I think gun laws should mimic drivers' license laws

[Waiting For Everyman]

I never comment on any of the gun threads but this is what I think: there should be required just as much training, and just as much time, and just as much test taking, and re-certifying to own and carry a gun, as it does to drive and/or own a car.

(It's my understanding that currently in most places, the gun laws are a lot less demanding than the driving laws, if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will let me know.)

Obviously that would mean every person who owns or carries a gun being licensed, and having an ID (meeting national standards) stating that, and every weapon being licensed to a given owner, just the same as drivers and their cars are. If we can stand that level of government compliance to drive a car, I think we can manage the same for guns.

I also think that similar to driving laws, every gun owner/carrier should be required to carry insurance to cover any wrongful death or other damage that might occur given the type of weapon he/she owns. The heavier the weapon, the more insurance, the more certification. And yes, a basic psych test might be part of that.

I think the rapid-fire weapons shouldn't be allowed. at all An only exception might be in a person's own home, purely for defense.

We seem to recognize that cars are deadly but we can't seem to get it through our heads that guns are more deadly. Comparing guns to cars might help us out in that regard, and help us gauge what type of laws we need and how stringent they should be. Very few people question the driving laws, so comparison to those might help assure folks that the requirements make sense and are not punitive or infringing overly far on their rights.

My two cents, fwiw.

[onehandle]

1. Yep. The purpose of cars is transportation. The purpose of guns is killing.

Inevitably guns and owners will be licensed, tracked, and required to carry insurance.

Better sooner than later.

[PoliticAverse]

2. In most places you don't need a license, registration, or insurance for cars operated only

on your own property.

Assuming your system took effect, do you think it would have prevented mass shootings like
the recent one in Oregon?

[Waiting For Everyman]

4. Not necessarily,

but who knows which measures might've made which weapons unavailable to which murderers.

I don't think guns are going away, but I do think they should be treated as the dangerous objects they are, and those who use and own them should be held responsible for them, and being sufficiently trained to do so safely.

[beevul]

3. From the top.

I never comment on any of the gun threads but this is what I think: there should be required just as much training, and just as much time, and just as much test taking, and re-certifying to own and carry a gun, as it does to drive and/or own a car.

First, it takes NOTHING to own a car. No license. No permit. No background check. No prohibited persons who can not legally own one.

There is already more than that to simply OWN a gun, legally speaking.

When it comes to 'driving', that's a different issue.

Driving can be broken up into two catagories: nonpublic use, and public use.

A license is required ONLY for public use.

The same already exists where guns are concerned, as a concealed carry license.

I think the rapid-fire weapons shouldn't be allowed.

Define exactly what you mean by this.

Very few people question the driving laws, so comparison to those might help assure folks that the requirements make sense and are not punitive or infringing overly far on their rights.

Doubtful. People who actually care about these laws on the pro-gun side, care about what effect these laws have on them and that's what they look at, not what someone compares them to.

[Kang Colby]

5. So gun owners could carry in all 50 states with one license?

That's how drivers licenses work. I'm glad people like the OP are advocating for national concealed carry reciprocity.

[branford]

6. Some questions and comments:

If your model for gun regulation is drivers licenses with a national standard for training and certification, would you then agree that such a license would permit the ownership and carrying of a firearm in all 50 states, effectively preempting state and local laws, just like a drivers' license is valid across the country regardless of state of issuance?

What do you mean by "rapid-fire weapons?" If you mean fully automatic firearms, they are already highly restricted under the National Firearms act and account for near statistically zero crimes, suicides or accidents. If you mean semi-automatic firearms, they account for the vast majority of the most popular and ubiquitous firearms legally owned in America, are expressly protected under the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions, and your proposal would be amount to a near complete prohibition on firearms, particularly those most useful for self-defense.

Additionally, firearm insurance is probably not what you think it is, would do nothing to stem crime or accidents, most legal gun owners are already covered, and if mandatory, quite likely unconstitutional.

See my extensive post on the subject here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7135948

[Lizzie Poppet]

7. Some comments:

I'm not sure I advocate for similarity between the requirements for a driver's license and simply owning a gun, but I'd like to see more stringent requirements for the equivalent to legally operating a car on the public roads. That is, for carry permits have more stringent training/competency requirements (many states require no "range time" at all).

Sure, I also think anyone who keeps a gun at home for self-defense is a fool if they don't regularly practice, but requiring certification in such training for simple possession of firearms would almost certainly require a constitutional change (since it's an enumerated right). An idea to consider, but not something that's going to happen any time soon.

I should point out that insurance won't cover any deliberate and/or illegal harm caused...no insurer covers illegal acts.

I'm not sure what you mean by "rapid fire." Do you mean fully automatic firearms ("machine guns&quot ? Those are already very strictly controlled. Do you mean anything but single-shot firearms? That would be a very extreme position, and not one I can ever see being implemented. I'd hazard a guess that 99.9999%+ of civilian firearms in the US are repeaters of one kind or another (semi-autos, revolvers, bolt-action, lever-action, slide-action, etc...).

[UTUSN]

8. R#3 & K, for, bravo!1 I agree but can't phrase things well enough to defend my case

against counter arguments like the ones in this thread. I like the ideas of: Required training courses; a test; a license; expirations, renewals, refresher training, progressive citations on infractions.