# A proposal for gun control **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 18, 2012, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419 "2012-12-18T13:07:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/101 "2012-12-19T17:47:43Z")
> [@DMark](#): > > And look - no handguns! From your cite: > [@](#): > > Additionally, there are some 320,000 semi-auto rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, From [here:](http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland) > [@](#): > > Regulation of Handguns > In Switzerland, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under licence > [@DMark](#): > > No machine guns! Your cite and the page I linked indicate a situation similar to that here in the US. Machine guns can be owned by jumping through the proper legal hoops. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/102 "2012-12-19T17:51:31Z")
> [@artemis](#): > > The technology’s not yet reliable enough to implement on guns. A firearm needs to fire every time the lawful user pulls the trigger, not 3/4 of the time (that’s about the failure rate of the biometric check-in setup at my local gym). > > When the technology DOES become reliable enough, I’d love to own a gun with a biometric lock. But we’re not quite there yet. What about the magnetic ring systems? I’ve read those work with a much higher success rate. ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/103 "2012-12-19T17:57:31Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Now, since I’ve thrown down the gauntlet, I’ll give you MY proposals: > > 1. All firearm purchases are subject to a background check. All of them. No exceptions. > > 2. All firearms must be registered through permissive process that does not allow the local government authorities an opinion on the matter. Further, the list must only be accessible to law enforcement in the event of the commission of a crime. > > 3. Going along with that, a firearm owner must report a stolen weapon as soon as possible, allowing for the possibility that they may be unable to report something they simply don’t know about. > > 4. HIPAA must be repealed insofar as mental health history must be accessed during the NICS check. If you are unable or unwilling to allow that access you will be denied a firearm. > > 5. In order to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, you must pass a test that is modest in scope, offered freely, and is not cost prohibitive. It should not be a thousand questions, given once a year for 15 minutes 500 miles away, or cost $1000. > > 6. Any crime committed with your firearms will result in you being charged with a crime as well. If you can’t take care of your weapons you have no business having them. > > That’s far more proactive than impossible pipe dreams like banning handguns and cosmetic, feel-good silliness like the re-enacted Assault Weapons Ban. Show me the meat, don’t distract me with the sizzle. > [@Hbns](#): > > 1. This would mainly impact law abiding private party sales. All sizzle, no meat. > 2. States and local government should have input. What is good and sensible for New York city is not necessarily good and necessary for upstate New York State. > 3. you left the door wide open at the end. Put some teeth in it. 48 hours to report a missing weapon, unless you can prove extenuating circumstances (out of the country or such). “If you can’t take care of your weapons you have no business having them.” > 4. National reporting database. If you are diagnosed as a danger to yourself or others your “score” goes in the database. During the NICS check the database “score” is queried and either a pass or fail is returned. > 5. Where I am it is ridiculously easy and inexpensive to get a CCW. People that really want the best of something sacrifice all the time to afford it. Personal protection should be no different. > 6. The owner of the weapon should be civilly liable if the weapon is used in the commission of a crime. That’ll be a much bigger impact than a criminal charges that have to take into account a lot of different scenarios, as well the burden of proof is lower. > > Now we are getting somewhere. 😉 Three additional proposals. 1. I’m concerned about the cost to implement these, so let’s add an annual license (state) and local optional property tax to each firearm. This is consistent with vehicle ownership and the revenue would be used only for firearm related costs, training etc. 2. Along with Hbns #6, add liability insurance requirement (vehicle analogy again). 3. Give this legislation a non-gun owner consumer friendly name - IMHO, the current “Firearm Owners Protection Act” and “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” have names that are very poor PR for gun owners. Non-owners might feel that they need protection too… ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/104 "2012-12-19T17:59:07Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > No. I’m not going to slaughter 20 small children, and I really don’t give a shit what kind of gun the deranged lunatic used - he could have used anything. The gun is still cool, regardless of what people do with it. Is it [this](http://letfreedomrain.blogspot.com/2012/12/bushmaster-ad-consider-your-man-card.html) cool? ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/105 "2012-12-19T18:02:57Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 1. Check out the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Germany. All have technically more liberal gun laws than the OP proposed, and extremely low gun homicide rates. All except the UK also had conscripted military service until just recently. I agree, if the US required strict, immersive, and mandatory training of all citizens in the use and handling of firearms the gun homicide rate would likely drop considerably. > [@](#): > > 1. The countries I’ve identified with the best gun laws are primarily the Nordic countries and Germany. You can get a semiautomatic rifle in those countries, with detachable magazine (there are some magazine size limits I believe in Germany after a school shooting where the shooter used a handgun with a 15 round magazine, but I believe German law still allows reasonably sized magazines), you can get a handgun (not just a revolver, either.) Basically you can get most of the guns you should be allowed to get here in the United States. Given all that, why adopt more restrictive laws? That have no chance of passage and clearly wouldn’t make us any safer than countries with less restrictive laws. This is a fair explanation of the [licensing requirements](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#Firearms_ownership_license) in Germany. Again I agree. If ownership, storage, and acquisition of firearms was regulated to this level in America, the gun homicide rate would drop substantially. > [@](#): > > 1. Your proposal is “gun-oriented.” You’re trying to create a laundry list of guns you personally think people should not have. Where gun control **has worked** , it has been **owner-oriented**. There are some reasonable controls on the weapons you can own, but the licensing regime is primarily one in which owners have a reasonable ability to buy most guns they would want, but have to go through a background check and licensing. For certain types of guns they have to explain why they want the gun. But while the bureaucracy is designed for public safety, it is not punitive. None of the licensing is super-expensive, required safety courses aren’t offered once a year 500 miles away etc. The problem is that firearms are not constitutionally protected in other countries. So they have no pressure to make them widely available. Therefore, restrictive licensing, storage, transportation, and usage permitting weeds out all but the most dedicated individuals. Eliminating most of the problems. Unfortunately not all. I was in Germany at the time that Arid Uka killed 2 US servicemen at the Frankfurt Airport and wounded 2 others with. As long as America is willing to put firearms in the hands of citizens uneducated, untrained, and uncommitted to proper handling, storage, use and transport of firearms, there are going to be a high number of homicides. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/106 "2012-12-19T18:05:55Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > What about the magnetic ring systems? I’ve read those work with a much higher success rate. Higher, but still not quite high enough. And you’re screwed if you don’t happen to have the ring on when you need the gun (which isn’t a problem with biometrics - you can’t misplace your fingertips). You’ll know biometrics (or some other owner identification system) is ready for real-world action when you see the police using it. Police would LOVE to have a gun that couldn’t be grabbed and used against the officer. It’s one of their big nightmare scenarios. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/107 "2012-12-19T18:06:06Z")
> [@Bibliovore](#): > > For the record, I’m not American, so changes to your gun control laws will have absolutely no impact on me whatsoever. But I like guns. I’ve used them, am familiar with them, I’ve had to carry one in an active warzone and I believe people should be able to own and use some kinds of guns responsibly. However I can’t help but shake my head in utter disbelief at the attitudes some Americans have about their guns. > > One poster upthread said “hey, we only have about 10 such massacres a year, at a cost of a few hundred lives.” > > And you’re ok with this? Seriously? > > To the people who say that the deaths of these children are statistically insignificant - are you shitting me? You’re prepared to hand-wave away thousands of preventable deaths because you like handguns and “that’s just the price people pay for our freedoms”? > > What the ACTUAL fuck?! > > To the people that say “killers gonna kill, no matter what”, does that mean that any attempt to reduce these needless deaths is pointless and futile? That you shouldn’t bother trying? How about making it harder for people to kill? > > To the people that say “Freedom and security are mutually exclusive” I’d say NO SHIT? Yes, you have to give up some of your freedom to help improve the level of safety in society, that’s called being a responsible member of society! No-one’s telling you to live in a totalitarian regime, but for god’s sake give up some of your guns! > > To the people that say “gun restrictions have never reduced violent gun crime”, I’d say you obviously need to go further. If your previous restrictions were toothless, pointless and ineffectual, then stop pussy-footing around and do it properly. Screw pistol-grips. Reduce the number of actual damn guns. > > Yet another poster said that owning guns is a Right given to him by the Founders (note the use of capital letters there). To that I’d say that the 2nd Amendment isn’t holy scripture. It’s not an unalterable law of the universe that’s coded into your very DNA. The 2nd Amendment is a document written by