Since we cannot seem to have any discussion around here that mentions firearms - even in passing - without it turning into a gun control debate, I thought I'd see if we could concentrate the debate here and keep it out of threads that are supposed to be about school tragedies, stupid sportscasters, etc. (Yes, I know about the history of the hotlink thread....asking GRMers to do anything is a bit like herding cats.)
I'm a gun owner who likes my guns, doesn't want to give them up, etc., yet I believe that anti-gun bills are likely to be voted on soon. Here are some control ideas that I've been thinking about which might be less onerous than some of the ones being discussed. Which - if any - of these do you guys think would be acceptable regulations?
1) Type certifications: We have them for aircraft, we have them (in a less stringent form) for vehicles on the roads (i.e. I can drive a car, but don't have a permit to drive a semi.) Why don't we have them for firearms? It seems silly for a CCW to require someone to demonstrate shooting proficiency with a .22, but let them carry .45 ACP. If that's going to be your carry weapon, shoot that. For people who will carry many guns of many calibers, qualify on the biggest/most difficult to handle, and you can carry anything smaller/easier.
2) Written tests: CCW permits could include a written test that covers both relevant state laws and Colonel Cooper's Four rules of firearm safety. I didn't have any written test, but I certainly would not object to having been required to take one.
[The two ideas listed above would not have done anything to stop incidents similar to our recent spree killings, but they would probably reduce accidental deaths. I doubt that many gun owners would object to these ideas.
Now, for the really controversial ideas that many gun owners may object to]
3) private party background checks: Is there any way to do this in a way that might be acceptable to gun owners? [ * ] (i.e. is there a middle ground that both gun owners and gun haters would find to be annoying, but something they could live with?)
4) safe storage requirements: Would it be reasonable to require owners of guns to have a safe or some gun locks to make it slightly more difficult for the wrong members of their households to access their weapons?[ + ] What if that was only required of families with small children or mentally unstable people in the household?
Let the debates begin
[ * ] - gun control advocates have been whining for years that there is a "gun show loophole"; as has been noted elsewhere on the forum, that's misleading, since most states don't require background checks for any private party sales, whether they are at gun shows or not. As was also noted in other threads, these sales are a tiny fraction of sales at gun shows. Here's the thing I'm wondering: Is there any way you, as a gun owner, be open to background checks for private parties? They're required in California, a state with a draconian reputation. Most of my firearms-owning friends are totally against this idea, but I'm a bit more ambivalent....if it could be done at a very low cost (say, $5, instead of California's $10 or $35), it was just as fast as a a normal check at an FFL, I might be OK with it. (Yes, I saw the scene in Red Dawn.) I'd rather have this happen, though, than have them try to ban my guns
[ + ] - some gun crimes - including the recent spree killing at the elementary school - involve weapons taken from the legal owner by members of their household. It would be of limited efficacy to do this - a household member probably knows where to find a key/code, or already has access - but it might occasionally slow down a small child or someone who is mentally disturbed. Is this teeny, tiny potential benefit worth the cost and bother it would cause gun owners?