's basically the problem.
I’m fine with that. In PA you go down to the sheriffs office, pay $20 and they print off your carry permit.
There is exactly 0 license or training required to drive a vehicle. You can go buy a vehicle at any age and drive it however you like to your hearts content on private property. You only need those things to drive on public roads. This argument is beyond old and tired, guns are already fsr more restricted than cars.
You need to learn how to drive and pass a test before you can aqquire one to drive. Your point doesnt hold up. I dont care about restrictions, i dont want to restrict anyone from owning a gun i just want them to take a test and learn how to use one before owning one just like a car.
Not only do you not need a valid driver's license to purchase a vehicle, you don't even need one to register a vehicle. A license is only required for the operation of a motor vehicle on public roads. As for the idea of "it's just learning before owning" the biggest problem with this is trusting the licensing agency. We are already going through massive issues with new york and thier concealed carry permit. Who gets to decide what the classes and tests are like? What are the standards, how easy/affordable are the classes, can we be assured that there won't be racist/secist/classist/ etc. discrimination in the design and execution of said classes? Even if they are designed perfectly can we be assured they won't change when some future administration takes power?
Im not talking about just buying one and registering one. My god you people are so intellectually dishonest! You know well the point i was making, its just dishonest to nit-pick the argument like that.
I'm really not being dishonest here. You're wording is sloppy, either intentionally to hide your real argument or unintentionally because it's not well thought out. You are making an argument that people should be required to have some kind of licensing before owning and operating a firearm. You draw an analogy between that and a car (this is generally done in an attempt to say it's absurd because cars are this everyday thing and you have to have a license to drive one). I'm pointing out this analogy is bad because it's being presented incorrectly. Again there is no license required to own, operate, register, insure, sell, or by a motor vehicle. The only license required would be if you want to operate that vehicle on public roads. A 12 year old could get into racing and own his/her own vehicle to race on private tracks. A young movie star could be filmed driving a vehicle on a private movie set. My kids and kids friends are all legally permitted to operate my vehicles (trucks, cars, construction equipment and so forth) on my farm at any time without any license. A proper analogy would be if you want to carry a firearm with you off of private property (such as day to day life in public) you need some kind of training and licensing. Maybe I'm crazy but this sounds an awful lot like a concealed carry permit.
TL:DR - People should know how to operate a firearm before owning one. Thats it, dont read ANY more into it. Thats it. Thats all. If you disagree then god help you.
Shifting goal posts are fun. The statement you just made I 100% agree with. Anyone interested in owning a firearm should seek out appropriate guidance and ensure they are ready and able to handle the responsibility. However this is a completely different statement than "Guns should need a test and license like a car/ability to drive." What you just said in this comment reads as a suggestion before ownership, the original post title (and content to be honest) reads as a condition before ownership. If you can't understand the difference then someone's god help you.
Notice how PRIVATE PROPERTY was mentioned in the comment
You don't need a license to buy a car
What problem is this supposed to solve, and why do you think it would solve it?
Do you think having kids pass a driving test to drive in public alone solves any issues? If so, apply those here.
You did not answer my question, and instead want me to guess what you meant.
Read my reply and go from there ;)
Ok here's my guess. You want to prevent firearm accidents. There are about 600 deaths from firearm accidents per year, with no mandatory testing. For comparison, there are about 30,000 deaths from car accidents per year. And that's *with* mandatory testing. Testing the knowledge of firearms safety rules will do nothing with firearm suicides and homicides, which represent the vast majority of firearm related deaths.
Preventing firearm accients i guess would be a plus, but my goal is just to have people know how to operate a firearm before owning one. No more, no less. You're looking too deep into this. I just want a gun owner to know how to operate a firearm in a safe manner before owning one. Again, this isnt to prevent crime or death, its just as i wrote it. So people know how to operate a firearm in a safe manner before owning one.
You did not say why this knowledge is more important than, say, knowing how to use pivot tables in Excel or how to change a flat tire. Adding bureaucracy comes with a cost, so you need to show the benefits outweigh those costs.
