![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On nearly any subject on which people hold opinions, there is a scale that runs from absolute permissiveness to absolute restriction, and you will generally find people strongly (and often loudly) holding positions on those extreme ends. Heck, just look at the current state of US politics, or start to talk to people about religious beliefs or drug laws or immigration or… well, just about anything.
Generally, though, society will have have set a "balance point" somewhere in the middle between those two extremes. It's rare that the extreme position is also the societal balance point. For that to happen, one of three conditions have to be met:
1) those holding the extreme position are a very small group that is isolated from the general population in some way, or...
2) those holding the extreme position also have to be in an extreme position of power, as in a totalitarian state, or…
3) those holding the extreme position also have to be (at least temporarily) in the position of being in the majority.
We've seen this happen. States who use the extreme versions of Sharia law, for instance, or the reign of the Inquisition in some European countries. Here in the States, we saw (briefly) the restrictive version of extremism in Prohibition, which arguably gave rise to organized crime in this country. On the permissive side, also arguably, deregulation of the financial industry recently demonstrated that greed will trump common sense every time, even if it means the near-ruin of the economy.
And we see the permissive/restrictive scale on the issue of gun ownership in this country. On one extreme, we have people who feel that it is their right to own any firearm that they may wish to own, of any type and in any quantity, without licensing or registration or any restriction whatsoever. On the other extreme are those who feel that in a society where there's no longer any need to hunt for food, and in a society governed by laws, no one needs to possess a firearm at all, and that all guns should be confiscated.
The "balance point" on the issue, as with many issues, has a tendency to drift based on what we see and what we perceive as a society. Think of it, perhaps, as a necessary adjustment, since societies aren't static, but something that evolves and changes. I see the balance point for firearms as being ripe for shifting, and it's naturally caused the people on the extremes to begin to howl.
But-- again -- the extremes rarely "win." The balance point nearly always comes to rest somewhere in the middle. So… for the sake of provoking discussion, if I were allowed to propose a new balance, here's where I might be tempted to set it:
LICENSING: There's no possible way in our culture that we can ban all firearms -- not without potentially violent reaction. No "Prohibition" here. But… When you listen to the gun rights argument, this old chestnut often pops up: "Far more people are killed every year in car accidents than by firearms. Why don't you ban cars, too?"
That is, obviously, a specious argument. Still, owning and driving a car is a weighty responsibility, as is gun ownership, so why not borrow from what we do with automobiles? I would propose that if you intend to own a firearm, you must first obtain a "gun license." That could be done at the state level, but would be better if administered nationally.
At (let's say) 21 years of age, you can apply for such a license. It would require a background check. It would also require that the applicant has passed a rigorous gun safety class, and has a certain number of hours logged in at a target range (where one may rent guns.) For younger persons, you could have the equivalent of a "learner's permit" that would allow a teenager to use a gun (for hunting, for instance) as long as they are accompanied by a licensed adult.
No felon may have such a license. No one with a history of mental illness may have such a license. No one currently under psychiatric care may have such a license. Of course, like a driver's license, this license can be suspended or revoked for cause. And like a driver's license, it requires periodic renewal (and perhaps re-certification).
But with that license, you can walk into a gun shop and buy a handgun, hunting rifle, or shotgun. It shows the shop owner that you have passed the background check and certification, and are qualified to buy a firearm or ammunition. No license = no gun or ammo.
REGISTRATION: Like automobiles, firearms are registered, and that registration is tied to the owner. Maybe, as with a car, you need to update that registration once a year. And like a car, when you sell that gun, you are required to sign off the registration to the new owner (who would also have to show you his/her license to own a firearm). That would help to close the "gun show loophole," where a private owner may sell or give away his/her gun to anyone without any checks whatsoever.
CONCEALED CARRY: I'm not against concealed carry, but it should be much tougher than it is to get a concealed carry license. The training needs to be more rigorous -- which I can say after having just gone through it. I have all the requirements to get an Ohio (or Florida) concealed carry license -- and even have the application for it on my desk. The course was taught by an extremely competent and thoughtful instructor who was obviously well aware of the weighty responsibility of carrying a loaded weapon in public -- and he's someone I would implicitly trust with that responsibility without hesitation. But… I feel like I'd need far more experience with a handgun and with practical situational tactics before I'd ever feel comfortable actually carrying -- and I am not comfortable knowing that someone as inexperienced as I am could be walking around with a loaded, concealed handgun. Mind you, that is not the fault of the instructor; that's the leniency of the current laws. In my ideal world, concealed carry licenses would require practical field simulation exercises, hands-on, strip-down experience with several firearms of different calibers, and far more target range experience than they do.
