From your cite:
From here:
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.
What about the magnetic ring systems? I’ve read those work with a much higher success rate.
Three additional proposals.
-
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.
-
Along with Hbns #6, add liability insurance requirement (vehicle analogy again).
-
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…
Is it this cool?
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.
This is a fair explanation of the licensing requirements 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.
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.
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.
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?
The gun or the ad? The gun is cool.
The ad itself is stupid, infantile and insulting.
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.
Agreed. I honestly believe a significant portion of the American problem , as with so many things is a lack of education.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Again a bit tough to implement. Remember, millions of unregistered firearms. Probably need to make it a legal requirement like auto insurance.
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. 
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.
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
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.
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.