facebook-pixel

Commentary: We learned how to regulate cars. Why not guns?

For conservatives, <i>no one is going to take your guns away. </i>For progressives, <i>the Second Amendment is here to stay</i>.

This Friday, July 21, 2017 photo shows a damaged car on the sidewalk after it collided with a bus during a fatal crash in St. Paul, Minn. Authorities filed felony charges Monday, July 24 against Tyler Randall Bjelland whose car sliced through the midsection of a Metro Transit bus on Friday, killing a father of six adult children including a daughter he was supposed to walk down the aisle at her wedding this summer. (Courtney Pedroza/Star Tribune via AP)

Back in the early 1900s, when the automobile first became more than just a curiosity, there were no sidewalks, no crosswalks, no semaphores or stop signs. Cars ran over people in the street and on the sidewalks, collided with trolleys and horse carriages.

By 1908, thousands of cars had hit the streets in major cities and Detroit was the first to install crosswalks, lane markers and traffic signals. The left-hand turn signal was unknown. In 1909, there were 200,000 vehicles in the U.S. By 1916, there were 2.25 million.

According to the Detroit News, in 1917, there were 65,000 vehicles on the road resulting in 7,171 accidents and 168 fatalities, three-fourths of which were pedestrians. Children were struck and killed as they played in the street. It was common for 14-year-olds to drive delivery vans. In the 1920s, the article said, 60 percent of the fatalities from automobiles were children under 9.

After World War I, drivers were called “remorseless murderers,” hit-and-runs were common, reckless drivers were pulled from their vehicles and beaten by angry crowds. Demonstrations in the streets paraded piles of wrecked cars down the street with signs like “Follow Me to the Cemetery.” Bells were rung twice a day in memory of street auto fatalities. The names of children, how they died were read in classrooms.

It took decades to establish the rules for pedestrians to cross at designated locations, for lanes to be established to keep drivers from cutting corners on left turns, running over pedestrians and having head-ons with through traffic. Drivers had no understanding of basic safe driving skills, nor etiquette of any kind. A law was once considered to put governors on cars to limit their speed. People hated cars, and drivers hated pedestrians.

I’d guess you could see where I’m going with this. Must we wait decades to regulate firearms for the safety of society without abrogating the right to bear them?

I grew up with guns. By the time I was 10, my Aunt Kate was the National Small Bore Champion of the country and my dad had tied the Small Bore 3-Position match record. This was a time when the NRA stood for shooting sports competition, accuracy and training courses for the safe handling of firearms. I looked forward to hunting rabbits and pheasants with dad every Saturday in the fall, carrying my single shot 20-gauge shotgun. On Jan. 1, the last day of the season, we would come home to a great game feast for dinner of roast rabbit, pheasant, squirrel and woodchuck.

In high school, there were six high school junior rifle teams competing. That would be unheard of today. I was county junior champion two years in a row and when I was 16 I went through the M1 Marine high-powered rifle school at Camp Perry, Ohio, where the national rifle and pistol matches were held. After college, I served four years in the Navy and was part of my ship’s pistol team. Today I am still an active hunter and angler.

In all of that exposure to weapons, I have seen a few accidental discharges, fortunately aimed in a safe direction. However, I have never seen anyone point a weapon at someone, handle one unsafely, nor fire a weapon in anger, because they were trained in their use and had respect for the dangers they pose to themselves and others. Yet we have this divide. People are dying and common sense solutions are not so common any more.

Two things need to happen. First, we must confront these issues for what they are. For conservatives, no one is going to take your guns away. For progressives, the Second Amendment is here to stay. What must happen is an approach to regulating how firearms are sold and to whom.

The constitution does not guarantee us the right to drive an automobile. But, we have established rules and regulations to ensure that those who do, have been trained and certified to operate one in a safe manner. Even so, almost 37,000 lives are lost each year to accidents. Accidents. Cars are not weapons, but some have intentionally turned them into one. Regardless of the rule of law, there will always be those who violate them.

Despite gun-owner paranoia, the government is not going to confiscate your weapons. Really. Just how would they? There are not enough FBI officers to confiscate all of the guns in Logan, let alone the whole country. The National Guard? They are your kids. By the time they agree to take their parents guns away, you will have a civil war the likes you’ve never seen.

No, I believe a better way is to do something similar to Canada. Divide firearms into several categories, train and license would-be owners as follows:

Prohibited: Fully automatic weapons; weapons capable of being converted to full auto; devices that alter weapons to full auto; shotguns with barrels less than (??)inches; .25 and .32 caliber pistols; pistols with barrels less than 4(?) inches, breech to muzzle; magazines of 30 or more rounds.

Restricted: Semi-automatic weapons, rifles, shotguns, pistols. magazines of 15 rounds.

Non-restricted: Long guns with bolt or lever action, pump shotguns, cylinder pistols.

Notice I said train. Each category should require entrants to apply for, pass a background check, train in the use of that category of weapon and receive a license to own and use it.

I have a pilot’s license that requires that I train and pass each category: single-engine, multi-engine, instrument, commercial. I cannot fly jets or seaplanes without the requisite training. We should not be allowed a license for a weapon for which we are not trained in its use.

Tax and license money will go toward the certification of experts and cost to train applicants. Look, kids today must go through a hunter education class in almost every state. Why not for responsible adults who want to own these weapons? If it promotes more gun ranges, fine. What safer way to accommodate the end user. We tax vehicles and fuel to partially pay for roads. In addition, you are required to have automobile insurance.

A century ago, the advent of the automobile introduced dangers to society that were hard to rationalize versus the potential for mobility, commerce and speed. The accepted safe use of these vehicles has been a regulated approach to highway design, vehicle standards, driver education and training. This results in a license commensurate with the class of vehicle — motorcycle, auto, commercial big rigs, etc.

If everyone is serious about having weapons, for whatever reasons, they should be willing to comply with requirements to ensure the safety of the general public, and help to reject applicants whose background could present a danger to society.

Tom Kessler is a retired VPO with a BA in business, 12 years in the computer industry, and 26 years in medical device research and production.