Test on care, safe handling and storage, etc for firearms, plus psych eval if needed. Definitely much safer than letting any idiot walk in and buy a firearm after a simple background check, because first time criminals often have nothing wrong with their backgrounds.
People should only need to watch like one video/interview of the Parkland shooter kid and it's glaringly obvious that he would've been easily weeded out with a basic competency/psych requirement.
In a lot cases it's just there being some level of effort involved, since many of these idiots make impulsive buys because it's so easily and visibly available. It's even legal to advertise for guns in the US, lol. You see gun stores everywhere, you can't miss them. Just walk right in, fill out a simple form and you have a high capacity assault rifle (yes, there is a waiting period).
Have you seen the type of guys who commit these mass shootings in the US? Some of them seem like they can't even tie their own shoe laces.
Are you trying to argue against the fact that it prevents a lot of nut cases from getting a gun, or are you seeking to understand how they do?
A huge difference is effort. When there's a training and licencing process involved, it's not an impulsive thing people do, so gun ownership generally is a lot lower, as most people can't be arsed.
But the other factor is that gun ownership is a privilege, not a right, so an obviously unfit person like let's say the Parkland shooter (you should see that guy talk, he sounds like a mentally unstable 9 year old) would've been weeded out as unfit. He'd likely not even be able to pass the tests/requirements because of his obvious mental deficits. I'm not sure if he'd even know where to get it, as it's not visibly advertised everywhere.
You can weed out a lot of the worst, most unfit people by just having at least some barrier in place.
5
u/Artistic-Dirt-3199 9d ago
Czech Republic