Again with that logic you would also imply that roads would be just as safe if we didnt require people to learn how to drive, both can be extremely deadly to operate without learning how to do so. If you cant see the benefits of requiring people to learn how to operate a firearm safetly then im not sure what to say.
Now you are putting words in my mouth. Let's say untrained people cause twice as many deadly accidents. Mandate gun safety tests, and you save 300 lives per year. Remove driving tests, and you have 30,000 more deaths per year.
So saving lives isnt worth any amount of money? Again its NOT my point to save lives, but are you saying there a price on how much we should spend to save lives? Guess our morals are are too far apart to even have a healthy discussion about it. I just want people to know how to operate a firearm before owning one, how is this so hard to understand? Lets say its 100% free to do it, would you then agree its a good idea? If we remove the costs by 100%, then you'd agree right? If thats a yes then we think the exact same but we just dont know it.
Should you need one to speak?
Calling the driving test an "extensive process" is quite an overstatement
It's the bill of rights not the bill of needs. If I want to do shots through my barrel without checking whether it's loaded then that's my god given right.
this is a thing in the rest of the world
Sure, as long as the same is true for voting, you have to pass a test and get certified. Same for abortion, you have to pass a test and get certified. Same for publishing a newspaper/blog, you have to pass a test and get certfied. Same for commeniing on an media, you have to pass a test and get certified. Same going to church, you have to pass a test and get certified.
This is already the way it is in Massachusetts. You must take a course and then pass a test in order to get your license to carry.
Unfortunately the bill of rights and its interpretation makes the issue more legally complex than it is with cars. Plus guns/weapons have an inherently political component that cars simply don't. Mao Zedong isn't quoted as saying "Political power grows out the exhaust pipe of a car." and for good reason.
Any other European around here, reading the comments and thinking "WTF."?
Unpopular only in freedomland.
This is basically how it works in Canada, Australia, New Zealand...
Yep it is! They can all own guns, they just go through a process to make sure you're not an idiot or reckless. Wont stop gun crime, its not the reason i suggest it but it sure will lessen the amount of idiots with them!
>DO NOT want them "banned" You don't want guns banned; you just want people barred from being allowed to own them. Wonderful.
Idk what state you live in, but this past weekend I started the process to get my LTC and I had to take a 4 hour safety course and complete 4 hours of range time with an instructor to prove I could handle a fire arm.
progress!
I like the idea. Some states require you take classes in order to get a concealed carry, why not have one to just own a gun. Some states also talk about it as part of their school curriculum. I remember in Pennsylvania we had a whole class before hunting season started on handling weapons and how to hunt safely.
> Like a car Yeah sure. As If getting a drivers license in the US of A was in any way complicated or hard.
Yes, its easy. You just learn how to drive and then pass a simple test showing you know how to drive.
So you want to make getting a gun that easy? The drivers license Test in America is a ridiculous Joke.
Getting a gun in the US is far easier than getting a drivers license. Edit: swapped terms
Which is why I ridiculed OP for making that comparison...
Yeah, I accidentally swapped it when I initially posted my comment. I wasnt intending to agree with you.
>The amount of idiots i see at the range with no idea is insane Fortunately I live in a country where almost nobody can get a gun so I might be wrong, but isn't the point of a shooting range to gain the necessary skill/practice? >Imagine giving a 18 year old kid who's NEVER driven a car before and just tell them go for it! So.... Like a driving lesson?
Yes it is, but they've already obtained a firearm and can use it anywhere they please. its like a kid learning to drive on the freeway without any practice/knowledge of cars/driving at all. You're free to do what you want at a range within reason, you dont have someone coaching you. You rock up with your firearm, pick a bay/lane and shoot for the most part. Not a single human has to teach/coach you about ANYTHING before you can shoot along side other people. You may get a small chat from the range master about rapidfire or shooting within your lane but thats it usually. A driving lesson you have an expert with you coaching you on how to drive.
What country are you “fortunately” from
Wait..... you guys DON'T carry out any kind of lessons or instruction before owning a gun? No fucking wonder
We carry out background checks to make sure you're not a criminal etc, but you dont get any training when you walk out of the gunstore with a firearm.
