Let's take a look at Reality: Sane Gun Regulation

The word " Sane " gets thrown around a lot, and unfortunately the word has become watered down because of it. The thing is, sanity can in fact be measured, we have professionals that determine sanity. Our courts admit this, simply by allowing a plea of " Not Guilty by reason of mental defect " to be admitted. So to that extent, let's attempt to keep reality and sanity in the Gun Regulation debate.

There are many things that are proposed in the gun regulation debate. The assault weapons ban, limiting magazine size, and closing the illegal gun loopholes in our country.

Of those only the last reflects a significant reality, while I can understand the desire to remove assault weapons from the ownership of civilians and to limit magazine size for civilians, it's a purely emotional issue and does not bear in any way towards significant reductions in gun violence in our country, the reduction in that gun violence would be so low as to be nearly insignificant, and does not reflect a plan as to address alternatives that would still be available to murderous thugs to carry out their murderous deeds. Neither the assault weapon ban or limiting magazine sizes would prevent or even seriously impede a deranged person from their horrible deeds.

For example, to an untrained civilian, I hold the opinion that the single most dangerous privately owned weapon that they could own would be a pump action shotgun. This weapon is easy to use, easy to aim, and extremely deadly. With an at most 8+1 magazine size it would not be unaffected by a magazine restriction, and it is not considered an assault weapon so it would be completely ignored by the assault weapon ban. It's close connection with hunting means that all but the most liberal progressive wouldn't even hint at banning this weapon, and if they did, all but the most liberal progressives would vote against him for it. It is, and will remain, an incredibly deadly weapon, easily available to the public. The AR-15 by contrast, with or without the limit of it's magazine size, actually requires some ( though not an extreme amount with a proper instructor, I will admit ) training to use effectively, and while deadly and with a longer range than a shotgun, and a larger magazine size, does not have the spread of accuracy. I'm not in anyway defending the AR-15, I am simply making an argument that it is less deadly in the hands of a lunatic than a shotgun.

I hope people noticed the words " deranged " and " lunatic " in the above paragraphs, because that's the elephant in the room that no one seems to notice. The fact of the matter is that we make it entirely too easy in this country for deranged lunatics to acquire firearms. Closing the gun show and other loopholes is easily step one, and something that everyone can and should get behind, but it isn't the complete solution that this country needs to consider. The true consideration is whether or not someone's mental health should be a factor in whether or not they can acquire these weapons. Some would say this is discriminatory, but that has never stopped our nation before. We discriminate against 14 years old's with permission to drive, 17 year old's with permission to buy cigarettes, 20 year old's with permission to buy alcohol, and those are just some examples. Yet we all have known 14 year old's that are more mature than the 30 year old's who do drive, and would be less dangerous drivers. 17 year old's who are more conscious of the facts about cigarettes than people older than them, and 20 year old's who would never drink to excess. The discrimination about age therefore is an attempt to blanket cover a protection for society in order to establish an average period of life in which the majority of people are mentally and emotionally prepared to take on the responsibility of various tasks that are dangerous in one area or another. This is the way we run our society, that we make an attempt to find a point at which the majority of people who are legally able engage in risky behavior is at it's highest point.

So how do we apply that to gun regulation? Age is already set in most states, either 18 or 21 or in some cases 18 for " hunting weapons " and 21 for handguns. This is a reasonable start, but it is obviously not enough. I can't fathom a person who would disagree with the idea of a renewable ( like a driver's licence in many places ) four year proficiency examination by a professionally trained public servant ( say a police officer ) for each firearm licensed to a person including the ability to maintain the weapon and to fire the weapon accurately. I cannot imagine people arguing that if a person can't hit a target with the weapon they own at the optimal range of that weapon ( say for example 15 feet for a 9mm handgun, just throwing that number out there ) that they should be allowed to own it. To be against that policy would be very close to being by proxy against regulation ( that already exists ) that prevents people who cannot operate a freight truck from driving one. However I suppose some people on the fringe would make an uproar over it. So be it, it's always good when the fringe makes an uproar, it lets you know where the fringe is so you can keep away from it. All of that taken into account as a regulation that everyone can get behind, let me move on to the more controversial regulation I propose, one that actually deals with sanity.

I do not think I will ever be able to understand the mentality of anyone who was against the following " I do not support legislation that would force an individual to undergo a psychological examination before owning a firearm " unless of course that person was afraid they themselves would fail an examination. My proposal is simple, during the application process for a licence to own ( and for that matter carry concealed, I particularly don't mind concealed carry permits, I'd rather people do that than wear them openly, what's the point in upsetting people if you can avoid it? ) you were presented with a test, created by say the AMHCA, that was designed to measure the mental stability of the individual. Such a test should be presented in a way where there are no " obvious " right answers, but to determine the way in which individuals think. There are plenty of these tests out there that would do a reasonable job of determining how stable mentally a person is. Or if that's too " liberal " for some people, let's just use the in place Military mental health test that is administered in determining whether or not to accept someone into the Military. I think it reasonable that if the Military wouldn't take you because they think you're mentally unstable, that you certainly shouldn't own a firearm in the civilian world. Either way would do for me, but if you're so far to the right that you don't think that the test we give our soldiers is fair to give to you, then please just admit to yourself that you're the type of person that make talking about gun regulation and attempting to implement it necessary. If you want less regulation, volunteer yourself to be prohibited from owning them, and then perhaps the rest of us will consider less regulation on this issue. I'd be willing to drop regulation from my list of woe's if I saw people coming forward saying " I don't think it's safe for other people if I own a gun ", until I see that, regulation is necessary.

I'm always looking for counterpoints when I lay out this idea, this " plan " if you will, mostly because I don't see a lot of well thought out retorts in response. In fact when I get retorts they seem to reinforce the concept because any person who can emotionally detach themselves from the issue long enough to actually read the retort realizes that the logic is convoluted at best. I truly believe this is the best regulation plan for the United States, and while it has next to zero chance of becoming reality, it really should, and I wish I could somehow start a grass roots movement on this issue, because we do want sanity in our country. We want well thought out, emotionally detached, fact based regulation for all things that are potentially dangerous to the public at large. I'd even go so far that we as a people, want fact based, emotionally detached, logical legislation overall, in every sphere. So why don't we just get together and agree on what reality is here, let's agree that people who are unhinged shouldn't have firearms.