You can buy a car and own it and operate it on private property without a license. A more direct comparison would be a driver’s license would be like a concealed carry license, licensing it to be possessed/operated in public.
There is no legal or philosophical right to a modern firearm in the Constitution, either. The founders couldn’t have predicted the ease with which a single individual could commit mass murder just 50 years later when the firearms of their time took half a minute to reload. One person alone can kill as many people in a minute with a single semi-auto rifle and sufficient ammo as over a dozen militiamen of the day. To suggest the founders intended to include modern weapons is a stretch well beyond the breaking point of reason or logic.
Just need to prove a basic knowledge of gun safety
So you would have no problem with the government requiring proof of literacy before you can vote? After all, every child is taught how to read in school, so it’s just a basic check to see if a person can comprehend the ballot.
I don’t agree with a literacy test the way it was given in the past. But that is an excellent point.
I don’t care so much about gun ownership as I do the fact guns can now kill dozens of people in less than a minute, and that guns like that are available to the public. The chance of being gunned down by an ill person using a gun is definitely not zero in the United States. If the only guns available could only shoot a bullet every other second or so, rather than multiple per second, the amount of damage to a crowd will be less.
As another person commented somewhere in this thread, the availability of weapons is at a low point historically. Back in the 1930s, a person could order a machine gun in the mail and have it shipped to their house. Until 1986, people could purchase new machine guns at their local shop after a good amount of paperwork.
You’re correct that banning semi-autos would lead to reduced deaths in mass shootings, but it’s just putting a bandaid over a greivous societal wound. I don’t feel that enough thought is put into why people are going on suicidal rampages against children or minorities, there’s just a “people be cray” attitude then they push for disarmament.
Without addressing that societal problem, I just see weapon control becoming more and more stringent in response to the unsolved problems in society. Banning Semi-autos today may reduce deaths, but it’ll be lever-actions tomorrow, then bolt-actions, then knives, then vehicles.
If I were dictator, I would temporarily add semi-autos to the NFA list (along with giving them the resources to process applications promptly) to stop new sales and transfers without stricter checks. Then I would put effort into determining the causes of those rampages and fixing them.
Male socialization, political radicalization, and media contagion are three factors I think lead to these rampages, and to merely remove guns from the situation is the societal equivalent of locking someone in a padded room and declaring the problem solved.
Putting a bandaid on a wound while going to the doctor is better than not having the bandaid.
I get that people might want to move to the next gun and the next, but I think most people don’t want all guns gone, just the deadlier ones that have no purpose outside of killing~~. At some point, guns were being invented for war.~~see edit Those should not be for the public.
I agree that the underlying cause is incredibly important. I like your solution. It’s a good starting point. Now let’s get the government to actually care about citizens and not the military.
We do not need experimental jets while there are people suffering at home.
*edit: wait. Probably most gun development is because of war. That’s a null point then. What I wanted to convey was at some point guns were being made without hunting and other tool uses in mind. The goal was as much destruction as fast as possible. Those guns.
Cars have licenses and the government doesn’t restrict groups from having them.
You can buy a car and own it and operate it on private property without a license. A more direct comparison would be a driver’s license would be like a concealed carry license, licensing it to be possessed/operated in public.
Ok. That’s a good comparison.
So would making gun classes more common and emcouraged like driver’s ed. You wouldn’t have to take the class to pass the test.
There’s no legal or philosophical right to a car in the Constitution
There is no legal or philosophical right to a modern firearm in the Constitution, either. The founders couldn’t have predicted the ease with which a single individual could commit mass murder just 50 years later when the firearms of their time took half a minute to reload. One person alone can kill as many people in a minute with a single semi-auto rifle and sufficient ammo as over a dozen militiamen of the day. To suggest the founders intended to include modern weapons is a stretch well beyond the breaking point of reason or logic.
And this doesn’t take away your right to have a gun. Anyone could get a license, but just needs to prove a basic knowledge of gun safety.
I mean, high schools could have gun safety classes and then you’re good to go if you pass. If not, study and try again.
So you would have no problem with the government requiring proof of literacy before you can vote? After all, every child is taught how to read in school, so it’s just a basic check to see if a person can comprehend the ballot.
I don’t agree with a literacy test the way it was given in the past. But that is an excellent point.
I don’t care so much about gun ownership as I do the fact guns can now kill dozens of people in less than a minute, and that guns like that are available to the public. The chance of being gunned down by an ill person using a gun is definitely not zero in the United States. If the only guns available could only shoot a bullet every other second or so, rather than multiple per second, the amount of damage to a crowd will be less.
What are your thoughts on that part?
As another person commented somewhere in this thread, the availability of weapons is at a low point historically. Back in the 1930s, a person could order a machine gun in the mail and have it shipped to their house. Until 1986, people could purchase new machine guns at their local shop after a good amount of paperwork.
You’re correct that banning semi-autos would lead to reduced deaths in mass shootings, but it’s just putting a bandaid over a greivous societal wound. I don’t feel that enough thought is put into why people are going on suicidal rampages against children or minorities, there’s just a “people be cray” attitude then they push for disarmament.
Without addressing that societal problem, I just see weapon control becoming more and more stringent in response to the unsolved problems in society. Banning Semi-autos today may reduce deaths, but it’ll be lever-actions tomorrow, then bolt-actions, then knives, then vehicles.
If I were dictator, I would temporarily add semi-autos to the NFA list (along with giving them the resources to process applications promptly) to stop new sales and transfers without stricter checks. Then I would put effort into determining the causes of those rampages and fixing them.
Male socialization, political radicalization, and media contagion are three factors I think lead to these rampages, and to merely remove guns from the situation is the societal equivalent of locking someone in a padded room and declaring the problem solved.
Putting a bandaid on a wound while going to the doctor is better than not having the bandaid.
I get that people might want to move to the next gun and the next, but I think most people don’t want all guns gone, just the deadlier ones that have no purpose outside of killing~~. At some point, guns were being invented for war.~~see edit Those should not be for the public.
I agree that the underlying cause is incredibly important. I like your solution. It’s a good starting point. Now let’s get the government to actually care about citizens and not the military.
We do not need experimental jets while there are people suffering at home.
*edit: wait. Probably most gun development is because of war. That’s a null point then. What I wanted to convey was at some point guns were being made without hunting and other tool uses in mind. The goal was as much destruction as fast as possible. Those guns.
Worse than that, it’s locking everybody in a padded room. And the ones who need to be in there the most know the tricks to escape… Or hold the keys.