America should catch up with the rest of the world and update its constitution regarding firearms
In most countries in the world where firearms are legal in some way, they are also restricted, requiring some kind of licence or background check. America’s gun violence is 5 times higher than its neighbour, Canada, which requires gun owners to hold a licence, pass a test, and undergo a background check and interviews.
Following the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement. This was followed by a period of relatively few massacres compared to previous decades. Australians are still allowed to purchase guns but require a licence for hunting, sports shooting, pest control, collecting or farming. These licences are reviewed every three or five years and restricted to people free from mental-health problems.
Having a gun licence is more common for countries around the world than cases where it is not, and is arguably a sign of a modern developed country. The argument against having to have a licence for firearms is redundant as you are already required to have a licence for many other activities, and this is even the cause in the US. Driving, fishing, voting, marriage, sailing, practising medicine, and running a bar or sales business all require licences, so why not guns?
Hunting is an especially hypocritical example of this double standard in the United States, as hunting is mostly regulated by the state, with migratory bird hunting understandably regulated by federal government. In the US hunting typically requires the hunter to purchase a hunting “tag” controlling the species and amount of animals hunted. Furthermore hunters are required to undertake a “safety course” before undertaking a hunt. If all this effort is but into rightly protecting wildlife and the environment in the United States, why is human life so undervalued?