well-meaning but fallible, normal men a long time ago who ate, slept and made mistakes just as you do. It might have been right for their time, but the US of today is demonstrably a different place. Times change, needs change, society changes. Why the hell wouldn’t you change something that doesn’t work for you any more? > > Are the anti gun-control crowd honestly happy with the status quo? Are the thousands upon thousands of deaths per year seriously a price you’re prepared to pay for your “right” to own a gun. It’s as simple as hell - reduce the actual number of guns! But whenever anyone suggests that, gun owners scream “Aw HELL naw!” and try to suggest changes to the paperwork instead. > > Just reduce the number of damn guns! You’re all killing yourselves with them but you’re determined to hang onto them no matter what the cost. Jesus H jumping criminy Christ, do you not see what a bloody, tragic, unholy and avoidable mess you’ve become? > > If you don’t make a serious, significant change, the killings are just going to keep happening and you’ll just keep shrugging your shoulders and saying “Well, what’re ya gonna do? Guess that’s just the price of freedom!” As I have posted in other threads, the number of alcohol-related deaths in the US is actually somewhat higher than the number of gun-related deaths, despite broadly similar rates of alcohol consumption and gun ownership. Now, I know the two are not exactly analogous, so no need to derail this thread explaining that my analogy is totally wrong. I am simply bringing this up to make a point. For whatever reason you tolerate alcohol consumption, despite the fact that it is a purely recreational activity and causes untold harm, suffering, deaths, chronic diseases, ruined lives at the hands of drunk drivers, etc., that is the same reason we support guns. Because you can’t make life perfectly safe, and some freedoms are worth protecting. We could save thousands of lives each year in the US by passing laws that further restrict availability and consumption of alcohol. We choose not to, for the same reason we choose not to pass laws that further restrict the availability and ownership of guns. Now, I actually wouldn’t mind stricter laws on both gun ownership and alcohol. But I am simply trying to point out that the “pro-gun” position is not as psychopathic as you make it seem. If someone proposed laws that severely limited alcohol consumption, many people would likely say “Screw that, I’m a responsible alcohol user and I’ve never harmed anyone and never will, why should I give up my freedoms because of the actions of a bunch of irresponsible assholes?” That is exactly the gun owner’s reaction. The above is all related to gun deaths in general. On the topic of these rampages in particular, and my comments along the lines of “these things happen”: There are 300,000,000 guns in a country of 320,000,000 people. Yes, 500 deaths per year due to psychopaths going on killing rampages is terrible. It is also a very, very small number compared to the total number of people, and total number of guns. You are asking 100,000,000 (give or take) law-abiding people to sacrifice their rights, freedoms, and enjoyment because of the actions of maybe 10-20 people per year. Even considering all gun crime, this comes out to maybe 10,000 people per year, and many of these people are low-life scum and criminals anyway. Put the fuckers in jail, throw away the key, and regulate guns more strongly if you want (I am not opposed to stricter licensing, etc.), but why should I give up my right and my property because of a bunch of criminals? ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/108 "2012-12-19T18:07:15Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Is it [this](http://letfreedomrain.blogspot.com/2012/12/bushmaster-ad-consider-your-man-card.html) cool? The gun or the ad? The gun is cool. The ad itself is stupid, infantile and insulting. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/109 "2012-12-19T18:21:45Z")
> [@artemis](#): > > None of this is going to matter unless we find a way of reliably getting mental healthy\ data into the database int he first place (which is a big problem right now). Agreed. There needs to be a federal mandate for reporting. Or the alternative is an exam prior to licensing. I feel better about a database than exams though. > [@](#): > > I’m in favor of more training for CCW permits, but mostly for the sake of the permit holder (so he/she will be effective if that gun is ever needed). Agreed. I honestly believe a significant portion of the American problem , as with so many things is a lack of education. > [@](#): > > Fine, unless you’re also including liability in cases where the gun was stolen (and promptly reported stolen). If I’m not responsible for what a thief does with my stolen car, I shouldn’t be responsible for what a thief does with my stolen gun. I do think it’s fine to require that firearms be stored in a safe when not in actual use (which is what responsible gun owners are doing already), and how the gun was stored should factor into the degree of civil liability the owner faces. Agreed. Proper notification of lost or stolen firearms would absolve the owner of liability. I also like the concept of storage requirements. Perhaps liability limits could be tiered based on method of storage? At the very least, liability insurance should be much less for secure storage versus insecure. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/110 "2012-12-19T18:21:49Z")
