As an outsider looking in, I think this might be an effective way of reducing gun violence. I don't see it as being unconstitutional because the right to bear arms is still there. Everyone would have the right to apply for a licence and even though licencing authorities could reject applications where there is reasonable concern that an individual is unsuitable to own a firearm due to something like documented violent behaviour just as an example, everyone would still start with a clean slate. What I am suggesting is simply a reinterpretation of the constitution and not an outright violation of it.
Of course, people would find ways around this by obtaining guns illegally but there should be harsh penalties for doing so. The pressure of the threat of incarceration combined with an increased difficulty to obtain firearms should result in reduced fatalities as a result of shooting. Due to the new laws needed to make possession of firearms without a licence illegal, what you could call "gun related crime" could potentially see a temporary increase. This should be expected but it should also be expected to subside to lower levels than before the laws were enforced over time.
I also see economic benefits to this and it fits with American capitalist ideals. Business opportunities and jobs involving training, testing and awarding licences would be created. All jobs which didn't previously exist. Your thoughts?
Yes that is a bad idea
No, that is a reasonable idea
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
Updates
+1 y
Just to be clear, if I lived in America, I would own a gun. So many people have them, that it would seem just as practical as having your keys and your wallet with you. However, the kind of people who have the guns concern me and that's why I think it should be harder to get them.
Americans, is it a bad idea to make it compulsory to obtain a license to own a firearm?
A licensing system would be a good idea. We don’t let anyone drive a car who wants to, they need to pass a written test and prove they are capable of handling one under the moderation of an examiner. And just because someone is licensed to drive a car doesn’t mean they can drive a motorcycle or a big rig. A lot of the problem comes from the two extreme perspectives of our two party system. One side wants to ban all the guns, the other side wants to give everyone guns. There are a lot of laws about firearms ownership here, some states are stricter than others, and some laws are better than others. The fact that it’s illegal for a convicted felon to own a firearm is a good law, the fact that a blind person can get a concealed weapons permit is a bad thing. You also have to keep in mind that in the vast majority of shootings the firearms are illegally acquired by the shooters. That’s where the focus needs to be, crack down on illegal sales, require adequate training for gun ownership, and encourage an educated perspective in the people. Don’t require a maglock on any semiautomatic rifle with a pistol grip, or outlaw all guns that look a specific way. That doesn’t solve the actual problem, it ignores the problem while pushing the blame on others.
@ILikePlants I doubt the dumbass even read my whole post. I'm a proponent of personal defense in all it's forms, especially with a police force as worthless as the ones we have in the US. I am a gun owner myself, and there isn't a force in this world or the next that is going to change that while I live. But I am also a proponent of accountability, once you take that away you have nothing left but anarchy.
I actually appreciated your case. There is some wisdom to it. The licencing thing isn't as obvious as it might seem though. And that's simply because the right to bear arms is written into the constitution, which makes it an automatic right for an American citizen. I have a CCP, but you don't necessarily need it. The licence makes it so I can carry concealed anywhere. But I don't need it to own and use my weapons. The way the law actually works, in my state, is that I can carry anywhere except certain government properties and schools. And even private businesses cannot demand I disarm to enter their premisses. They can ask and I can obey, but I don't have to. And besides, I really do enjoy carrying it. I am much more aware of my surroundings when I do and that's actually a nice side effect of carrying deadly force.
@Floppy2112 I have a CCP as well, and carry my M&P shield damn near everywhere I go. Keep in mind that just because they can't demand you leave it, they can tell you to leave their building in which case you would be trespassing if you don't. But that's another issue all together. As for my idea with a license system there would be different levels each with their own tests, both written and in the range. One for long guns, one for handguns, one for CCW and one for full auto. This would remove the restrictions/ need for registration on for full auto, SBRs and suppressors. But I also accept the fact that it will never actually happen like that.
It doesn't sound like a bad idea, I just have to think about it as 2A is nondiscriminatory. We will need to create a set of immutable definitions that everybody understands. That in itself is a major undertaking, considering we live in a world where people advocate that 2+2=5. It's not a bad idea, it's just difficult to square with everything else regarding weapons in the US. At least your thinking about solutions rather than just bitching about a problem, and that is a good thing! :)
@Floppy2112 Oh, I fully understand that it's not likely to ever happen my way. Especially not with how aggressively devided our two political parties are in the subject. I'm in California and have seen first hand how poorly politicians actually understand firearms. Shit, when I had to convert my AR-15 to a mag lock system in place of the old bullet button it actually got faster to reload it.
Fucking American males. 84% against. They want their guns, AND no restrictions or accountability, too. Training? Knowledge? Accreditation? "Fuck that! I wanna fuck shit up. It's my constitutional right!"
@ofdeath, this is a great idea. But they'll fight tooth and nail against it. Reasonableness and common sense are not sexy.
