>So tell me again how requiring more training and safety courses, and safe possession of the firearm, wouldn't help?

How does one require "safe possession" of a firearm? Require that they all be locked up? Is the government providing funding for safes, or is that just another cost we're gonna toss over to gun owners to cover? Is someone coming to my house once a month to confirm everything is locked up? Will they also be evaluating the rest of my house for safety, making sure my chemicals and knives are locked up, etc? And will they go into my neighbor's house as well, since they're a convicted felon prohibited from owning firearms? Can't imagine any negative impacts from sending police with itchy trigger fingers door to door in lower income neighborhoods...

Tangent aside, let's say we require 2 hours of training and 1 hour of safety courses for the 100,000,000 existing and all future gun owners in this country.

Person A, who wants to straw purchase firearms to earn extra cash, sits through those sessions, then proceeds to buy 20 handguns over the course of a year, and charges an extra $200 per pistol instead of $100 for the added time. No change.

Person B, who follows the laws, sits through the sessions, buys a gun, and puts it in a lock box in her night stand because she lives alone in a sketchy neighborhood. Someone breaks in and steals the lockbox while she's working overtime to cover for the time she missed attending the training. No change.

And what happens when there's no noticeable change? Do we increase it to 4 hours training? 10 hours? 20? Or do we shift focus to adding another gun ownership barrier at that point?

If the government wants to provide free optional training to the 100 million gun owners out there, fine by me. But requiring training and/or making firearms owners responsible for the costs is effectively punishing everyone for the actions of few, and adding a financial and time barrier to owning firearms.