In fact, many gun-rights advocates would be okay with regulating guns like cars. There would be no federal registration or licensing, state-granted licenses would be given to people over 16, 17, or 18 years old after passing a simple test, the license would be good in all 50 states, and using a gun on private property wouldn’t require a license. As others have pointed out, in many ways this would be less onerous than current firearm regulations. Purchasing a car requires no background check or waiting period, and cars can be purchased by people who have been convicted of a felony, use illegal drugs, have been dishonorably discharged from the military, or are illegal aliens—all of whom are “prohibited persons” under current federal gun laws.
So why don’t we have such purportedly “common-sense” regulations for guns? Quite frankly because many gun-control advocates want to go much further than “common-sense” restrictions. Gun-rights supporters know that gun-controllers won’t stop after enacting, say, “universal” background checks. While a significant number of gun-control advocates ultimately prefer total prohibition, the majority likely prefer limiting access to guns in a manner that would be akin to limiting cars to licensed NASCAR drivers on official NASCAR tracks.
[clip]
But if only half the country owned cars, and that ownership roughly tracked political divisions, then we’d see similar Facebook debates sparked by posts exclaiming “40,000 people did in car accidents last year. When will we stop the madness?!?” Jeeps might be described as “military-style” vehicles that are clearly only meant for war, ignoring the fact that Jeeps are just normal cars. Car owners would try to explain that one person’s misuse of a car doesn’t justify banning whole classes of cars; that the only way to stop auto fatalities entirely is to ban and confiscate cars, an unreasonable goal in a country with hundreds of millions of cars and a deeply entrenched car culture; and that the focus should be on drivers rather than cars because stopping bad drivers is more effective than banning bad drivers’ cars. Bad drivers, after all, will just switch to different cars.
What If We Treated Guns Like Cars? Then We Might Be Able to Enact Truly "Common-Sense" Gun Laws
So why don’t we have such purportedly “common-sense” regulations for guns? Quite frankly because many gun-control advocates want to go much further than “common-sense” restrictions. Gun-rights supporters know that gun-controllers won’t stop after enacting, say, “universal” background checks. While a significant number of gun-control advocates ultimately prefer total prohibition, the majority likely prefer limiting access to guns in a manner that would be akin to limiting cars to licensed NASCAR drivers on official NASCAR tracks.
[clip]
But if only half the country owned cars, and that ownership roughly tracked political divisions, then we’d see similar Facebook debates sparked by posts exclaiming “40,000 people did in car accidents last year. When will we stop the madness?!?” Jeeps might be described as “military-style” vehicles that are clearly only meant for war, ignoring the fact that Jeeps are just normal cars. Car owners would try to explain that one person’s misuse of a car doesn’t justify banning whole classes of cars; that the only way to stop auto fatalities entirely is to ban and confiscate cars, an unreasonable goal in a country with hundreds of millions of cars and a deeply entrenched car culture; and that the focus should be on drivers rather than cars because stopping bad drivers is more effective than banning bad drivers’ cars. Bad drivers, after all, will just switch to different cars.
What If We Treated Guns Like Cars? Then We Might Be Able to Enact Truly "Common-Sense" Gun Laws
