• plantmoretrees@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 days 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.

    • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      A lot of countries do this and it works. Japan has a variant of this which, while certainly not perfect, is the reason when Abe was assassinated the dude had to basically DIY his own blunderbuss rather than being able to just unload.

    • vallancj@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      5 days 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.

      • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 days 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.

        • Wav_function@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          No bro the constitution was 100% perfect and infallible from day 1 and can never ever be altered

          /s

      • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 days 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.

      • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days 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.

      • kreskin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        You should be allowed to bear arms without bullets, in a small “right to bear arms zone” far outside of any town, in a desert, with a bunch of “law enforcement” (chuckle) types pointing guns at you while you bear them. Fair is fair.

        We have a right to free political speech too, anytime anywhere. But we dont have those rights anymore outside of “free speech zones” far from anywhere people will see you, and you will be threatened and physically abused and your cars vandalized by cops if you go to one. So cry me a river on your “constitutional” “right to bear arms”.

      • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 days 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.

        • futatorius@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          And you should also be required to regularly attend militia training if you have any kind of weapon.