[Dismas]

Found this to be an interesting approach, although I'm personally against it. This legislation would force people to own guns, which seems counter-intuitive in terms of freedoms. Better than a ban?

A Republican lawmaker in Missouri wants to require adults in his state to purchase handguns and AR-15 rifles.

Two bills introduced by state Rep. Andrew McDaniel would require residents to purchase firearms while providing $1 million in tax credits on a first-come, first-served basis to residents who fall under the law.

The first bill, the McDaniel Second Amendment Act, would require Missouri residents aged 21 or older to purchase a handgun. It also would allot up to $1 million per year in tax credits for residents who purchased weapons to comply with the law. The bill was filed in late February.

The second bill, the McDaniel Militia Act, was filed days after the handgun bill and would require Missouri residents aged 18 to 35 to purchase an AR-15. It also would provide a tax credit of up to $1 million per year to incentivize the purchase of weapons.

While the bills do not specify any penalties for adults who refuse to comply with the provisions, both stipulate that the Missouri Department of Revenue can "promulgate rules to implement the provisions of this section." The bills would sunset in six years if not extended by the state legislature.

They would not apply to felons or residents otherwise prohibited from owning firearms.

Both bills have received two readings in the Missouri House but have no hearings or further action scheduled so far, according to the state House's website.

Read More: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/missou...li=BBnbfcL

[phyrrus9]

It's no better than a ban. In fact, it actually is a ban in disguise. It's a ban on gun-free homes. Guns have become an ever more partisan debate. The left went to the extreme on bans and confiscation, and now unfortunately the mainstream right is moving to the opposite extreme. Neither side actually seems to care about the real issue: freedom. You should be free to own whatever gun you like, or free to decide that it's not for you.

[Dismas]

It's no better than a ban. In fact, it actually is a ban in disguise. It's a ban on gun-free homes. Guns have become an ever more partisan debate. The left went to the extreme on bans and confiscation, and now unfortunately the mainstream right is moving to the opposite extreme. Neither side actually seems to care about the real issue: freedom. You should be free to own whatever gun you like, or free to decide that it's not for you.

I agree, though I'd rather be forced to own one, than blocked from owning one. Doesn't make it okay.

[mothered]

The following speaks for Itself. Pretty much self-explanatory for someone with malicious Intent.

This legislation would force people to own guns,

[geyu29]

Well this is a political move, as well having more negative aspects involved to it than positive.
These people probably want more fear in the society, than there already is, more people will get shot, inexperience will cause mistakes/accidents.

Only enthusiasts and those involved with risky business should have weapons, thats my opinion, but if you feel you should own a gun, go ahead, with the relevant requirements met, psychological, physical, more co-ordination between institutions such as doctor's notes left on a patients file shared with police to help gun-sellers verify whether a person be allowed to have guns.

[phyrrus9]

Well this is a political move, as well having more negative aspects involved to it than positive.
These people probably want more fear in the society, than there already is, more people will get shot, inexperience will cause mistakes/accidents.

Only enthusiasts and those involved with risky business should have weapons, thats my opinion, but if you feel you should own a gun, go ahead, with the relevant requirements met, psychological, physical, more co-ordination between institutions such as doctor's notes left on a patients file shared with police to help gun-sellers verify whether a person be allowed to have guns.

You must be Australian. I disagree with anything that would impose any loss of freedom. Forcing someone to own a rifle isn't freedom, but neither is requiring someone to jump through hoops or expose their medical records. Here in the USA, your ability to protect yourself is a right, including with any weapon needed to do so, be it a gun, knife, or Abrams tank. You need not meet any bar to exercise a right.

[geyu29]

Well this is a political move, as well having more negative aspects involved to it than positive.
These people probably want more fear in the society, than there already is, more people will get shot, inexperience will cause mistakes/accidents.