RESTRICTIONS: Magazines are limited to no more than (let's say) 15 rounds. That includes all firearms. Larger magazines are strictly illegal, and possession of one would result in immediate revocation of your license. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will maintain the database of all licenses and registrations, as well as a list of those currently forbidden to have a license. All background checks must go through the bureau.
Military-grade weapons with full-auto capabilities are absolutely not available to private citizens. "Civilian" versions of military-grade weapons (semi-auto, with limited magazines and possibly other restrictions) can be sold, but might require an additional (and vigorous) background check and yearly re-registration.
We could talk about limiting/restricting certain calibers/types of rounds. Armor-piercing rounds, for instance, seem to have no purpose but to kill police / soldiers wearing body armor, so my temptation would be to ban such, as deer don't wear body armor. Beyond that, I don't have enough knowledge to make further suggestions…
As with Australia's "Port Arthur" laws, the government (through the BAFT) will "buy back" all firearms/magazines that don't meet the new guidelines and destroy them. No "grandfathering" of old firearms/ammunition that doesn't meet the current standards. Current gun owners (with a proper license) will be required to register any gun not already registered.
***********
OK, now you may tell me where you'd change/delete from/add to the above. I'm interested in what you might think. Any point of view is welcome as long as the dialog remains civil, polite, and on-topic. And since this blog meets Condition #1 and Condition #2 above, as Absolute Dictator, I can and will delete any post that I feel goes over the line.
Generally, though, society will have have set a "balance point" somewhere in the middle between those two extremes. It's rare that the extreme position is also the societal balance point. For that to happen, one of three conditions have to be met:
1) those holding the extreme position are a very small group that is isolated from the general population in some way, or...
2) those holding the extreme position also have to be in an extreme position of power, as in a totalitarian state, or…
3) those holding the extreme position also have to be (at least temporarily) in the position of being in the majority.
We've seen this happen. States who use the extreme versions of Sharia law, for instance, or the reign of the Inquisition in some European countries. Here in the States, we saw (briefly) the restrictive version of extremism in Prohibition, which arguably gave rise to organized crime in this country. On the permissive side, also arguably, deregulation of the financial industry recently demonstrated that greed will trump common sense every time, even if it means the near-ruin of the economy.
And we see the permissive/restrictive scale on the issue of gun ownership in this country. On one extreme, we have people who feel that it is their right to own any firearm that they may wish to own, of any type and in any quantity, without licensing or registration or any restriction whatsoever. On the other extreme are those who feel that in a society where there's no longer any need to hunt for food, and in a society governed by laws, no one needs to possess a firearm at all, and that all guns should be confiscated.
The "balance point" on the issue, as with many issues, has a tendency to drift based on what we see and what we perceive as a society. Think of it, perhaps, as a necessary adjustment, since societies aren't static, but something that evolves and changes. I see the balance point for firearms as being ripe for shifting, and it's naturally caused the people on the extremes to begin to howl.
But-- again -- the extremes rarely "win." The balance point nearly always comes to rest somewhere in the middle. So… for the sake of provoking discussion, if I were allowed to propose a new balance, here's where I might be tempted to set it:
LICENSING: There's no possible way in our culture that we can ban all firearms -- not without potentially violent reaction. No "Prohibition" here. But… When you listen to the gun rights argument, this old chestnut often pops up: "Far more people are killed every year in car accidents than by firearms. Why don't you ban cars, too?"
That is, obviously, a specious argument. Still, owning and driving a car is a weighty responsibility, as is gun ownership, so why not borrow from what we do with automobiles? I would propose that if you intend to own a firearm, you must first obtain a "gun license." That could be done at the state level, but would be better if administered nationally.
At (let's say) 21 years of age, you can apply for such a license. It would require a background check. It would also require that the applicant has passed a rigorous gun safety class, and has a certain number of hours logged in at a target range (where one may rent guns.) For younger persons, you could have the equivalent of a "learner's permit" that would allow a teenager to use a gun (for hunting, for instance) as long as they are accompanied by a licensed adult.
