Create a DMV-esque government body for guns and gun-owners, complete with licensing and registration.
I'm tired of putting up with another mass shooting every few months. I don't know why no one else seems to talk about this (hard to believe I'm the only one who's thought of it), so I'll say it:
If we already have a system for regulating ownership and handling for cars, there's no reason we can't apply the same accountability and responsibility to guns and gun owners.
Cars are every bit as dangerous as guns - arguably more so , considering how many more people die to car accidents than gun violence per year. So naturally, we (society) take steps to mitigate the danger. Cars are regulated with safety standards; drivers are tested before they can be licensed; owners have to register their car, so we know who's driving what. All this bureaucracy, and no one bats an eye - because of course you need a license. A car is 2+ tons of steel and 20 gallons of explosive gas; you don't let people run wild with that without taking some kind of precaution.
The DMV, as a state body, works. Slowly, clumsily, and sometimes frustrating, but (eventually) it works - and it certainly works better than nothing at all. And from Sandy Hook to Orlando and now Las Vegas, it's clear that "nothing at all" is not enough anymore. No one's talking about knocking down doors and ripping guns out of baby's hands. We SHOULD be talking about normal, every-day Americans doing their part to reduce gun violence by working together - so that abnormal, NON-every-day "Americans" stand out, and then we can deal with them. Laws aren't there to put good people down (we're not that far gone); they're to draw a line beyond which we can say "This is not okay."
Posted Oct 3, 2017, 12:50 AM UTC
how do you force the criminals to comply?
You don't. They're criminals; they're not going to comply anyway, because they're criminals. The point here is that the majority of law-abiding citizens will go along and register their weapons, get a license, etc. Anyone who DOESN'T have a license has to deal with the consequences.
And yes, that sounds pretty close to "No license, no guns." At first glance, that violates the second amendment, but don't panic; it's not a violation, it's establishing a boundary. It's the same logic that says Free Speech doesn't protect you if you shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or call someone by a racial slur. We have inalienable rights, but to live together in a civil society, you have to draw the line somewhere; living within that society requires tacit consent to those limits. That's the murky line between freedom and liberty.
what is the point of making a law that doesn't effect the law breaker?
Sorry, I jumped ahead of your question with my last response.
Laws are applied equally to all people within their jurisdiction (at least in theory). Naturally, law breakers are punished for not obeying the law. I'm not a lawyer or a member of law enforcement, so I can't say what kind of form that punishment would take. My earlier point was just that the exception (unlicensed criminals with unregistered guns) doesn't invalidate the whole concept.
but it does invalidate the whole concept unless your making laws just to make laws. how many laws would you personally need created against you to stop criminals?
This has been and always will be the barrier to solving gun crime with new laws.
Murder, believe it or not, is highly illegal. People who are willing to break that law aren't going think twice about breaking the you can't have that without a license for it law.
That's assuming they already have the gun, which is not a foregone conclusion, particularly if registration means a waiting period between purchase and acquisition.
And if you already have a gun registered under your name, then you should (in theory) have a license. And a license means that you know how to use that gun - which (again, in theory) should mean you know when NOT to use a gun. There's a world of difference between someone with a concealed-carry permit and some gang member waving a glock so he looks tough.
There's always potential for cold-blooded premeditated execution. There's no law that can 100% prevent crimes from happening; but that's no reason not to try. We can certainly make it harder Dylan Roofs and Stephen Craig Paddocks of the world to get their hands on automatic weapons, and if we can do that, we can prevent more mass shootings and save more lives. Perhaps not everyone, but certainly more than now.