colourwheel Posted January 2, 2013 Author Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) As it stands now, you have to be over 21, no criminal history, and no history of mental health issues (if anyone would actually SHARE that information with gun boards....) in order to get a permit to carry a weapon. Background checks are performed just to purchase a handgun. Honestly we can do better than this... Attempting to pass legislation that would effectively require a bachelors degree to purchase weapons has about as much chance of passing into law as an outright ban. It would have pretty much the same effect as well.... The gun-owners would be REALLY put out by such legislation.... Something else to consider is, you can't make such legislation retroactive.... so, all those folks that currently own guns, can't be required to turn them in until they meet the new requirements. So, even if it DID pass...... it would have no effect at all for decades. (lifespan of weapons already in circulation.) Just to be clear.... Was never advocating retroactive legislation. If you already have your guns you can keep them. This proposal of needing a 4 year bachelors degree in firearms is more meaningful means to reduce violent shootings in the long run for decades to come. Remember back in the 80's when the legal drinking age was changed to 21 from 18? people who were already 18 after the date of the new law took effect were not effect to the new drinking laws. those people who happen to turn 18 a day before the law went into effect could go to bars and drink their nights away from 18 to 21. yet, renewing your firearms license is a different story... (maybe expect people who already have a licence to take a short crash course then a short test. kinda like getting a GED.) Still, no one is going to come to your home and take your guns away if you already acquired them legally!!! This proposal of education I see no one should really have a big problem with if the idea is for meaningful reform to gun laws to reduce violent crimes in the long run. No one is expecting drastic immediate stop to all gun violence and shootings across the nation to just vanish in one day, that is completely unrealistic. My proposal wheather people like the idea or not does not touch the 2nd amendment. This idea is for the long run..... Edited January 2, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 As it stands now, you have to be over 21, no criminal history, and no history of mental health issues (if anyone would actually SHARE that information with gun boards....) in order to get a permit to carry a weapon. Background checks are performed just to purchase a handgun. Honestly we can do better than this... Attempting to pass legislation that would effectively require a bachelors degree to purchase weapons has about as much chance of passing into law as an outright ban. It would have pretty much the same effect as well.... The gun-owners would be REALLY put out by such legislation.... Something else to consider is, you can't make such legislation retroactive.... so, all those folks that currently own guns, can't be required to turn them in until they meet the new requirements. So, even if it DID pass...... it would have no effect at all for decades. (lifespan of weapons already in circulation.) Just to be clear.... Was never advocating retroactive legislation. If you already have your guns you can keep them. This proposal of needing a 4 year bachelors degree in firearms is more meaningful means to reduce violent shooting in the long run for decades to come. Remember back in the 80's when the legal drinking age was changed to 21 from 18? people who were already 18 after the date of the new law took effect were not effect to the new drinking laws. those people who happen to turn 18 a day before the law went into effect could go to bars and drink their nights away from 18 to 21. yet, renewing your firearms license is a different story... (maybe expect people who already have a licence to take a short crash course then a short test. kinda like getting a GED.) Still, no one is going to come to your home and take your guns away if you already acquired them legally!!! This proposal of education I see no one should really have a big problem with if the idea is for meaningful reform to gun laws to reduce violent crimes in the long run. No one is expecting drastic immediate stop to all gun violence and shootings across the nation to just vanish in one day, that is completely unrealistic. My proposal wheather people like the idea or not does not touch the 2nd amendment. This idea is for the long run..... But that's just the problem. Changing gun laws has zero net effect on crimes committed with them. You are falling in to the same trap as the politicians, thinking legislation is the answer. It isn't. Not to mention, that method would be EXTREMELY long-term..... and the first step towards an outright ban in any event. It would have zero chance of actually passing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 2, 2013 Author Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) As it stands now, you have to be over 21, no criminal history, and no history of mental health issues (if anyone would actually SHARE that information with gun boards....) in order to get a permit to carry a weapon. Background checks are performed just to purchase a handgun. Honestly we can do better than this... Attempting to pass legislation that would effectively require a bachelors degree to purchase weapons has about as much chance of passing into law as an outright ban. It would have pretty much the same effect as well.... The gun-owners would be REALLY put out by such legislation.... Something else to consider is, you can't make such legislation retroactive.... so, all those folks that currently own guns, can't be required to turn them in until they meet the new requirements. So, even if it DID pass...... it would have no effect at all for decades. (lifespan of weapons already in circulation.) Just to be clear.... Was never advocating retroactive legislation. If you already have your guns you can keep them. This proposal of needing a 4 year bachelors degree in firearms is more meaningful means to reduce violent shootings in the long run for decades to come. Remember back in the 80's when the legal drinking age was changed to 21 from 18? people who were already 18 after the date of the new law took effect were not effect to the new drinking laws. those people who happen to turn 18 a day before the law went into effect could go to bars and drink their nights away from 18 to 21. yet, renewing your firearms license is a different story... (maybe expect people who already have a licence to take a short crash course then a short test. kinda like getting a GED.) Still, no one is going to come to your home and take your guns away if you already acquired them legally!!! This proposal of education I see no one should really have a big problem with if the idea is for meaningful reform to gun laws to reduce violent crimes in the long run. No one is expecting drastic immediate stop to all gun violence and shootings across the nation to just vanish in one day, that is completely unrealistic. My proposal wheather people like the idea or not does not touch the 2nd amendment. This idea is for the long run..... But that's just the problem. Changing gun laws has zero net effect on crimes committed with them. You are falling in to the same trap as the politicians, thinking legislation is the answer. It isn't. Not to mention, that method would be EXTREMELY long-term..... and the first step towards an outright ban in any event. It would have zero chance of actually passing. I would have to disagree with you on this but I respect your standing. Wheather it's short term or EXTREMELY long-term is irrelevant. This idea is more realiztic to mass reduction of violent shootings over decades to come as well as it being more realistic than trying to ban guns to begin with. I can understand if you just don't like this proposal, but I still fail to see a good arguement to convience me this idea wouldn't work (since nothing like this has ever been done before. which i can understand people are always scared of change). Education has much more of a greater effect than most realize, just look at history. Would be interesting to see how others feel about this type of proposal. Edited January 2, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 We do seem to be monopolizing the conversation.... :D I will grant you that education needs to be at the very least, part of the answer, but, it isn't going to be the whole cookie. The requirements you propose would be tantamount to a ban.... as anyone wanting to purchase a weapon would be looking at basically a four year waiting period.... not to mention the imposed expense of said education. Only the relatively rich would be able to afford it... which may not be a direct violation of our second amendment rights, but, it sure is a back door method of curtailing them. (thus, why I think it would be ruled unconstitutional) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 2, 2013 Author Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) We do seem to be monopolizing the conversation.... :D lol atleast you are playing by the debate rules :laugh: I notice most the time people don't actaully debate they just rant or get angry if they don't agree with ones standing. I will grant you that education needs to be at the very least, part of the answer, but, it isn't going to be the whole cookie. The requirements you propose would be tantamount to a ban.... as anyone wanting to purchase a weapon would be looking at basically a four year waiting period.... not to mention the imposed expense of said education. Only the relatively rich would be able to afford it... which may not be a direct violation of our second amendment rights, but, it sure is a back door method of curtailing them. (thus, why I think it would be ruled unconstitutional) If people can afford a car they shouldn't be complaining to spend money on wanting to own guns. Guns are not free to begin with. No where in the constitution does it even remotely imply we should have affordable guns (just look at the kind of country we live in. the NRA makes huge money on guns). It would actaully make gun owners have more appreciation for their accomplishment of owning firearms. You don't see car owners after spending $15,000 or more on a car to go out and recklessly abuse it. Also my idea does not touch the second amendment rights. Would be interesting to see how the supreme court would take up a case on it if someone brought it up claiming it to be unconstitutional. Only the relatively rich would be able to afford it... which may not be a direct violation of our second amendment rights, but, it sure is a back door method of curtailing them. ironic... Just like severely limiting the union rights of teachers and other public employees done through legislation.... Seems only the rich can actually afford to teach anymore to educate the future of america at the wages of teachers who have no rights to collectively bargin.... Hire cheap inexperienced teachers to replace well eductated and experienced teachers who been working the same job for years, and we wonder why the youth of america is so ignorant these days... Edited January 2, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Ok, so, I don't need any real training to go out and buy a 60,000 car, and drive it around, but, I have to go to school for four years to buy a 100 dollar gun? :D I don't think that's gonna fly. How much is said training going to cost? At this point, a typical college degree is pushing 100,000 dollars.... but, they usually give you the ability to get a good job, and pay them back. The same price for the "privilege" of gun ownership isn't going to have the same kind of return on investment that most other degrees would..... so, it's basically flushing money down the toilet. "You may own a house, or, you can have the opportunity to purchase a weapon to defend it, but, not both." is going to be the end result. You might just as well ban guns altogether, as you would be accomplishing the same thing. Maybe in 50 years or so, such legislation might start having some small impact on gun