Only enthusiasts and those involved with risky business should have weapons, thats my opinion, but if you feel you should own a gun, go ahead, with the relevant requirements met, psychological, physical, more co-ordination between institutions such as doctor's notes left on a patients file shared with police to help gun-sellers verify whether a person be allowed to have guns.

You must be Australian. I disagree with anything that would impose any loss of freedom. Forcing someone to own a rifle isn't freedom, but neither is requiring someone to jump through hoops or expose their medical records. Here in the USA, your ability to protect yourself is a right, including with any weapon needed to do so, be it a gun, knife, or Abrams tank. You need not meet any bar to exercise a right.

Then what about the risk of shooting someone by accident and inexperience, or causing fear into people by walking around like you own the town.
Or a disturbed person killing masses.

Thats why i say, atleast patient reports be shared with authorities, there is always an internal procedure to secure some information and pass on important information to an authority like the police to the end-consumer of the information like the gun seller which should say what kind of problem or whether they should be denied the gun sale through a computer system.

The same principle applies to convicts, which must report to parole officers to monitor them, and also support them.

Merely on the basis of 'freedom' to say that a person has the right to kill, doesnt sound very appealing, a risk should be controlled. As the British have shown time and time again.

[phyrrus9]

Then what about the risk of shooting someone by accident and inexperience, or causing fear into people by walking around like you own the town.
Or a disturbed person killing masses.

This isn't actually as much of an issue as you think it is. I live in very anti-gun seattle, and I carry a handgun on my hip in plain view every day. I've never once had people appear to be scared, the police have never been called, and in fact, I've had 2 people come up to me and thank me for carrying, and quite a few people start very interesting conversations with me.

Thats why i say, atleast patient reports be shared with authorities, there is always an internal procedure to secure some information and pass on important information to an authority like the police to the end-consumer of the information like the gun seller which should say what kind of problem or whether they should be denied the gun sale through a computer system.

Patient records are protected information that cannot be shared without the consent of the patient. We do have a background check system that is required for every purchase (since the 1980s). There are a few categories for which you may not own a firearm. Among them are: you've been found by a court to be mentally unfit to manage your own affairs, have been convicted of a felony, are an illegal alien, a drug user, or have a domestic violence conviction.

The same principle applies to convicts, which must report to parole officers to monitor them, and also support them.

Convicts have been convicted. In the US you are innocent unless you've been convicted of a crime.

Merely on the basis of 'freedom' to say that a person has the right to kill, doesnt sound very appealing, a risk should be controlled. As the British have shown time and time again.

A person does not have the "right to kill". That would be murder. You do, however have the right to defend yourself against someone else that wishes to kill you. Sometimes that means firing a lethal shot. Most times it doesn't. You don't just get to shoot someone because they looked at you funny or even if they punched you in the face. You only have legal justification to do so when your life is in imminent danger. As in, if you don't shoot in the next 5 seconds, you'll be mortally wounded or already dead.

EDIT: I also know that people are always going to carry guns. Either honestly and openly, or illegally and out of sight. You'd be surprised how easy it is to hide very serious firepower. Better to be honest about it and allow good folk to protect themselves.

Spoiler:

Proof that it's not hard to conceal plenty.

[darkninja1980]

I really hate topics like this right. because it not fair for the law-abiding citizens. I like our right to bear arms here. I am a gun owner. but I do not use my guns for carrying out crimes.

[geyu29]

i

How about the model of the British or the Europeans?

And there are also those that openly show it, yet we should feel safe, but people dont, guns are not a hello citizen sign. People are scared of guns, thats the fact.
You know how many stories ive heard of people getting killed because of this.

The point being, in reference to this thread title, it should not be encouraged but controlled as mentioned in my previous thread.

And seriously, you value privacy of health records more so than gun control or stopping possible harm like murder taking place. That doesnt sound very convincing. Lol, convicts dont start using after they convicted, ex-criminals dont use guns AFTER they are legally labelled criminal lol common.
But then again thats my wish and its a workable system for all, but then again im not a politician or lawmaker but hope to be.