The licensing to purchase a firearm cannot be 'hardened' until we agree upon a means to proactively ascertain vehement antisocial behavior with accompanying 'professional negligence' liability upon those empowered to pass down such judgement.
In 1982 when I applied to become a municipal peace officer I was REQUIRED to pass BOTH a polygraph and the Minnesota Multiphase Personality Inventory examination (the MMPI). What make the later exam unique IS... ALL personality exams grade upon a bell curve, other personality inventories PRESUME 'normality' wherein deviance must be detected. The MMPI PRESUMES possible antisocial prejudice and the Examinee must actively instinctively elect 'normality'. NO exam is beyond a Testee's cunning manipulation however to date, this IS pragmatically the MOST currently 'predictive'~
In an earlier post, as a former Federal Firearms Dealer I published the crucial excerpt of the BATF's Form 4473... published herein once more. CLEARLY, recent events have shown the 'Achille's heel' posited in this document. We MUST find a way to do BETTER!
Feel free to 'google' ATF Form 4473 for a more readable copy. IF You WERE among ANY of the prohibited citizenry WOULD YOU be so 'law abiding' as to ADMIT IT? Ever hear the expression: "No honor among thieves"?
That form is merely a means to un-indemnify the gun shop owner by HIS dutiful compliance to refer the Buyer's background check. Check against WHAT? NCIC only lists PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED felons. Mental stability? Against what? Some Psychologist or Psychiatrist's largely VOLUNTARY reporting of violent antisocial tendencies?
THERE is the system's 'feel good' weakness! A cursory 'once over' that when push comes to shove... legally NO ONE will own up to to be charged with CONTRIBUATORY CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE and possible 'Accessory Before the Act' for NOT 'red flagging' a dodgy potential Buyer~
Under the present statutes, its a LONG and expensive CIVIL suit process for the Victims to recover monetary damages from the negligent party ( who most likely doesn't have a pot to piss in, to begin with! ) EVERYBODY cries out for 'justice' NOBODY wants to own up to 'accountability'. It's the Pollyanna 'American' way! ... Smoke & mirrors----
I knew a person who was arrested for just enough marijuana to get a felony. He was sentenced, did his time and was released. Unfortunately he legally owned a 12 gage shotgun. So he got out of jail (did just under a year) went to his home and then took the shotgun to a pawnshop and sold it. The time between his release and the sale was under 5 hours. He was arrested, charged, found guilty and sentenced to 5 years for felony possession of a firearm. Does that give you an idea of how draconian our firearm laws already are? Legal firearms are not our problem.
Yikes! Does this poor bastard live in CA, or the north east? Please don't say Chicago... It wouldn't surprise me, but they let looters and rioters out scott-free. It would be even more of a shame if the guy got fucked up in a place where crime is rampant and largely unpunished.
Americans, is it a bad idea to make it compulsory to obtain a license to speak publicly?
As an outsider looking in, I think this might be an effective way of reducing hate speech. I don't see it as being unconstitutional because the right to free speech is still there. Everyone would have the right to apply for a licence and even though licencing authorities could reject applications where there is reasonable concern that an individual is unsuitable to engage in free speech due to something like having unpopular opinions just as an example, everyone would still start with a clean slate. What I am suggesting is simply a reinterpretation of the constitution and not an outright violation of it.
Here in the states and most other countries who have guns look at them as a way of life. If you are hungry and poor and need food and you have a gun. Great your family will eat. With the amount of crime in certain cities or countries if you have a gun you wife will not be raped. There are equally positives and negatives to gun ownership. It really depends on the person holding it what is going to happen with the gun. Mine gathers food when permitted and some enjoyment when used properly in a designated area. I believe that everyone should be able to have and carry a gun any time any where. However it does need some regulation. Violent offenders. Your out of luck in my book. 10 to 1 a murderer that is not in the system has better disciple with a gun than a kid waving his dads pistol in a school. Sad to say but it's the way I see it. Is either person right in those aspects.. nope. The leo sniper in the tree 300 yards out is. He knows what will happen when he pulls the trigger. He knows what life will be like for him after. He knows what nightmares he will have to deal with. The kid has only seen stuff in a video game and thinks a reset is an option. The murder has reasons no one will understand.
It’s already like that here in New York with getting a pistol but not in most other states, there is just a waiting period, you only need to be over 18 to buy a rifle but anything that looks like an assault rifle is hard to get at least legally. here. Most of the guns used for mass shootings are either stolen or obtained illegally. Seems to happen in states like Texas , Colorado and California mostly, Virginia had one and Connecticut a few years ago and they always blame assault weapons but they are hardly used in those shootings
While it sounds good on paper, it wouldn't actually stop anything, and slowing down the process doesn't really matter either.
