[deleted]

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Any time something is hard to get then it is available to whoever has power and denied to minorities. While you may not have intended to mean that, it is the end result of the approach you are promoting.

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        How do you propose keeping guns away from people prone to violence, criminals, and the insane?

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          There is a massive gap between handing out guns in happy meals and being hard to get.

          Committing violent crimes or being of unsound mind are perfectly fine reasons for restricting possession as long as there is due process and the possibility of restoring the rights under certain conditions. If someone is charged with a violent crime then they shouldn’t have possession of firearms until that matter is settled.

          There will always be the cases where someone has zero history of violence before they commit a crime so it wouldn’t be perfect, but even in the US most states have restrictions based on obvious reasons someone shouldn’t have a gun.

      • bufalo1973@europe.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Hard to get doesn’t mean expensive. It means you can’t have it if you can’t handle it. Like a car. Nobody would give a driving license to a blind person. And nobody should have a gun permit if you are mentally unstable.