U.S. Gun Control Regulations - a modest 5 point proposal

The Meaning of Gun Control
-
(what should be regulated)

As a preface, I have read the Second Amendment and do not think it means what the NRA and a lot of others seem to think it means. Even if one doesn't read it in context of the time period and cultural/technological level, it seems to be speaking about an entirely different thing than this notion of a gun in every house, defend oneself from one's own government. When one DOES read it within the contextual framework of when it was written the meaning becomes even less indicative of this current fantasy that it means our Founding Fathers wished everyone to be able to carry a deadly weapon to defend themselves from the Federal Government or that it was some kind of inalienable right to own a firearm. However, THIS ESSAY is written with the assumption that regardless of it's initial TRUE intent, the current paranoid, violent, and let's face it, historically/culturally ignorant society we live in *believes* it means "everyone should be able to own a gun".

This ESSAY is therefore a proposal to suggest that "everyone" be tempered with the reality that some elements of our free society are not responsible or skilled or qualified to possess a deadly long range weapon.

I have developed the following platform which I believe is a moderate, even conciliatory method of appeasing the (I think of them as ignorant/paranoid/intollerant/deluded, but not actually immediately threatening) people who so sorely want to own a lot of guns.



Gun Control should represent and encompass the following 5 point platform.

• 1: a National Database. Publicly available, accessible via the internet and with real time data updates, containing information such as who owns what firearms, when they were purchased, where they are registered. Also, building on the insane paranoia of the inappropriately named "Patriot Act" link all Federal, State, and Municipal criminal records, synchronized by Social Security Number, Driver's License, and with Photo Identification, plus, a mental health database which does not display the diagnosed disease but does flag persons who have been diagnosed or are being treated for any mental/psychological conditions. Person's who have criminal records, or any history of mental illness are not qualified to own a fire arm.


• 2: For qualified individuals, they must still have a mandatory 10 day waiting period for each purchase.


• 3: A complete ban on all extended clips- no sport or hunting or self defense reason can justify more than 6 or 8 shots. Perhaps active military duty and active law enforcement personnel can get an exemption. Maybe even non-law-enforcement but security industry professionals can have an exemption to this too


• 4: Like a car or boat or pilot or medical license, the aforementioned qualified gun owner should maintain a valid Firearm ownership permit license. License qualification must include regular mental health/emotional stability examination resulting in a clean bill of mental/emotional health.
  Similar to how not just anyone can fly a plane, perform surgery, build a bridge, prescribe drugs or operate a power plant.. Could anyone argue with the assertion that one should be highly qualified, capable and stable enough to own a gun.


• 5: I think this is really the key to successful implementation: If a gun is used in a violent crime the owner it's registered to should be held fully accountable for any crimes committed using that firearm. There would need to be some exceptions and special circumstances, for example, if a gun owner is attacked and their gun is stolen or if they are robbed and the gun is stolen (after investigation to confirm the firearm was properly secured according to then current regulations governing such storage), they may be exempted from the penalty described here. But if they are shown to be negligent in any way, from improper storage to irresponsible inattentiveness, they should suffer the same penalty as if they had committed the crime themselves.

With those caveats, gun ownership, like any dangerous regulated machinery or tool, could (some may argue 'should') be allowed.

This is a reasonable set of safeguards for a tool who's only job is to kill animals.

I believe that, in the same way one is to be trained and licensed to drive a car (which is a tool whose primary purpose is NOT to kill), and unlike knives and poison which are slow acting and inefficient, easily defended against agents of death, there needs to be reasonable measures taken that tools of death are prevented from being used irresponsibly.

As to those second amendment rights, one could make the following converse argument, should the above platform prove too unpalatable: The state of the art technology at the time of the amendment was a single shot musket. So yeah, anyone should be able to own and carry single shot, black powder and flint fire arm rifles.. I have no problem with that. But I simply think that a hand gun with 27 bullets that fits in a large pocket needs a little bit more regulation.

I agree that knee-jerk reactions are rarely good or measured. But every time there is a mass shooting or assassination attempt... (Which I just read that since Newtown (about 4 months ago) in the US, another 2400 people were shot and killed) I have sketched out and refined the above 5 point platform and sent it to my elected officials, the White House, and tried to socialize it around the interwebs. I generally only ADVERTISE this approach after lots of innocents are murdered because people are like goldfish and forget tragedy a scant second after it happens, but it is by no means a knee-jerk reaction.

As an example of how easy it would be to implement this 5 point platform, consider this: A company like Fieldprint can do a 10 year criminal background check in all 50 states plus the Federal records for around $60 a person, and get the results in about 24 hours. For under $100, one can also get educational, employment and civil case info too. It's not 100% complete, but its part of the FINRA rules that Financial companies need to do that for bankers and traders. This already exists and could be used as part of that qualification to own a firearm. Isn't it odd that we MANDTE that a person who could possibly take your financial health away from you has to have this done before they can touch your money yet we can't seem to legislate similar protections for anyone who wants a tool that takes your ACTUAL life away?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad