• plantmoretrees@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Gun control would make so much more sense if we treated guns like vehicles.

    Want to drive a car?

    New driver?

    Pass a test, and get a provisianal license to operate safely with experienced users in your company.

    Test to prove proficiency, ensure you don’t have any restrictive health issues that could impact your safe operation of the unit, validate your insurance coverage and you get a standard operators permit.

    Need to use the big equipment?

    Take some additional safety courses, beef up your insurance and prove you can handle it - with regular check ins and enhanced supervision and you get a commercial license.

    Want to do something different, like the gun equivalent of a motorcycle? Another test and license endorsement to use.

    Main theory - you can have anything you want but agree to prove and maintain proficiency and be mentally and physically able to operate it. Regular check ins to ensure your abilities do not wain and annual registration.

    This is not crazy. If it works for cars, semi trucks, motorcycles etc - it should work for deadly weapons.

    And remember, we have handicapped drivers, we have people on probationary permits etc, breathalyzer start switches, etc ……there are lots of places for reasonable accommodations to the infringed and those with limited or restricted capacity.

    But to just turn the keys of a semi truck with a double trailer over to 16 year old with near sighted vision?

    They’d say you are crazy.

    But anyone of legal age can walk in, grab an AR-15 and disappear into the woodwork for the rest of their lives with capacity for mass assault and no one does anything about it.

    • vallancj@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I understand why you say this, but Americans have a right to bear arms, not vehicles. The only reason for all the controls on vehicles is because they are a privilege, not a right.

      • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 hours ago

        As the founders intended, we have a right to bear a single-bore muzzle-loaded flint-lock. Anything more than that should really be a separate right.

      • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 hours ago

        The law can be whatever we collectively want it to be. The entire point of having Amendments is that the Constitution was supposed to be a living document that we would refine and improve over time.

      • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Americans have the right to bear arms just as much as they have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre — it’s a right that can be regulated and both already are, one needs more regulation, but people don’t seem to understand.

      • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 hours ago

        That’s simply incorrect. Nothing in there is stopping gun control laws from being implemented.

        Permits are already a thing in some states, and certain individuals are prohibited from owning guns.

        The right is far from unlimited, even though many seem to think so.