Let me also add - you can rationalize away your reaction to my analogy all you want. “Oh, gun owners kill intentionally, while alcohol kills people randomly, that’s much better! Oh, the statistics for drunk driving are inflated by the scheming bastards at MADD, it really is quite safe! Oh, having a drink is much safer than shooting a gun!” Etc. When you get down to it - if you like alcohol, you rationalize away all the injury, harm, and death it causes as a small number of deaths in a big fucking country, and you say exactly the same sorts of things in justification of your recreational hobby as gun owners say about guns. If you don’t like guns, you see every death as too much, because you don’t see the value they provide. Just like someone who never drinks doesn’t understand what the fuck is wrong with this country when their loved one gets killed by a drunk driver. Some people feel very strongly about their right to get drunk on a bunch of fermented fruit juice (or whatever), despite all the harm it causes to other people with less responsibility and self-control to them (as well as innocent people). Some people feel exactly the same about guns. That’s all there is to it. Every gun owner in the country is shocked and devastated by this horrible tragedy, and this is probably the best chance the US will ever have to pass reasonable laws to restrict the availability of guns to responsible, level-headed people. But crazed shrieking about how gun owners are insane, selfish bastards and how no one in their right mind could ever own a gun because all it’s good for is mowing down poor, defensiveless children and how you could even look at one and not think it’s an evil death machine, etc. etc. is just doing no one any good. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/111 "2012-12-19T18:24:14Z")
> [@Hbns](#): > > This is a fair explanation of the [licensing requirements](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#Firearms_ownership_license) in Germany. Again I agree. If ownership, storage, and acquisition of firearms was regulated to this level in America, the gun homicide rate would drop substantially. I’m fine with most of Germany’s licensing requirements, but not their ones for carry. I don’t think I should have to prove my need for a firearm in order to carry one (since “need” is so subjective). I’m fine with being required to take a course outlining in detail the state and federal laws regarding appropriate use of lethal force, and having to pass the same sort of range tests that police officers must pass. I’m fine with having to re-certify at regular intervals, too - if I can’t shoot my gun accurately under stress I shouldn’t be carrying, and I should be keeping up with any changes in the laws, too. Given the absolutely minimal role licensed carry holders play in the overall gun crime rates, I don’t see the need for any more restrictions than that. > [@](#): > > As long as America is willing to put firearms in the hands of citizens uneducated, untrained, and uncommitted to proper handling, storage, use and transport of firearms, there are going to be a high number of homicides. I’d add that as long as America produces a disproportionate number of violently-minded individuals, there are going to be a large number of homicides. We stab, bludgeon, and strangle each other to death in higher-than-average numbers as well. And a lot of the “everyday” gun violence (as opposed to spree killings by deranged individuals) is occurring between the modern-day equivalent of bootleggers. Chicago’s streets became a lot safer when Al Capone and Dutch Schultz weren’t shooting it out to determine who was going to control the bathtub gin distribution; I suspect we’d see a similar drop in gun crime if we’d at least legalize marijuana. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/112 "2012-12-19T18:29:16Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > The gun or the ad? The gun is cool. > > The ad itself is stupid, infantile and insulting. By the way, I don’t disagree that a lot of gun owners are wannabe tough guys with low self-esteem and an inferiority complex who buy guns because it makes them feel better about their worthless, pointless lives. This ad is a great example of how the gun industry panders to these people. Similarly, a lot of anti-gun people are the irrational, illogical, fearful, nervous, sheltered offspring of over-protective parents who react hysterically to news of anything bad in the world and form their opinions based on emotional reasons disconnected from reality. In both cases: so what? ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/113 "2012-12-19T18:33:32Z")
> [@jasg](#): > > 1. I’m concerned about the cost to implement these, so let’s add an annual license (state) and local optional property tax to each firearm. This is consistent with vehicle ownership and the revenue would be used only for firearm related costs, training etc. Not totally behind this one. Not that I don’t think firearms owners shouldn’t bear the cost, but rather that I don’t want it to be used initially as an excuse to water down or cheapen the legislation. An annual fee + surcharge on all new firearms is acceptable. Though there should be a requirement that local or regional shooting facilities are provided through the program for training purposes. Additionally the homicide rate is a National problem. We should be willing to come together as a nation and bear the start up costs to get these programs rolling. Ongoing program funding can be derived from license and surcharge fees. > [@](#): > > 1. Along with Hbns #6, add liability insurance requirement (vehicle analogy again). Again a bit tough to implement. Remember, millions of unregistered firearms. Probably need to make it a legal requirement like auto insurance. