03-28-2019, 04:44 PM
(03-28-2019, 11:09 AM)Benton Wrote: Well, here's this issue with that.
Several countries with low gun violence rely on some basic education and licensing. Like Japan. More than 100 million people, about 10 gun related deaths per year. Why? Because idiots aren't allowed to have guns.
Not that people are prevented from owning, just idiots.
You want a gun, you go to an all day class and prove you can handle a firearm. And you go through a mental health screening. And every three years you repeat the process.
And that's the point of licensing: it's not about restricting your right to own a gun as long as you're a stable person, it's about keeping them out of the hands of crazy ass people.
They do have some pretty restrictive laws as far as types of guns, but the heart of reducing gun violence is making sure dumb people have a harder time getting access.
I think most people agree with the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' mantra, but we make it took easy for people looking to kill people to have access.
Background checks and licenses work. It's one of the simplest, most cost effective ways to handle the situation.
There's a couple of issues with this statement. One, no other country has the right to own a firearm embedded in their Constitution as a right. Two, we're way past the point where a comparison to any country can be made regarding firearms ownership. There are anywhere from 350-450 million firearms in private hands in this country. Licensing won't change that as you have to admit you own one before you're even made to get a license. Alternatively, you apply for said license and don't get it but you already own several firearms. What happens then? Confiscation, and not confiscation because you broke the law, confiscation because you couldn't acquire a license. Additionally, who gets to determine the licensing requirement? Is it a Federal decisions or state by state? I think you know why that's a huge sticking point. Even if it is Federal, who gets to write it? Fred's friends at The Trace or Michael Bloomberg?
Here's an undeniable set of facts. Violent crime has been declining almost without fail since the early 90's. In that same time period the number of firearms of all types in private hands has exploded. The vast majority of firearms related offenses are committed by individuals already involved with the criminal justice system. Beaker's suggestion therefore makes the most sense, if you want to reduce gun related crime increase the punishment for being involved in it. It is also a fact that the majority of any type of crime is committed by a small fraction of the criminal population, hence the three strikes law. Hard core recidivists being removed from the streets, permanently, almost certainly has contributed to our declining crime rate.
I'll close with this. You're never going to get any kind of consensus for a plan like this because, while you have good intentions, many, if not most, people on the anti-gun side will merely see this as the next step to removing guns from the hands of private citizens. People like Fred scoff at this, but real world events have shown this to be the case. California already has confiscation laws on the books. Look how many politicians have applauded New Zealand's knee jerk banning of a huge category of firearms, lamenting the fact they can't enact such blatantly unconstitutional laws here with such alacrity. As Bel and I have discussed, look for the SCOTUS to enact the concept of "strict scrutiny" on gun laws as a result of the NYC law before them and this all becomes a moot point anyways.
For good and ill the second amendment exists until it is removed by a further amendment in the already established process. Until that happens gun owners shouldn't give gun control advocates much, if anything, because, 1. they don't have to and 2. they'll never stop there anyways.