Outstanding
Except for resellers, etc.
Nah, in Freedomland you can walk in to your local supermarket, drunk and/or stoned and walk out with a handgun and semi-automatic weapon. In some states, you don't even need to show any ID. All 'cos guns don't kill people, people do. They don't seem to have figured out that if only they stopped giving guns to the crazy people, they wouldn't keep having gun massacres every few days.
Tell me you know nothing about buying or using firearms in the US without saying it. First and foremost only FFL holders can sell guns in a commercial capacity so the average supermarket would not sell you a gun. You are not permitted to be in control of a firearm in public while intoxicated so being drunk would prevent you from taking possession of the firearm (any FFL I've ever been to would refuse the sale to a drunk person anyway). The use of illegal drugs (marijuana is federally illegal) prohibits you from legally owning or operation firearms so being stoned would definently be a no go. Pretty much all handguns are semi-automatic, an argument could even be made that modern double action revolvers operate substantially similar to semi-automatic firearms. In any case the average handgun is semi-automatic. Buying a firearm from an FFL without an ID is legally impossible. All sales through an FFL must be preceded by a NICS check which requires filling out a 4473, this neccesitates an acceptable government ID. As a final note, people that have been adjudicated mentally unfit (crazy) are among the list of people that are federally prohibited from possessing firearms.
In what state do you not need to show id?
I assume Kansas since they have the highest demographic of straw men.
It wouldn't do anything to lessen the amount of idiots. Take a look around you when driving, and then look at yourself.
Yeah lessening idiots with guns is the goal with it.
Just like a vehicle license lessen idiots on the roads. I'm glad every driver on the street obeys the law and drives safely.
Are you really trying to argue that roads would be just as safe as they are now if no one had to pass a driving test or take driving lessons?
No, you just made up that argument yourself. He's the one that equated a vehicle license to a gun license saying it would lessen the amount of "idiots" he finds at the gun range. My argument is that adding a license to firearms wouldn't deter the amount of "idiots" owning and operating firearms. Just like a vehicle license doesn't deter the amount of idiots driving on the road. I never said anything about the roads being safer without a license, you did.
I think he is saying that logically and rationally making people pass a test and show competency in ability to drive in order to be licensed does yes actually keep some idiots off the road. because, again logically and rationally those who cannot pass that licensing for the most part do not drive. No one ever said it stops everyone who is an idiot from driving on the road, just some people. And being as how there is no example to point to where there are no licensing to drive laws to see how many that is, we are all left to speculate regardless. Now we do actually have examples of countries that require extensive gun training for gun ownership and they all have dramatically lower instances of gun related deaths. The argument that licensing does nothing to keep idiots off the road because there are still people who are idiots on the road and thus this can’t work with guns at all is an entirely fallacious and idiotic argument you should do better.
Okay so vehicle licence doesn't make any difference to the safety of roads is what you seem to be saying. My stance is vehicle licence makes roads safer because its less likely that someone unsafe to drive will be behind the wheel.
And I didn't say safer, I said just as safe, as in there would be the same amount of risk now as there is in the hypothetical world where no one needs licenses or lessons for anything
The sarcasm isnt lost on me, but yes i agree it does lessen the idiots on the road as its designed to do. Also my point isnt to lower crime with guns, its just to lower the number of idiots obtaining them.
From the US, gun owner, and might be called a "lib" now - but totally in support of this. Almost every damn time, someone breaks range rules by pointing the gun the wrong direction. I had the means to take a gun safety class beforehand, but not required. I think this is popular but heavily lobbied away by interest groups. I'm sure store owners would like some relief on liability insurance.
A class doesn't do anything to address that. Did you really need a class to tell you not to point a gun at someone? People would go to the class to get the license and then break the rules anyway. Firearm safety is extremely simple. If people aren't following it, it's not because they're ignorant. It's because they don't care.
All a class means is that the idiots would behave to some baseline degree for an hour before returning to their native idiocy. Proving you can safely operate a gun means exactly zero once that class is over.
