So let’s get down to it. Everyone is tired of shooting sprees. If you’re a gun-owner, you’re tired of seeing weapons abused and misused to harm the innocent. If you’re a gun opponent, you feel the same way but can’t imagine why anyone has these weapons in the first place. I get it. I hope both sides get it.
I’ve thought about this a lot. I’m a gun owner. I have been since childhood. That was the culture in which I was raised. Guns everywhere. In dad’s dresser, in the closet, in the neighbor’s truck. It’s what I knew. There are about 80 million (with an M) gun owners in America, many of whom come from a similar background.
I don’t have an AR-15. I have something similar called a Mini-14, but it just doesn’t look as ‘angry’ as the standard image of the semi-automatic weapons we see in news stories. It has meaning to me. It was a Father’s Day gift from my wife and family. It lives in a gun-safe with many other happy, quiet firearms.
I am, however, a reasonable person. At least I think I am. I have looked at numerous good analyses of American active-shooter events and I can’t see many ways that proposed rules would have changed them. But I understand the call to do something.
However, let me just say that some things aren’t going to happen. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going to be repealed. (I’m talking to you in particular, fellow physicians who are advocating for this.)
Likewise, no buy-back or confiscation scheme will work here. America has a deeply entrenched gun culture that other countries lack, and it has been so since colonial days. Please understand that even the Australian scheme only got something like one third or one half of those weapons; the rest are still in circulation. In the US? The numbers I’ve seen suggest that there are between 8 and 20 million AR-15 rifles in circulation. In addition there are oodles of other types of semi-automatic, military style rifles. (M-1, M-1A, AK-47, SKS and assorted other civilian versions of those weapons may constitute 10 million more…I have no idea how to figure that number).
So for one thing, the feds have neither the money nor manpower to go and get them. And nobody has the political will, or disdain for Americans, to do so. In addition, the numbers in circulation suggest that as tragic as every shooting is, statistically we are a remarkably law-abiding and peaceful bunch of gun-nuts here in the US. That’s pretty well born out in research on crimes by concealed weapons permit holders.
But I want to come to the table and make an offer, a suggestion, an olive branch. And I want to do it without being accused of heresy by fellow gun-owners. Folks, I believe in our cause. Because I believe the founders understood the potential for tyranny in every age and the value of having the means to resist. The rest of the constitution ultimately depends on the 2nd Amendment, even though you may think that sounds extreme. Humans descend into totalitarianism with remarkable ease, no matter how nice we may seem for now.
So here’s my suggestion.
I have a concealed weapons permit. It took fingerprints, a fee, about two months of waiting for a background check and then a four hour class. I was cool with that. With that, in SC and some other states with reciprocity, I can carry a firearm on my person in public.
What if we had a similar permit process for semi-automatic, military style rifle purchases? Here’s how it would look.
From 18- 21, long gun purchases of standard rifles and shotguns would still be acceptable. I’d still allow purchase of .22 semi-autos and some others. It would take some negotiation and discussion among gun owners. Those in active or reserve military status could buy at 18. If you can go to war, you can be trusted.
At 21, one needs to go through the standard process that most of us do for concealed carry permits. Fingerprints, background check then a class to discuss legalities and assess competence.
After that, you can buy the rifles when you present your card. You’ve been vetted. Mind you, this isn’t cart-blanche to carry rifles in public. States will have to decide that. Again, I’m not a fan. But I wouldn’t mind being able to keep a rifle in my truck without being considered a danger to society.
People with Concealed Carry Permits have remarkably low rates of criminal gun use. This has been well documented. So that process seems to have value. Not just because of background checks, but also selection effect. Those willing to go to the state for the permit are unlikely to have criminal history or intent.
So what would us ‘gun-nuts’ get out of the deal? National concealed carry permit with reciprocity. No more crossing state lines and being charged with a felony for what was acceptable two miles back. A national recognition that we’re willing to be evaluated and that we are as interested in safety and security as everyone else. A national recognition that we aren’t the problem, but may be part of the solution.