crime.... maybe.... more likely result would be a booming black market in illegal weapons, just as the prohibition of alcohol spawned many crime organizations in the 20's. (I could also see a host of 'online universities' springing up offering 'weapon degrees'.... :) ) I should think someone would have to certify those programs as well, universities would have to hire instructors, and build facilities, teachers would have to be trained, and then certified, etc. All of which would introduce more cost, more government bureaucracy, and higher tuition costs to cover the cost of the infrastructure required...... it would be at least five years before any of it could be implemented at all.... alternative would be... no gun sales for close to ten years..... of course, by that time, all the gun manufacturers (aside from those supplying the government) would be gone..... Moved to some other country where things would be friendlier.... or at least, less restrictive. All that aside though..... it still would have zero impact on gun crime for the foreseeable future. The mass-shooters, and criminals, invariably acquire their weapons thru less than honest means. All this would do would be to create yet another black market for the criminals to make money from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 2, 2013 Author Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) How much is said training going to cost? At this point, a typical college degree is pushing 100,000 dollars.... $100,000 for a bachelors degree? Seriously?:rolleyes: Sure If you are expecting to go to somewhere like Brown or some other private college. I am sure if there were schools design just for firearms education it would be affordable enough where it could be realistically around $6,500 tuition a year at most. Also why can't a firearms education lead to employment? Being able to use firearms is just as much as a skill as something like Electronics Engineering. This idea could lead to creating more jobs in America even leading to employment at the school one was actually trained at. I don't see a black market in illegal weapons, just like the prohibition of alcohol to spawn crime organizations to happen since firearms would not actually be banned nor having online universities springing up offering "weapon degrees" since firearms are federally regulated as they are with current existing laws. I should think someone would have to certify those programs as well, universities would have to hire instructors, and build facilities, teachers would have to be trained, and then certified, etc. All of which would introduce more cost, more government bureaucracy, and higher tuition costs to cover the cost of the infrastructure required...... You honestly think something like the NRA has a lack of money to organize something like this? :rolleyes: Ideally these schools would be funded by organization like the NRA as well as funded by the government. In all practicality this would actually generate more money for the NRA as well as the government. it would be at least five years before any of it could be implemented at all.... Never was implying this was going to be something that could ultimately happen over night and the idea alone was never ment to effect the immediate future. alternative would be... no gun sales for close to ten years..... of course, by that time, all the gun manufacturers (aside from those supplying the government) would be gone..... Moved to some other country where things would be friendlier.... or at least, less restrictive. You really think the general public even makes a dent in sales for manufactures? It's military, police, and other federal organizations that buy the most firearms in America. Sure some manufactures might move their demestic public sales away but just like any business some move away while others stay around it's how capitalism works. All that aside though..... it still would have zero impact on gun crime for the foreseeable future. You can't say you know this nor do I. But it is more meaningful gun reform than arming all teachers in schools around the nation. I have said it before my idea is for the long run to last for future generations. I honestly believe my idea would drastically cut down if not ultimately reduce gun violence in america where it crimes related to gun would become very rare. Also... @HeyYou if i remember correctly you were the one originally suggesting education and cooperation between various government agencies. What exactly did you have in mind when you made this suggestion? Perhaps EDUCATION, or even some cooperation between various government agencies would be more effective...... Edited January 2, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naomis8329 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Any form of gun reform is all good and well however, unless it applies to all with no State being able to "opt out" through referendum etc, then it wont get very far. Again you can't have one rule for one and something completely different for others. The American constitution whilst one of the most amazing documents of all time, seems destined to stall any meaningful reform to protect its citizens. "The Right to Bear Arms" will be fought zealously I would imagine and until everyone can see that reform needs to be implemented for the safety of others, then these types of disasters will keep on happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syco21 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 A four year education requirement would be a violation of our rights. For one, it'd require registration and licensing. If the government can tell me when and how I am allowed to exercise a right, the that right becomes a privilege, not a right. I think that the NFA, GCA, Hughes Amendment, Brady Bill and GFZs are unacceptable violations of my rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 2, 2013 Author Share Posted January 2, 2013 I think that the NFA, GCA, Hughes Amendment, Brady Bill and GFZs are unacceptable violations of my rights. Goodluck advocating to reform all the above... :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts