It’s not about controlling weapons. It’s about making sure that people are qualified to properly use powerful equipment.

We license people to drive cars. We have more stringent standards for people who want to drive buses and trucks. Even tougher for private airplanes. Tougher still for commercial airplanes.

We license people who use explosives and toxic chemicals. We license people who design bridges. We license people who dispense powerful drugs.

Licensing to assure required competence before someone is allowed to possess or use dangerous substances or powerful equipment isn’t new or surprising or unreasonable. We’ve been licensing people to operate equipment for a very, very long time.

The only thing that’s unreasonable is not licensing people who want to use deadly weapons in accordance with the same procedures and systems we’ve used for decades to license people to own and use other items of dangerous equipment, products and materials.

Would any even halfway intelligent person argue that we shouldn’t require someone to pass a driving test before being licensed to ride a Harley because we don’t have a similar driving test before some can ride a bicycle?

Yet we have people who think that it’s a clever and convincing argument to say that we shouldn’t license people to own a .45 pistol because we don’t license people to own a steak knife.

How dumb does someone have to be to be unable to instantly recognize how ridiculous that argument is?

Graduate of Stanford University & U.C. Berkeley Law School. Author of 17 novels and over 200 Medium columns on Economics, Politics, Law, Humor & Satire.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store