It's not a knee-jerk reaction, because as the owner of 17 guns, I've long advocated gun registration, and tighter regulation.
Imagine for a moment if driving were a right. . you don't need to pass a driving test, you don't need to have license plates, you just get in and go. Having to pass a written test, a driving practical, and an eye exam saves millions of lives. In Holland, you have to sign up for lessons and complete an entire driving course before you're issued a Dutch driving license. This is a case of government acting responsibly, and lives are saved because of it.
I believe that gun-registration, tighter controls, and a ban on burst/auto-fire weapons in the USA are needed measures at this point. While I believe that better attention need be paid to people's mental health, I don't accept the argument that the reason that the uniquely American problem of mass shootings is because we're just crazier than the rest of the world. European gun laws, and the statistics that accompany them, need no explanation.
We created a 1.1 Billion dollar Gun Registry ... and we scraped it. Why? Because everybody, even those who initially advocated for it admits that it just doesn't work at solving the problem it was designed for. It's just more bureaucracy. Wasteful bureaucracy.
I'm all for certification, education and control... but that's not the basic concept of a Registry which is merely a list of "John Smith owns a Long Gun, Serial Number 123ABC". I just don't see how that helps prevent tragedy. Drunk Drivers kill hundreds of North Americans every year.... practically all of them are "registered" to drive, which means they had to pay their fees, prove competency in the law with a test and many of them were educated by instructors on the proper use of an automobile... and yet, people still die.
You might say, fewer people die, and you're right... but here's a real world example from my own life regarding the firearm debate;
For a brief time I had this co-worker... he was a new guy on the job, and we had him behind the auto-parts counter, but what he really wanted was to work in Hunting, because we sold firearms. He was qualified for the job. He was a licensed and certified
Gunsmith in Alberta. He had the documentation and education to not only possess firearms, but sell and fully service them. Way more then any regular John Smith would need to be to simply buy a firearm for personal use.
By all accounts... he is, on paper, the last guy you'd expect to go out and murder his mistresses husband according to your argument... but that's exactly what he did... and he even bought the Hunting Rifle from my store!
Legally having passed all the requirements that the bureaucracy of our shiny 1.1 billion dollar Gun Registry demanded.
He then took his new gun, walked out the door and killed a man with it. Why? because he was a fucking
nutjob as it turns out and the kind of person a Gun Registry is supposed to keep guns away from.... and that's why we scrapped the Long Gun Registry (though not specifically because of this murder).
Me personally? I think a firearm puts a lot of responsibility in the hands of an individual. There's a lot of potential for harm and tragedy... even when in the right hands. So, personally, I think it's fair that people should be expected to prove that they are at least competent and responsible enough to own a gun before being allowed to purchase one.
However, a Registry isn't going to solve the kind of problem people think it will. I think people are just using the recent tragedies in the news as a springboard for agenda's not related to making society safer from pyscho's going on a shooting spree and killing innocent people.