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/114 "2012-12-19T18:36:20Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > Some people feel very strongly about their right to get drunk on a bunch of fermented fruit juice (or whatever), despite all the harm it causes to other people with less responsibility and self-control to them (as well as innocent people). Some people feel exactly the same about guns. That’s all there is to it. Unfortunately that isn’t all there is to it. No where in the constitution does it mention that citizens have right to get smashed on mash. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Turble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Turble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Turble)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/115 "2012-12-19T18:48:23Z")
> [@artemis](#): > > I’d add that as long as America produces a disproportionate number of violently-minded individuals, there are going to be a large number of homicides. We stab, bludgeon, and strangle each other to death in higher-than-average numbers as well. That’s not the way I read it. It appears to me that while the US undoubtedly leads the world in “gun crime”, when you look at “violent crime” the picture changes. [The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html) And when it comes to homicide rates, the USA ranks far down the list, posting the same number as Martinique and Turkmenistan. [List of countries by intentional homicide rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/116 "2012-12-19T19:07:58Z")
> [@Hbns](#): > > Agreed. I honestly believe a significant portion of the American problem , as with so many things is a lack of education. I think this is a big problem, and growing bigger. Once upon a time (when the world was perfect ;)), most areas had a hunting tradition, and boys learned from their fathers how to safely handle a firearm. And then most men had a period of military service, where they got a refresher course in how to safely handle a firearm. Those days are gone now. If someone buys a firearm now, they have to make an active effort to seek out training, and in some areas it can be hard to find a good instructor. “Self Taught” and “firearms” are words which don’t go well together. I recently had a female coworker approach me asking questions about getting a gun; she knows I have one, and she’s a bit nervous about the uptick in crime here in Omaha over the past year or so. The first thing I told her was that before she purchased anything, she should sit down and ask herself honestly whether she was actually capable of killing another person. That got her attention; it was clear she’d only visualized pointing the gun at an intruder to make him go away. I then told her about storage issues (she has young children at home), and that she’d need to actually practice with the firearm at least once a month in order to gain (and then maintain) competency with it. I then pointed her to some good online resources about firearms ownership, and gave her the name of a good local instructor. I don’t think my colleague will be purchasing a firearm now. She had no idea how much actual work responsibly owning a gun really is. But if she does decide to go ahead with her purchase, she now has the resources to become safe and effective with it. Too many people in the US think of guns as magic talismans (either good or evil). Of course, they’re not. They are dangerous devices which need to be properly handled. But provided the person is willing and able to handle weapons responsibly (and most people are capable of that, if they choose), I’ve no problems with someone owning one. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/117 "2012-12-19T19:12:11Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Now, since I’ve thrown down the gauntlet, I’ll give you MY proposals: > > 1. All firearm purchases are subject to a background check. All of them. No exceptions. > > 2. All firearms must be registered through permissive process that does not allow the local government authorities an opinion on the matter. Further, the list must only be accessible to law enforcement in the event of the commission of a crime. > > 3. Going along with that, a firearm owner must report a stolen weapon as soon as possible, allowing for the possibility that they may be unable to report something they simply don’t know about. > > 4. HIPAA must be repealed insofar as mental health history must be accessed during the NICS check. If you are unable or unwilling to allow that access you will be denied a firearm. > > 5. In order to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, you must pass a test that is modest in scope, offered freely, and is not cost prohibitive. It should not be a thousand questions, given once a year for 15 minutes 500 miles away, or cost $1000. > > 6. Any crime committed with your firearms will result in you being charged with a crime as well. If you can’t take care of your weapons you have no business having them. I think these are excellent proposals. I might quibble on some of the details but we can work that out in a special session. Adding on: 1. I like the idea of liability insurance as some others have suggested. The market place can determine the value of owning a particular type of weapon and punish, at least monetarily, accordingly. 