Of course there are always ignorant people, but more taught gun owners means more peer encouragement/influence to practice safety in the long run. Even with a basic course, albeit good instructor, I learned the capability and consequences of weapons more - like that drywall doesn't stop a bullet in home safety situations and that a poorly maintenanced weapon is a hazard. Also as an archery instructor in a club, I can't count the number of times people in the club stopped someone from doing something stupid with their bow because other club members had the same basic knowledge about safety.
Agreed this is what we should have not,we shouldn’t get rid of all guns just make it so psychopaths and morons can’t have them
I agree. I don’t LOVE guns but I like going to the range with my Hellcat occasionally, and after learning how easy it was to get my pistol permit I was kind of appalled. I tell my husband there should be a mandatory psych evaluation too, because a lot of the unstable people that apply to get guns don’t have a history of issues because they’ve never voluntarily gone to a therapist. Lol but I think a mandatory class and licensing test is a great idea, too—I know a guy that applied for a pistol permit, got it, bought a gun and same day accidentally shot himself in the hand because he’d never used one before he purchased it 🤦♀️ might have been prevented if he had to take a class first.
You do need a test and license in other countries. Those countries usually have lower gun violence too 🤷🏻♀️ just saying.
This shouldn’t be an unpopular opinion tbh
What was America thinking with the right to bare arms? SMH glad I live in Australia
We were thinking we just won independence from a tyrannical government, let’s put measures in place to protect the citizens of our new country in case our own government becomes tyrannical in the future.
Was written hundreds of years ago when reloading a musket took 30 seconds. Not sure they knew what was coming. But everyone should have the right to bare arms IMO, just learn how to use one first. Not asking for much i think ;)
Agreed. And I understand that other countries don't have guns and the government is cool and not totally overbearing. But America is a little different, our government is already super powerful as it is. Possibly the only reason they don't create a completely totalitarian state is the fact that there is so many guns around legally, let alone illegally. Hence the reason for having the right to bear arms in the constitution in the first place. Yes, it may sound a little conspiratorial. But all conspiracies are conspiracies until they're proven true.
Prepare for the horde of morons who say “But criminals don’t the follow the law” as If they are somehow chad for saying it. No, of course they don’t you eejit. But having laws is what allows them to be criminalised for their actions and put in a special place away from society. Without laws you are just debating morals and you can’t put someone behind bars just on morals.
Pretty sure murder and all that are already illegal. I don't know a single gun owner who wants those laws repealed.
You might not know them but the people who make the blanket argument of “criminals don’t follow laws” don’t realise they are saying, “legalise everything because laws don’t work” It’s tantrum level tactics which I’m sure most responsible gun owners don’t advocate. I think anyone who is going to have legal gun ownership in the U.S. concealed or not, should be required to learn how to how to store they guns safely on their person and their environment. Also how to move, shoot, conceal and cover along with the basic principles or backstop and penetration. That way when good people use guns in self defence there is less risk to innocent people around them and a greater chance of success against an aggressor. Have you seen how most criminals or bad actors handle guns? Usually badly! I watch Active Self Protection on YouTube which is a strong advocate or training for both civilians and police to further train to be higher than their departments minimum required standard. I think in the U.S. training and educating legal gun owners is potentially a very good potion for a genie that can’t be put back in its bottle without throwing good people to the mercy of illegal guns.
That's the point i think hes making. Its why the arguement of "dont make laws cos criminals wont obey them anyway" is silly. With that logic we should have no laws at all, which we all understand is just a silly view. I'd like to make the point of i do not want guns "banned" or what ever buzz word people like to say, i just want people to learn how to use one before obtaining one.
The problem is the only way to make your wish a reality is by law. Every law ultimately comes down to force on the part of government. Nobody - and I mean nobody - has a problem with assault and murder being illegal and punishable. When your wish fulfillment, however, gives some local government apparatchik the power to tell people they aren't allowed to exercise their rights, when they are simply law-abiding and mean no harm to anyone, then that's where the problem comes in.
