Demon Kagerou
For those that believe in the rights of gun ownership, my question as the title implies is this... what's wrong with having high standards to own and carry firearms?
If your argument for having a weapon is defense, shouldn't you know how to use it like an expert? Wouldn't it be preferable that the illusive marksman that saves a mall under siege is actually a marksman?
We have these kinds of standards for doctors. Why not for people that can potentially take lives at a moment's notice?
We have such standards for government of course, but not so much for "professional" individuals. You need to jump through some hoops to own them in most states, but you don't really need to earn most of them beyond a background check, if that.
It seems like tiering gun makes to abilities and qualifications would be helpful to both sides... those that want the guns available, and those that don't want the craziest to have them by simple means.
The best example for this may actually be video game where new abilities/skills are earned by leveling the character to appropriate levels. Seems like it would give "deserving" wielders more prestige as well.
Just a thought.
Great points Kagerou. I believe the same thing generally. But with a few insane twists.
First off all guns but like a sock .22 rifle should require a licence to use. We'll call this the Bycyle of guns. Arguably .22 is a needed tool if you own any sort of land.
Any premium gun should be put on car status. If it's a handgun to assalt rifle, you need a licence to own it. You have a DMZ and a DMG, maybe even combine the two.
Anyone who can drive a car can legally own a gun aslong as they have a licence and can pass a test every few years. Except you should be able to own a gun at a much younger age than a car, maybe like at like 8 or something.
Anyone who has a licence can buy or sell a gun to anyone who has a licence. I
