I am a US Navy veteran and a proponent of more in depth background checks being implemented prior to purchasing a weapon capable of projecting any device at range that can take a life. This includes everything from a crossbow to a firearm of any calibre. I realize this may be stepping out a bit as many out there may feel arrow based weapons should not be included but I will tell you, in the right hands, they are formidable and capable of taking multiple lives in a very short period of time.....from a substantial distance.
I limit my intent here to weapons that can project or send a deadly projectile or device at range from a remote and concealed location. Yes, one could mount a MK 46 in the back of a box van...but lets keep things real here.....or at least somewhat real!
My feeling is, based on what I know and have seen since my involvement with the military, background checks are simply not thorough enough and need to be expanded upon in an attempt to eliminate some persons that truly should not have weapons ....from owning them. I realize bad guys don't care about whats legal and will always do and have what they want regardless of the potential repercussions..I am talking about law abiding persons that want to own weapons but simply are not capable of being safe with them and would pose a threat to others around them if they were allowed to own and use them without instructions.
I am considering certification courses for applicants based on what they are trying to buy. I am also proposing more extensive background checks to buy weapons period as in my opinion, it is simply too easy to walk in and buy them....! I will never condone disarming American citizens so do not think for a minute I am suggesting that. I don't believe in magazine limitation either as the gun truly is only as dangerous as the shooter...not the magazine or ammo.....It is just too easy to buy a formidable weapon....
Certification courses would provide jobs and would only increase the cost of owning weapons as a whole.....not individually every time one buys one. Its a license like any other license...simply indicating a course was taken and was passed by the holder of the license on how to safely own, handle, transport and operate various weapons so as to not put innocents in harms way. I believe there should be a few levels as well thinking someone that wants to use a crossbow shouldn't have to go through a high powered firearm course....and vice versa.....
Not thinking the course costs would be high either.. The background check could be performed prior to the course commencement indicating to the instructor the students he is teaching have already passed a basic background screening.
It is my opinion some things certainly should require some form of basic instructions prior to being allowed to do. Skydiving requires basic lessons to perform....as does scuba diving ( actual certification required to fill tanks and/or buy equipment in smany cases ). Many sports require instructions ( and certifications in some cases ) that do not endanger anyone other than the individual performing the sport. Why not a firearms license? Not getting into second amendment issues here...this is strictly from a safety point of view.
I realize some do not believe in any increase of how extensive background checks should go but I do because incidents such as Orlando could have been thwarted if restrictions were stricter. He had enough of a questionable background where he should have been disarmed and watched...... No Fly....No Buy is a given...but it is not restrictive enough....If a guy has a record of numerous traffic citations and a few misdemeanors as well, it indicates to me he does not respect law and is not a great candidate to own an assault rifle.....Perhaps he could buy a .22 single shot pistol.....but not an AR 15.........
A 12 year old buying his first rifle after going through a course perhaps should start with a .22......or a 410 shotgun....and not jump right into a Remington M 70 30/06........or a 12 gauge " 870 "........
Thoughts???
I limit my intent here to weapons that can project or send a deadly projectile or device at range from a remote and concealed location. Yes, one could mount a MK 46 in the back of a box van...but lets keep things real here.....or at least somewhat real!
My feeling is, based on what I know and have seen since my involvement with the military, background checks are simply not thorough enough and need to be expanded upon in an attempt to eliminate some persons that truly should not have weapons ....from owning them. I realize bad guys don't care about whats legal and will always do and have what they want regardless of the potential repercussions..I am talking about law abiding persons that want to own weapons but simply are not capable of being safe with them and would pose a threat to others around them if they were allowed to own and use them without instructions.
I am considering certification courses for applicants based on what they are trying to buy. I am also proposing more extensive background checks to buy weapons period as in my opinion, it is simply too easy to walk in and buy them....! I will never condone disarming American citizens so do not think for a minute I am suggesting that. I don't believe in magazine limitation either as the gun truly is only as dangerous as the shooter...not the magazine or ammo.....It is just too easy to buy a formidable weapon....
Certification courses would provide jobs and would only increase the cost of owning weapons as a whole.....not individually every time one buys one. Its a license like any other license...simply indicating a course was taken and was passed by the holder of the license on how to safely own, handle, transport and operate various weapons so as to not put innocents in harms way. I believe there should be a few levels as well thinking someone that wants to use a crossbow shouldn't have to go through a high powered firearm course....and vice versa.....
Not thinking the course costs would be high either.. The background check could be performed prior to the course commencement indicating to the instructor the students he is teaching have already passed a basic background screening.
It is my opinion some things certainly should require some form of basic instructions prior to being allowed to do. Skydiving requires basic lessons to perform....as does scuba diving ( actual certification required to fill tanks and/or buy equipment in smany cases ). Many sports require instructions ( and certifications in some cases ) that do not endanger anyone other than the individual performing the sport. Why not a firearms license? Not getting into second amendment issues here...this is strictly from a safety point of view.
I realize some do not believe in any increase of how extensive background checks should go but I do because incidents such as Orlando could have been thwarted if restrictions were stricter. He had enough of a questionable background where he should have been disarmed and watched...... No Fly....No Buy is a given...but it is not restrictive enough....If a guy has a record of numerous traffic citations and a few misdemeanors as well, it indicates to me he does not respect law and is not a great candidate to own an assault rifle.....Perhaps he could buy a .22 single shot pistol.....but not an AR 15.........
A 12 year old buying his first rifle after going through a course perhaps should start with a .22......or a 410 shotgun....and not jump right into a Remington M 70 30/06........or a 12 gauge " 870 "........
Thoughts???
