this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2021
21 points (92.0% liked)
Asklemmy
49266 readers
754 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I believe people with a history of violence should be prevented from acquiring firearms and related stuff, but the general population should have access to most stuff. People with a criminal history that is non-violent shouldn't necessarily be prohibited (getting caught smoking pot for example).
Favorite idea I've heard so far is a registry of people who are prohibited--what background checks are supposed to accomplish.
This prevents the government from tracking who has what, and also doesn't negatively impact law abiding citizens like most proposed gun laws. Allowing most stuff also can help reduce the illegal market.
What seriously irritates me is that the focus is constantly put on firearms when it really should be mental health. You wouldn't put a band-aid on a severe leg and believe that solved the problem would you?
I'm strongly against anything that specifically targets lower income people, such as licenses and tax stamps (e.g. FOID card in Illinois).