(And please, this post takes as an assumed premise that guns are permissible in a civilized society. If your position is that guns are EEEEEVIL, and that no sane society should allow murder tools in private hands, please don’t hijack this thread.)
Ok, most pro-gun people I’ve spoken to have no problem with guns being regulated (short of blanket bans) and a high standard of responsibility placed on those who possess them. After all, we regulate and license driving, because driving by incompetent or irresponsible people kills. At least in my state, and I presume most states, there is a series of grades of driver’s licenses with increasing standards required for each grade. A student driver license, or a limited license for underage drivers. A standard license. A more stringent license if you want to drive a truck or heavy equipment. A still more stringent license if you’re going to be responsible for passengers, like a chauffer’s or bus driver’s license.
I was wondering if a similar scheme would work for gun possession, based on the lethality (and therefore maximum potential harm) of the firearm in question. At the bottom of the scale you might have a “emergency defense” handgun: a single-round gun with no magazine, that had to be hand chambered one cartridge at a time. Better than nothing if an intruder broke into your home at night, and with the least stringent licensing requirements. The next step would be a revolver: five or six rounds, which could not be (very) rapidly reloaded, with more stringent requirements. Then clip-fed semi autos, then full autos. Beyond that you get into military grade ordinance, so I think damn few people outside of law enforcement or the military would ever possess those, or at least as few as are licensed to handle explosives.
The principle would be that you could own as much lethality as you could demonstrate the responsibility to handle. In states that permit fireworks, there is already a similar system with regards to explosives: child grade (cap guns) adult grade (fireworks) and expert grade (explosives). Could something like this work? Would single-shot firearms be a workable idea if such a graduated scale was adopted?
I think they stopped making Derringers a long time ago. No market for them. But, you’re right, a new regulatory regime might change that. No one would think of holding up a liquor store with a one-shot handgun. (Of course, you might carry six one-shot handguns, if the things are unregulated . . . )
Overall, it’s a good idea in principle. The details might need work.
I do not own any guns. I don’t hunt and I live without much fear. That is except the fear of armed agents of my government. Imposition of such a system would lead to the criminalization of owning a particular firearm without the license. As I said, I don’t own guns but I do whole heartedly support the right of others to own them. If I thought such legislation would keep guns from criminals I would consider it but in the past the ATF and FBI have demonstrated a propensity to go after the militia guys or the guys they want to testify or anyone they bear some grudge against regardless of their ability to handle a firearm. This would be one more tool for them to go after those guys. The issue is just larger than guns to me. It is about freedom. It is larger to the feds too, it’s about constricting freedom. The feds fear those militia guys hiding up in the hills armed to the teeth. That is a good thing. Everything needs balance.
There seem to be a lot of problems with your proposal. To start with in a legal sense there is no such thing as lethal and more lethal force. People were using single shot weapons to kill other human beings long before revolvers or magazines were invented. On another note, many people consider firearm ownership to be a right and in general we don’t need a license to exercise a right.
They make speed-loaders which give you the ability to load 6 bullets at once into the revolver. You could probably use a speed-loader to reload a revolver about as quickly as sliding in a new magazine into a semi-automatic. Also, what about revolvers with more than 6 shots? I checked out a revolver years ago that had 10 shots.
Just for the sake of arguement what sort of test would one have to pass? If you’re responsible enough to safely handle a single shot handgun then you’re responsible enough to handle a semi-automatic pistol. It isn’t like licensing for different vehicles. Driving an 18 Wheeled Semi-Truck is fundamentally different then driving a Saturn.
It is very simple why this wouldn’t work- in some areas the anti-gun forces would make it impossible or insanely difficult to qualify for anything.
Here in Santa Clara County- you really can’t get a Concealed Weapons Permit as an ordinary Law abiding citizen. The fee is huge, there are many hoops, and even if you go through all that the answer is NO. :rolleyes:
So, in some juristictions, there wouldn’t be any permits except for those who had contributed massive amounts to the proper Politico. :dubious:
There, in a nutshell, is the fundamental problem. Taking a detached look at the question, it makes sense to require that people who wield guns demonstrate knowledge of gun handling and safety. From that detached viewpoint, it also makes sense to require that people who vote demonstrate knowledge of the candidates and issues. However, both concepts have been thoroughly poisoned by notorious historical abuses, and are therefore off the table.
Rational discourse on gun control is impossible in the United States. A graduated licensing system makes some sense to me but the NRA would quickly shoot down such a measure as proof of the liberal liberal liberal commie plot to confiscate all weapons.
Well, there are two big differences when it comes to comparing car licensing with potential gun licensing. When the first car licensing laws were being adopted by various states, I don’t think there were any sort of organized groups that wanted a total ban on cars, that were pushing licensing schemes as a way to gradually get rid of them. But now, there are in fact organized groups wanting to ban guns this way.
If these type of people didn’t exist, or were considered complete fringe kooks (like anyone who wants to ban cars today) I wouldn’t mind this sort of licensing system, though the fact that the licensing places would probably be run by the same type of folks who run the DMVs mind end up bothering me. But as a gun owner, who owns some weapons that some people want banned, I have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and it is better to do it at the current level of regulation, rather than give in; give some people an inch, and they will take a mile.
The other major difference of course, would be the Second Amendment, and whether a full licensing system would be Constitutional. Of course, that question opens up an entirely new can of worms.
What about rifles and shotguns? You only seem to address handguns.
What exactly does “Military grade” mean? Grenade lauchers? .50 brownings?
One problem I can see with the licensing thing is that it is still not analogous to cars. You don’t actually have to have a drivers license if drive on private property, but only if on public roads. So would the holder of a firearms license be allowed to carry their gun in public(concealed or otherwise) and not need one to keep it in his/her home?