However, if you look at the UK, the homicide rates per 100,000 are higher than the US
Categorically, unquestionably, hilariously wrong.
UK- 0.92 intentional homicides per 100,000 citizens per year.
US- 4.88 intentional homicides per 100,000 citizens per year.
You aren't just wrong by a little bit. The murder rate in the US is FIVE TIMES that of the UK. Five times. It's simply unfathomable that you could come up with such utterly delusional drivel.
gun control will not do anything but hinder those who get them legally.
Think you're going to need to substantiate this with evidence. Can you cite a single example of introduction of firearms legislation impacting the availability of firearms for law abiding citizens whilst simultaneously not impeding criminal's access? I'd be amazed if you could.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, legislation designed to restrict access to firearms for those with criminal convictions or previous history of mental illness has a significant downward pressure of firearm related death rates.
Except who will pay for mandatory training? The government?
No, the citizens. If they can afford a couple of hundred dollars for a handgun, they can afford a $40 half day safety course. But really we're talking outliers here. The majority of firearm owners possess multiple weapons so the cost of training is entirely negligible.
I'm not exactly taking ULPaperContact's side on this, but...
"Can you cite a single example of introduction of firearms legislation impacting the availability of firearms for law abiding citizens whilst simultaneously not impeding criminal's access?"
Yeah, the Brady Bill. After Hinckley shot Regan, they changed the federal firearms act to state that anyone who has been involuntarily held for a 72 hour period to be a "prohibited person", and unable to pass an ATF background-check that all Federal Firearms Licensed dealers must use before selling a firearm. So, basically in a nutshell, if you've ever been depressed and someone thought you might kill yourself for an example, and you had to undergo a 72 hour hold, you then become a "prohibited person" in the eye's of the ATF thanks to the Brady Bill.
Meanwhile, in states with "private sales", there is no way for a person to know if they're selling to a criminal, or a mentally ill "prohibited person", so the Brady Bill is certainly more effective IN SOME STATES at keeping hands out of law abiding citizens--though they may be "mentally ill"--than it is effective at keeping them out of the hands of criminals. Consequently, it's also good at turning law abiding citizens into criminals, because more often than not they don't even realize they're not allowed to own a gun. Now of course, this might not be the case if states stopped allowing private sales, but just because a state legislates against the private sales doesn't mean they don't still happen.
"No, the citizens. If they can afford a couple of hundred dollars for a handgun, they can afford a $40 half day safety course. But really we're talking outliers here. The majority of firearm owners possess multiple weapons so the cost of training is entirely negligible."
This is an unfortunate position that a lot of people take, forgetting that Americans view gun ownership as a right and not a privilege one is supposed to save one's pennies for. The idea for needing a gun is based upon needing it for self-defense, though I believe their merit in this regard is pretty limited. However, guns in America are much cheaper than a couple hundred bucks; you can get a revolver in a pawn shop to put under your pillow for $60 if it's all dinged up, and there's plenty of Chinese made $100 guns. If you lived in a hovel, with paper thin windows and doors that barely locked, you might feel like you need a lucky charm to sleep too. I don't really agree with the logic, but I can see why some people do.
Now, I bring up the cost because when you end up becoming a "prohibited person" via the Brady Bill, there's a system through which you basically must purchase your rights back. You have to "petition the court", but of course that is not free. So you have to spend a couple hundred bucks just to buy back your ability to buy a $60 gun to put under your pillow and make you feel safe. Let's just ignore that statistically that makes you more likely to get shot or shoot yourself. The point is more in the principle that this is supposed to be a "right" that in every way a person must basically pay to exercise. I'm not so sure that we really should regard gun ownership as a right in this country, but I know we're definitely not treating it as a right with the current state of the law, whether we claim we still do or not.
I think it's very scary to include mental illnesses under the criteria of things that can preclude someone from owning a gun. There's an estimate that 60 million Americans have an undiagnosed mental illness, so if the gun-grabber conspiracy theorists really wanted to look at a viable and plausible gun-grab strategy, then legislating away gun ownership based on "mental health" should bring chills down their spine.
It's certainly ironic, because people more often now than ever want to throw the mentally ill under the bus. "It's not lax gun laws, it's just crazy people getting guns when they should be in nut houses." People are ready and willing to totally overlook the rights of the mentally ill and scapegoat them, when in reality mentally ill people are far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrator. With that in mind, you'd think that the "pro self-defense" crowd would be advocating MORE for them to be able to own guns ( provided a doctor deem them safe of course ), but you don't see that very much. It's too useful of a scapegoat to just blame "crazy people" for mass shootings, and they just thrown them right under the bus to deflect against meaningful discussions about more regulations. It only takes one "nut" Adam Lanza killing 26 kids to make people forget about the other 10,000 gun homicides a year perpetrated by "normal" people.
Our gun laws are just such a mess that you can be a "prohibited person" in one state, and then go across to the state over and not be flagged on an ATF background check. Or, you can be ordered to "outpatient" treatment instead of "inpatient" and not be flagged on an ATF background check. Both of these situations have happened, and have lead to shootings when background checks should have stopped them from getting a gun. In the meantime, the same restrictions have kept misdemeanor drug offenders from owning guns, people suffering with depression or bipolarism from owning guns, etc. You really open up a whole new can of worms discussing whether these people should really be prevented from owning guns.
There's also another side... We realize that convicted felons, and batsh*t psychotics who want to kill people, don't care whether or not they buy a gun on the black market. It's hard to argue against the fact that gun laws only effect the people actually willing to follow the law, so by definition they only stop "law-abiding" citizens. Of course that is just semantics, and people generally mean "good guys" when they say law-abiding, they generally mean "sane" people.
But really... Should a hard-working adult who has a misdemeanor charge for pot from when he was a teenager be labeled not safe enough to own a gun? Because he is according to the ATF. Should a guy who lost his wife or loved-one and became over-stricken with grief and hospitalized for 72 hours be considered not safe enough to own a gun decades later when he's retired and wants to buy his dream-rifle? Again, he is according to the ATF. These things actually happen. I had to learn the process of how to petition the court from a Navy veteran whose wife wanted to target shoot with him, but had been subjected to a 72 hour watch when her son died in a drunk driving accident. Meanwhile, I had a friend who couldn't go target shooting with me because he'd been charged with possession. Oh lord, don't let those dangerous nut cases get guns!
The irony of me saying that though, is that a simple gun-safety course, training programs, evaluations, etc.... They would actually ensure the ability for "good people" to own guns. Instead of just looking at someone's "background" and making a prejudiced decision, what if a person could hand a doctors note saying, "This person is not a danger to themselves or anyone else," to a certified firearms training instructor, and then go through a course that proves it? That would actually ensure people who are safe, who are "good" could have guns. I think realistically though, when you consider the cost of the American healthcare system, and the way we enjoy privatizing things, it would quickly turn into quite a costly endeavor to be "certified" in this manner. Just think about how much it costs for some people to get a driver's license, and there's no need for a mental health evaluation for that.
I think that gun owners and 2A supporters are actually mutually exclusive groups. A lot of gun owners don't give a rat's ass if someone who is depressed can't get a gun; it's not their problem, and they're more than happy to have someone to scapegoat to deflect legislation away from their own guns. When it comes to the idea of the 2nd Amendment as a right, however, that's where it becomes a much more entangled mess to navigate because any bit of meaningful restriction could be construed as a violation of that right. It's this conflict that has lead to such little compromise that the only legislation that is able to pass is bad legislation that's more symbolic than effective.