Behavioral laws require three components to be effective. They must accurately describe an action that causes harm to others. They must propose a penalty that disincentivizes the activity. They must be enforceable.
Let’s consider the laws against murder. The harm done is obvious. The penalties range up to death. They can be enforced by an examination of the evidence during trial, and punishment.
How about “disturbing the peace?” If you plug in a Gibson ES35 guitar and a stack of Marshal and Hi-Watt amps at 2 a.m. and start playing Black Sabbath’s “Iron Man,” there’s a good chance your neighbors will complain. If they do, we have a clear report of harm done (minor harm, but relevant), and can again have an examination, trial and punishment, probably a fine.
Of course, we could prevent some of those incidences by licensing guitars, having waiting periods on amplifiers, and requiring proof of need for any amp over 20 watts.
Wait, how would that work exactly? And why should we exercise prior restraint on an otherwise lawful activity? How would a waiting period stop anyone from blasting the neighborhood?
Let’s look at a global issue, and management: Driving.
Most nations have speed limits in various areas, typically from 25-35 mph in residential areas, and typically from 55-100 mph on rural highways, depending on traffic load and conditions. Stop signs are almost universal, as are yield signs. Traffic keeps to one side unless passing. Cars have brake lights, headlights and turn signals. Most nations will let foreigners drive on their own nation’s license. You can go between the US, Canada and Mexico and the rules are fundamentally identical. Europe’s are not dissimilar. Parts of the old Empire and Japan drive on the opposite side, but that’s adaptable. Driving laws on the whole suit a consensus of what is reasonable, and serve valid purposes in reducing and preventing accidents and damage.
We’ve had cars for a bit over 100 years.
We’ve had guns for 800 years. It would make sense, then, for firearm laws to be as consistent and uniform across the world.
Before getting into that, what other 800 year old technologies are restricted from the populace? We don’t restrict printing presses and broadcast, despite the obvious incidents caused by their unfettered use. Generators don’t require licensing to own, nor do steam engines. There are occasionally laws against knives, which are sharpened pieces of metal, and it’s obviously a lost cause to ban the fabrication of something so basic. Guns are slightly more complicated, but can be mass-produced using cheaply available machinery of the 19th century. Why have we deemed such a basic tool to be some sort of mystical demon?
Read the rest of the article: http://www.thegunmag.com/time-eliminate-gun-control-laws-yes/