GUN CONTROL – How about this for legislation?

RURAL AREAS

Every adult legally present in the US, can carry a loaded non-automatic fire-arm in public

However, he/she must pass an accuracy exam every three years for $50 that verifies that he/she can hit a still target at 25 feet with no misses in three shots. (The goal is to greatly reduce the incidents of killing innocent by-standers.)

If you fail the test you can re-take it as many times as you like (and pay for it) until you pass it but you cannot possess both a fire-arm and bullets in public until you pass the test and get your renewal approved. You can carry both of them separately (i.e., an unloaded weapon) on the day of your scheduled exam and on days scheduled for practice at a firing range.

The exams occur at state-licensed establishments (SLE) such as firing ranges. If the SLE is found to violate the exam process and to issue approvals inappropriately, the SLE owner can face stiff fines and imprisonment. The SLE must retain video footage of each exam on a server for three years.

CITIES

Due to condensed populations and increased numbers of bystanders, cities would have other rules that we won’t consider here.

EXCEPTIONS

There can be other exceptions such as prohibiting felons from carrying but that is unimportant for the purpose of this discussion.

11 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 month ago

    Can't just say "cities would be different" and walk away from it.

    You already can't have an automatic firearm. Make it revolvers, and I'm in.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Bruce
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    It will have little to no effect, as it does not take into account the heightened emotions present during a real shooting.

    Once every three years will do nothing. That would be like trying to lose weight by going to the gym every three years, or trying to improve you golf game by practicing once every three years. 

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    I think it sucks eggs backwards. How will you get the criminals to comply?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Would you be comfortable with placing similar restrictions upon your other constitutional rights?

    Pay $50 to take a spelling/grammar test before you're allowed to speak freely?

    Pay $50 to demonstrate you're knowledgeable enough about a religion before you're allowed to attend service/mass/temple/or whatever your religion of choice calls their gatherings.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Nuff Sed
      Lv 7
      1 month agoReport

      If they can legally pass laws that infringe your right to bear arms, there is nothing to prevent them from prohibiting your religion or your freedom to complain about it.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    Forget it. Now go dream up something else.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DO NOT STATE THEY COME WITH CONDITIONS.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Nuff Sed
      Lv 7
      1 month agoReport

      Fried Kitten apparently doesn't know the difference between a Constitutional right and a state-authorized privilege, such as driving a vehicle on a public way.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • In
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    I favor open carry for all mentally competent non-felons over the age of 21 without ANY prior restrictions on a constitutionally guaranteed right.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    That would be unfair since the real criminals would still have millions of semi autos

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    You can't do that, because the $50 mandated fee is discriminatory against poor people that can't afford it.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Nuff Sed
      Lv 7
      1 month agoReport

      Car insurance is not universally required, but requiring it is also not a violation of any constitutionally protected right. 

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    cities already have much stricter gun laws than in rural areas

    the u.s has more guns than its entire population, so it wouldn't make that big of a difference.

    one could easily buy a gun in a smaller town and transport it to the city or across states with stricter gun laws

    Mexico has strict gun laws, but people still have guns there and gun violence exists because much of the guns in mexico are imported from the u.s giving criminals and gangs such easy access to them

    the only reason why countries like Japan have little to no gun related deaths is because they don't even have a gun culture or that many guns in the first place 

    the u.s has had a gun loving culture for centuries and its too culturally embedded amongst many people to ever change anytime soon

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.