Paul Sutton @zleap@social.cleverlibre.org

@glaroc@dragonscave.space

I am British, and in the UK, so we have our own laws on guns. However I accept you have the 2nd amendment, understand why that was included in the constitution. If I understand it was in case we brits decided to try and retake the USA after the revolutionary war of independance.

But that was in 1776 or after that, times have changed since then. But having visited Canada, seen some of the local wildlife (e.g Bears), then I can understand the need for guns in some cases. But the guns back the were nothing like what are available now. I sometimes wonder what the founding fathers, who wrote the 2nd amendment would make of all this senseless gun crime and mass shootings.

However, I fully agree with you on ensuring people are fit to own a gun. While back in 1776 anyone with a mental illness (even slight) was probably locked away somewhere, then this is clearly not accepted in 2023. People with all sorts of issues are in our society, medicine has advanced so medical conditions can be managed, even Dementia or Brain Cancer can cause people to act in ways that are out of character.

With driving you need to pass a test to ensure you are safe to drive, if you health deteriorates then this has to be declared, even if it means you are no longer medically fit to drive. So yeah proving you are able to handle a gun properly should be some requirement unless people think guns are like on computer games where you get a coloured cross hair thing that indicates friend of foe. Somehow I think not.

@ronfilipkowski

I think the US is beyond help, on mass shootings.

@empiricism @rbreich

Computers are useful tools, & using technology to reduce laborious & or unsafe work is prudent.

I agree with that,

I think it needs a fine balance, so we keep people employed, reduce risky work but are able to ensure everyone has an income either that we need a universal basic income to help.