The permit could be called a ‘firearms purchase and carry card.’ It wouldn’t be necessary to purchase handguns as long as instant background checks are in place, and it wouldn’t be necessary for standard rifles and shotguns for the same reason. (But could be used to expedite both).
This permit would not constitute gun registration, which is a hot-button topic for many gun owners.
But for carrying sidearms and purchasing the rifles in question (which by the way are used in a very, very small proportion of crimes statistically) this permit would seem to accomplish two things.
First, it would demonstrate our willingness to work with the other side and second, it would offer us the freedom to do what we’ve wanted for so long, which is carry across the country.
I’m open to thoughts and comments. Please, please, be civil. I’m just trying to think through this.
Edwin
It’s people like yourself, who have delusions that someone is coming to take your guns, that scare me the most. Nobody wants to eliminate our right to own guns. Just explain the downside of having more responsible gun control , background checks and licensing? You can still own as many guns as you like. But perhaps we can reduce the violence and deaths in our country. Isn’t saving one childs life worth that?
The problem is the any offered solutions will have a negligible impact upon the 16,000 homicides and 40,000 suicides each year. People are upset about school shootings, but not the daily street-level violence. Chicago lost more than 110 people under 20 years of age in 2017, but there is no student-driven initiative for those victims…
People are clamoring for a solution but neither will offer a helpful one nor one that avoids, “… shall not be infringed”.
Dave, Are you a bot? Did you read what I wrote? I explicitly called for better background checks, fingerprinting, a class and subsequent licensing to purchase a class of firearms. Don’t comment if you haven’t read the piece.
Edwin, I’m inspired. I’d like to talk with you more about this. Will you send me an email with a link to your post? Vidya 2002 at hotmail.com. Please? I’m not a bot. My friend who lives in South Carolina posted this to Facebook.
What about checking out AR 15s and other hunting rifles like library books. Or renting them. That way every two years or so, folks have to see a psychiatrist to determine trustworthiness with this kind of weapon?
“nobody has the […] disdain for Americans, to [confiscate firearms]”
Um, yes they do. There’s plenty of downright hatred on the left. They would never be satisfied with such a modest proposal. They want the government in control. It’s their god. Dead children are just a tool to beat us with. But apart from that, yeah, good proposal.
i am a full on leftist (centrist used to be) but , well, on Edwins proposal, I like it. I also grew up going to gun shows with my dad, who was a WW2 vet in the Phillipines and brought back a Nambu (which I still have) along with his Garand. I also have no fewer than 3 03 Springfield rifles. All that being said, I am an ER doc who prefers inner city ERs because, well, gratitude. I have seen so many pistol GSWs i long ago stopped counting. I do however vividly remember the few times someone was… Read more »
What is the point of a rigorous background check if we do not have a rigorous, legally accepted method of identifying and reporting who is mentally stable and clearing who is not? The “system” misses people who cannot be referred because of patient confidentiality. It cannot include informal civilian evaluations which are not professional which might be accurate, but might also be ignorant or vindictive. The few sources left cannot possibly do the job of accurately flagging risk. To produce a system that will accomplish the goal of protecting children from other children a whole lot of civil rights are… Read more »
While you are right on a couple points, you keep using the term “standard rifle,” and it makes me question whether you truly understand firearms. There is no functional difference between a semiautomatic “standard rifle” and a scary looking “assault rifle.” A pistol grip, flash suppressor, and collapsible buttstock do exactly zero to change how a weapon functions. I personally support raising the minimum age for ALL gun purchases to 21 (except for those in the military), and I would like to see a more robust background screening, with all criminal records, fingerprint data, certain psychiatric records (if an individual… Read more »
Tom, I understand firearms very well. I was simply trying to word this in a way that would reach gun owners and those who don’t understand the vocabulary. I’m sure I could have been clearer. I like your ideas. My post was really just a first blush thought, so there would be plenty to add to make it more effective.
I think the majority of these are bought because they look cool. So lets make them not look cool. Lets mandate that they have pink polkadotted stocks and My Little Pony emblazoned on them. IF they dont look cool, posers would not buy them. And its the guys who are constantly bullied who buy them to look cool that are dangerous, because they will keep getting bullied, and eventually go off.