No felon may have such a license. No one with a history of mental illness may have such a license. No one currently under psychiatric care may have such a license. Of course, like a driver's license, this license can be suspended or revoked for cause. And like a driver's license, it requires periodic renewal (and perhaps re-certification).
But with that license, you can walk into a gun shop and buy a handgun, hunting rifle, or shotgun. It shows the shop owner that you have passed the background check and certification, and are qualified to buy a firearm or ammunition. No license = no gun or ammo.
REGISTRATION: Like automobiles, firearms are registered, and that registration is tied to the owner. Maybe, as with a car, you need to update that registration once a year. And like a car, when you sell that gun, you are required to sign off the registration to the new owner (who would also have to show you his/her license to own a firearm). That would help to close the "gun show loophole," where a private owner may sell or give away his/her gun to anyone without any checks whatsoever.
CONCEALED CARRY: I'm not against concealed carry, but it should be much tougher than it is to get a concealed carry license. The training needs to be more rigorous -- which I can say after having just gone through it. I have all the requirements to get an Ohio (or Florida) concealed carry license -- and even have the application for it on my desk. The course was taught by an extremely competent and thoughtful instructor who was obviously well aware of the weighty responsibility of carrying a loaded weapon in public -- and he's someone I would implicitly trust with that responsibility without hesitation. But… I feel like I'd need far more experience with a handgun and with practical situational tactics before I'd ever feel comfortable actually carrying -- and I am not comfortable knowing that someone as inexperienced as I am could be walking around with a loaded, concealed handgun. Mind you, that is not the fault of the instructor; that's the leniency of the current laws. In my ideal world, concealed carry licenses would require practical field simulation exercises, hands-on, strip-down experience with several firearms of different calibers, and far more target range experience than they do.
RESTRICTIONS: Magazines are limited to no more than (let's say) 15 rounds. That includes all firearms. Larger magazines are strictly illegal, and possession of one would result in immediate revocation of your license. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will maintain the database of all licenses and registrations, as well as a list of those currently forbidden to have a license. All background checks must go through the bureau.
Military-grade weapons with full-auto capabilities are absolutely not available to private citizens. "Civilian" versions of military-grade weapons (semi-auto, with limited magazines and possibly other restrictions) can be sold, but might require an additional (and vigorous) background check and yearly re-registration.
We could talk about limiting/restricting certain calibers/types of rounds. Armor-piercing rounds, for instance, seem to have no purpose but to kill police / soldiers wearing body armor, so my temptation would be to ban such, as deer don't wear body armor. Beyond that, I don't have enough knowledge to make further suggestions…
As with Australia's "Port Arthur" laws, the government (through the BAFT) will "buy back" all firearms/magazines that don't meet the new guidelines and destroy them. No "grandfathering" of old firearms/ammunition that doesn't meet the current standards. Current gun owners (with a proper license) will be required to register any gun not already registered.
***********
OK, now you may tell me where you'd change/delete from/add to the above. I'm interested in what you might think. Any point of view is welcome as long as the dialog remains civil, polite, and on-topic. And since this blog meets Condition #1 and Condition #2 above, as Absolute Dictator, I can and will delete any post that I feel goes over the line.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
It's so much easier to poke at someone else's plan than to try to come up with actual solutions :-P
I don't know. I'd probably want to start by looking at the shootings in this country to figure out how often and in what ways mental health actually played a part, and whether that was something that could have been foreseen. I know there's often an assumption that anyone who would do something like this is, by default, crazy. But how often is there an actual, diagnosable mental illness?
I'm allowed to get a driver's license despite being diabetic, but if my diabetes gets out of control and causes me to crash into a ditch or somesuch, my license can get yanked. But I wouldn't want to wait until after the fact to yank someone's gun license, either.
From:
no subject
And hey, poking holes in the proposal is why I put it up there in the first place. It's like a writing workshop: you show people the draft, and then they pick it apart, and you get to make it better.
I don't really have a good "revision" yet for the mental health provision, though.
From:
no subject
I think part of the issue with the current issue, however, is in framing the care of a mental health professional as mental illness care - for many of us, it's more of a type of 'wellness care", as some insurance companies currently brand preventative medicine. That ought to be less stigmatized in society, not more.