2. Training. Every firearm owner in the world needs training at some point. Unfortunately, it is too easy to buy the tool without the training to understand what it can do, how to use it and how to keep it safe. Training should be required. 3. Not to forget, the problem we are addressing is crazies using guns to kill people. There must be some change to the way we deal with people with mental health problems. Taking away guns may make them less deadly but doesn’t solve the whole problem. We need some way for everyone to get access to the help they need. My suggestion is a certain amount of mental health care, free for everyone, with well advertised numbers and locations. The information packet you get in your gun training will have details and it WILL be on the test. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/118 "2012-12-19T19:42:47Z")
> [@artemis](#): > > Higher, but still not quite high enough. And you’re screwed if you don’t happen to have the ring on when you need the gun (which isn’t a problem with biometrics - you can’t misplace your fingertips). > > You’ll know biometrics (or some other owner identification system) is ready for real-world action when you see the police using it. Police would LOVE to have a gun that couldn’t be grabbed and used against the officer. It’s one of their big nightmare scenarios. I wonder what the holdup is. In an era of chipped employees, retinal scanners, remote control drones, bomb squad robots and Mars rovers it would seem to me that we should be able to come up with something that works 99.999% of the time. Is it a lack of will on the part of manufacturers? A lack of interest amongst potential customers? Is the scanner/reader or whatever too bulky or something? With the way cellphones, computers and TV’s are going, it would seem a trifle to have a tiny circuit board hardwired to the grip of the gun with a fingertip scanner built into it. Or some system like what you have with newer cars where the car senses the presence of the key and unlocks the doors for you and allows you to start the car at the push of a button. What is the technological hurdle here? ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/119 "2012-12-19T19:59:21Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > I wonder what the holdup is. In an era of chipped employees, retinal scanners, remote control drones, bomb squad robots and Mars rovers it would seem to me that we should be able to come up with something that works 99.999% of the time. Is it a lack of will on the part of manufacturers? A lack of interest amongst potential customers? Is the scanner/reader or whatever too bulky or something? > > With the way cellphones, computers and TV’s are going, it would seem a trifle to have a tiny circuit board hardwired to the grip of the gun with a fingertip scanner built into it. Or some system like what you have with newer cars where the car senses the presence of the key and unlocks the doors for you and allows you to start the car at the push of a button. > > What is the technological hurdle here? Well, one problem is that guns are totally mechanical devices. You can put a fingerprint reader on a gun easily enough, but you also need some way to couple that into the actual functioning of the gun. Moving around the parts in the gun takes a reasonable amount of force, so this will require a not-insignificant battery. There’s not a whole lot of extra room in most handguns. And no police officer wants to risk his battery running low and the gun not firing, so he’ll probably have to charge the damn thing every night or something. And if you have the gun “unlock” when the battery is dead, all the criminal has to do is remove the battery. Furthermore, even if you got all this wired up right, another problem is reliability. Think of how often your cell phone, computer and TV are slow to respond or otherwise glitchy. Often they eventually work, but if a police officer draws his gun on a criminal advancing with a deadly weapon, any delay whatsoever might be fatal. Then there are issues of gloves, and dirty fingers. No cop wants his gun not to fire because the donut grease from his fingers smudged the sensor. ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419/120 "2012-12-19T20:03:02Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > And insurance for fully automatic weapons will be ridiculously cheap, because in the past 60 years in the US I don’t think anyone has ever been killed by a fully automatic weapon operated by a civilian. This is true only when you limit it to _legal_ and _legally owned_ full-auto arms. Alan Berg (liberal talk radio host) was killed by neo-nazis in Denver in 1984 with an illegally modified full-auto MAC-10, as the one specific example that I am aware of. I lived in Denver at that time, and occasionally listened to his show, so this one sticks in my mind. I seem to recall some drug cartel related killings that were full-auto, but can’t point to specifics. This does nothing to detract from the point that elimination or limiting of legal ownership of full-auto arms was solving a non-problem. It only demonstrates the fact that laws change the behavior of the lawful, and have little effect on the criminals that are the supposed target of these laws. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposal-for-gun-control/644419.md?page=7)