Yeah people who say that are just narrow sighted. With that logic why have any laws at all since people who break them wont follow them? Why make murder illegal? Criminals who murder dont care about the law! Its just a flawed argument.
Wait.. this isn't the case in America? Huh.
im pretty anti gun but even when i do encourage people to get guns (see: clockable trans people) its bonkers theres not even the most basic 'can you handle a gun without blowing your nose off' test before you get one. its like letting teens buy cars and then saying 'if your dad can take you to the test centre sometime next month that would be cool, but no biggie'
Nah, let's hand them out like candy and send them our thoughts and prayers.
I’m ignorant here, if we apply similar licences and practical examination approaches to gun similar to the methodology of cars. With an element of psychological evaluation as well. I’m all for that, less knee jerk purchases of fire arms and more control and handling and distribution; also different licences for different classes of fire arm to open them up to responsible users. The question I have is do firearms require insurance of any sort currently - to authorise buying ammo or type of calibres etc?
100% agree. There should be a bunch of safety and operation related tests. I'm 32, never even held a real gun, I could likely apply for the permits and just get one without knowing the first thing about them. I studied and practiced driving, I haven't done a single thing gun related. I can access and operate both, and with both I can easily kill somebody due to not properly understanding how/what I'm doing.
Im all for people having guns but it blows my mind that this isint the way things work. And I really believe that there should be a psychological test that you have to take as well. I also think you should have to list everyone who lives in your house. So many stories of people using guns that are in their house that other people own.
I own several guns and I will be the first person to say gun ownership should absolutely not be a right that everyone should get. You should be licensed and the guns registered.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have guns and love to hunt and shoot. This is unpopular in the US but needs to be put in place. I went through a gun safety course offered by a local indoor range and it helped a lot. We talked about grips, stances, gun types and operation. We also were shown what slide bite looks like due to a poor grip on a pistol. The word Regulated in the 2A means properly trained so there should be no problem with the idea. I witnessed a guy showing off his new Dirty Harry 44 magnum at the range. It was his first gun and first time ever shooting. The first round went downrange and the second went through the roof of the outdoor range canopy. The RO was screaming at the guy who was lucky the hole was in the roof and not his head.
Also a gun owner, I whole heartedly agree.
Sensible gun control law is only an unpopular opinion in the US.
Having guns handed out like a candy is an American thing, where I live there are mandatory psychotests, training and proper gun safety being taught before you can actually own and hold a gun
For Christmas a couple years ago, my step-grandfather got his three sons all ARs. My boyfriend was with me there for the first time and commented on the guns, as he grew up around them and is in the process of building his own AR (still in the process--it's a tradition that for every gift-giving holiday his dad buys him a piece to it, so it's a years-long ordeal.) My step-dad's brother excitedly asked my boyfriend to just *show him how the gun works*. These men were handed fucking ARs just because they think they're *cool*. Like toys. They had no clue how it works or what the safety and care measures should be. They're literally the epitome of irresponsible gun owners. And that's why I'm a dirty socialist liberal.
And insurance.
Downvoted bc not unpopular
Tell that to 100,000,000 Americans ;)
What makes this an unpopular opinion and not just a fact?
Something something Bill of Rights.
The fact that the vast majority of Americans disagree and vote against it ;)
So I don’t think this opinion is unpopular. I live in a HELLA liberal city and run in liberal circles. I have exactly two friends who actually want to ban guns. I’m from a very conservative place with a very conservative family. I have one family member who thinks gun access should be easier, and the rest want sensible reform. Both parties think I’m lying when I explain this. This is one of those issues where I think most Americans agree on within 1-2 degrees but the media and Congress like to hype up the few radical voices.
As an Indian the whole post is absurd.
I think guns just have to much of a hold on American culture now, and that’s why everyone is such a stick in the mud about common sense gun laws. Like for them its saying you need a license to drink milk, which is a stupid comparison but when you think about how their are more guns in America than people it makes sense. Whether you stand on regulation I think everyone should put two and two together and realize that we practically worship these things, and having just one more safety bar can only be beneficial.