You're also forgetting that the government doesn't care about actually fixing the situation; all they really care about is disarming the population. The currently planned legislation is directly aimed at people who are poor or otherwise struggling to get by, while also turning millions of gun owners who haven't committed any crimes whatsoever into criminals if they refuse to comply with what's essentially a tax on owned firearms. It also disproportionately targets one of the least-used in crime but most useful types of weapons (magazine-fed rifles) in the event of major unrest or strong-arming the government, so it's pretty obvious what the priorities really are.
The Old White Men created the Second Amendment to protect commoners from an out of control, unresponsive government just like what we have now. The left wants to first restrict (with government licensing) and then outlaw gun ownership because they know we will never accept their Orwellian vision. I need to keep my Parabellum and Pump Action for when they come for me because they know who I voted for. Think this is crazy. Only of you don't read real news. Stay away from the USA until we clean up the democrat mess. It's going to be bloody, I think.
@OfDeath To qualify my statement, I am an American, Pro 2nd amendment, and CHL holder. I think this idea is a great idea. I had to complete a highly detailed background criminal check, provide fingerprints to the FBI, get CHL classroom certified, range field test etc. It took about 90 days end to end. This is, of course, to conceal carry, not simply own a firearm legally.
It's a very reasonable idea- that's why we adopted it. Most states already HAVE gun license laws. I realize this is kind of hard to understand, but the availability of guns is not the cause of gun crime. If it were, Switzerland would be a bullet-riddled wasteland, and Mexico a peaceful paradise. It's not the law-abiding who're killing people.
Automatic weapons are banned in Switzerland and you need a licence to obtain a gun just like I have suggested for the United States. Mexico has a lot of other factors influencing it's crime rate.
Usually you apply to the firearms division of the state police and run through a background check. The exact details of the process are kept somewhat secret, probably to keep people from gaming the system. If it's approved, you're notified and can buy a gun or bullets- but that's just to purchase or possess them. Actually carrying a concealed weapon requires a second layer of certifications (and it varies far more than license requirements do), which is much more elaborate.
It varies by state. Generally, not for a basic license (which doesn't allow you to do much), but yes for every concealed carry state permit I'm aware of.
Well, no. The division of powers between the state and federal governments may seem kind of arbitrary, but it actually serves a very important purpose. This really needs to be left to the states. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing every state adopt similar policies, but it wouldn't lead to the massive drop-off in gun deaths many people expect. It's not the law-abiding who're killing people.
How about requiring two or more people to sign off that they will each serve 1/10th of whatever sentence you receive for any firearms-related crime? (Or would have received, if you get yourself killed.) A bit of skin in the game might encourage people to report any concerns, before a disaster.
I don't know why. They would be personally responsible for the criminal obtaining a firearm. I think it makes a lot more sense than blaming the licence issuer, firearms manufacturers, or dealers, who don't know the applicant from Adam.
It's all very well to say, "he's a big boy now, he can make his own mistakes", but not so great if you add "... with his new gun".
I think the constitution says it all. The right to bear arms: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Using this “individual rights theory,” the Court struck down a District of Columbia law that banned virtually all handguns, and required that any other type of firearm in a home be dissembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times I don't think handguns should be illegal to protect yourself and family. I do think machine gun type weapons should be regulated more. IF you practice gun safety and target practice you should be able to shoot and wound or kill someone attacking you with the handgun.
Terrible idea and it is unconstitutional because it puts the constitution a level down from the government when these rights aren't granted by the government or even protected by them, they're recognized by them as required and granted by our creator.
I didn't train 11 years in martial arts just to have the government mandate I own a firearm for my own safety, when statistically the firearm is more likely to be turned against me than anyone else.
If I would want any weapon, it would be a knife. Most fights are not going to take place at such a distance that a knife would not be extremely effective.
@ILikePlants I am faster than your draw time (1 second for cops) at 21 feet. I have talked to cops about this.
The 21-Foot Rule:
"Essentially, it says that when an assailant wielding a knife is closing in, they will cover 21 feet in the time it takes you to draw and fire your gun. That's a lot of ground and it also puts intense pressure on the person drawing the gun."
Yes, most guns already require licensing or other checks to own and carry. Of the weapons that don't like a single action.22 cal revolver it would be impossible to commit a mass shooting with this unless they wanted to dedicate years of their life mastering the fanning technique only to unleash a flurry of 8 high velocity thumb tacks before spending a good minute slowly putting every individual bullet back in.
Yes, it's a bad idea. It converts a right into a privilege managed by the government. all that would have to be done once such a law was in place is not issue any licenses. De facto gun ban.
I'm more ok with local municipalities handling these things than a blanket policy by the Fed converting a right into a permission effectively abridging 2A.
Since most firearm crime is committed with illegally obtained weapons, it would just be another way to punish law abiding citizens. But I have a concealed carry license and I have made peace with the decision to use it if I must.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions