This is a very difficult subject to determine. The privilege to bear arms indescriminately is a two sided sword. I believe there should be descretion when allowing some people to carry especially when they can get one in any back alley in any city in the US. If there are no restrictions, which includes responsibility for the use of the weapon, then we are right back into allowing the criminal element, and the inexperienced or ill, to get access. And then the determination of that happens after innocents get hurt or killed.
Permitless carry in many states includes states where an individual must meet certain qualifications, e.g., no DUIs in the last 10 years, in order to legally carry. But isn’t that right back to having that data base on owners the gun enthusiasts are not in favor of with registration so the user can be determined qualified to make the decision when it comes? Qualified can detemine a repeated criminal, a mentally unstable person, a youth with no experience even to the point of underaged and not held responsible?
We have a huge amount of gun crime in the US now. Do we want to invite more because of a lack of qualification certification?
I own two. One handgun and a twenty guage semi auto shotgun so my spouse can use it without the recoil of a 12 guage or bigger. I grew up with guns on a ranch shooting rabbits, quail and dove. I spent 35 plus years with the military and they were the tool for what I did. But does that qualify me now? Am I old enough, experienced enough, observant enough, and not a criminal or mentally imbalanced person...who knows if no one asks? Two sided sword.
wy69
Second Amendment supporters have always strongly supported responsibility for the use of a weapon.
There is no persuasive evidence which shows making it difficult for non-criminals to access firearms decreases violent crime committed by criminals.
Using the term "gun crime" shows the propaganda of those who wish you disarmed is effective.
Gun crime is an Orwellian term designed to link guns and crime. The proper metric is simply crime, or certain types of crime.
Consider this: if outlawing guns happens, and the total murder rate goes up, while the rate of murder with guns goes down, is this a desirable outcome?
The total murder rate is the important metric.
Researcher John Lott states when restrictions on guns are imposed, the total murder rate always goes up, no exceptions.
I believe that our retired ID card would be more than sufficient.
I don’t think you are asking the right question.
The real question is, “Who has the burden and what is the standard of proof”? I am not convinced that any mechanism short of incarceration has any effect on violent crime whatsoever.
Recently an unarmed liberal in San Francisco watched “helplessly” as about a dozen criminals kicked a person into unconsciousness. Some would celebrate the fact that no gun was involved.