The Glade 4.0

Aye, but I'm looking to prevent, not penalize.

Not sure what FFL stands for, but my understanding is that things like gun shows and other private sales don't have the same background check requirements that dealers do. Is that not the case?

Maybe it's because I'm good at math, but I'm willing to accept that risk.

If their disability would make it far more likely that they might inadvertently injure someone else? Yes.

If you're too blind to distinguish between people/clearly see targets 20 yards away, you should not be shooting at them. We don't let people who can't see play Russian Roulette with their cars, why would we let them do it with guns?

Similarly, if you don't have the arm and hand strength to control a DE, you shouldn't be shooting it.

And if you can't consistently hit what you're aiming, you shouldn't be shooting it.

And yes, DE, that's whats happened to all my friends who got overpowered guns too. They just wanted something big and badass, not something that would actually be a good personal defense weapon. Especially since half of them are using it in their homes, where a shotgun would be far better.

I want people like Elmo to have guns.

So you'd be fine with your neighbor in a normal suburb house (1/4 acre lot maybe) firing their gun on their property?

You are beginning with the assumption that...firearm owners are retards that pop off shots just to hear a bang?

Federally Firearm License - dealers. All dealers at a gun show also do this. Private sales vary from state to state here in pa handguns that are not direct family transfer have to go through an FFL while long guns may be sold without doing so.

I can't speak for Aizle, but personally, I make no such assumption about firearm owners generally. A guy who fires his gun for practice and/or fun on his 1/4 acre lot in a suburb, though? Yep, that guy's an irresponsible dipshit.

I'm assuming you didn't read my next post where I clarified that I'm talking about usage, rather than ownership? That I have no problem with people owning whatever guns they like, as well as using them (within reasonable limits) on their own property, but that I have issue with them being carried and used in public?

In other words, I think that at least my state doesn't do enough in either Hunter Safety or for a CCW to ensure that people actually have the ability to use what they are now licensed to carry in public?

There are already laws in place covering my "abilities" with a firearm. If I fire blindly, I can be charged with reckless endangerment at a minimum. Where's the 20 yards rule come from? What if the blind individual wants a firearm only to protect themselves at point blank range? Sure, there's better weapons for this, but how do we get to say that they are not allowed to own a specific tool because they are blind? I get not having the privilege to drive on public roads, but they can still ride on them. They can still own a car. Laws should govern how they use it, not whether they can own it.

What if they just want to be collectors and don't intend to use it? Why should they be cut out of the market for this? What if they want to be a dealer? I don't see being blind as sufficient cause to prevent this.

So then, A) what percentage of the firearm population does "that guy" represent and, B) we already have "reckless discharge of a firearm" laws.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

I have very few issues with guns being registered in a ballistics data base, but major issues with gun owners being tied to that registration in any way.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Governments have no business knowing what private property it's citizens own, especially when that particular piece of property is central, historically, to the freedom of those citizens.

Weapons have never been hard to come by for any revolution. This sentiment is an AMERICAN: **** YEAH! canard.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Like with every other database of subsets of the citizenry, it is rife with the potential for abuse. Governments have no business knowing what private property it's citizens own, especially when that particular piece of property is central, historically, to the freedom of those citizens.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

I'm confused. I'm not sure where we disagree, shuyung, so let me clarify. My view is that, barring exigent circumstances, firing a gun in a suburban, residential setting (i) is a negligent act, (ii) should be prohibited and penalized as such and (iii) in fact probably is prohibited and penalized as such in most if not all US jurisdictions. Do you disagree with any of that?