Owning any gun would be regarded as a privilege and be carefully regulated. Possession without regulation would result in immediate jail and illegal possession would become so onerous it wouldn’t be done.

It would be easier to own a long gun suitable for hunting.

Think of any other device with the capability to be used as a weapon: explosives, toxic substances, virulent microbes, radio-isotopes, even dangerous beasts. Ownership of any thing which can be used as a weapon is not a right, it is privilege, and it demands public review and transparency. And that is certainly the case for secret ownership.

But I get the impression you see routine firearms regulation measures as incredibly awkward and cumbersome to implement. They are not, they are in force in many democracies throughout the world, and a Gestapo or secret police is not required to enforce them.

The major conservative objection to even the most rudimentary and common sense gun control seems to be that none of it can stop all gun crime. Of course it can’t. But it can cut it way back. Sure, even gun-restricted Norway had its gun massacre, but over there it was a freak event. In the US it a continuous holocaust that we barely notice any more. It has become routine, and we have a whole toolbox full of excuses why we can’t do anything about it.

And this idea of knife violence demonstrating gun control is pointless is…well, Frank, I know you can do better than that. Do you really think our knife murders would increase to make up for the gun murders that didn’t happen if we made guns harder to acquire. Look at Canada, a nation socially similar to the US, it provides a perfect experimental control. People die from gunfire there, but its not like here. And Canadians are not forced by jack-booted, goose-stepping storm troopers to turn over their weapons. And they do own guns there, and there is no epidemic of knife violence.

Guns are a problem here for two reasons: American men see firearms as an expression of their manhood, probably because they’re emasculated by their sexual hangups and humiliated by their chronic economic insecurity. And it helps there is a highly organized and well-financed industrial propaganda and political organization determined to keep gun envy at a fever pitch because it is so damn profitable. It is an addiction and they are pushers.

We tend to be a bit paranoid about the nexus of freedom and money. Remember when Lee Iacocca (then at Ford) solemnly told us that making Detroit put seatbelts in cars would cause the collapse of the US motor industry?

Will even the most effective and efficient (and democratic and fair) gun regulations overcome our social and political hangups about guns? I doubt it. But if it could cut the casualty rates by even a nominal amount, wouldn’t it be worth it?

Nobody complains about seatbelts taking away our freedom and prosperity any more.

In this day and age, I really don’t see anything wrong with that.

I own 5 hand guns and an AR15 rifle. All of them are registered except one that I bought from an individual. Alabama does not police private gun sales. That’s probably not a good idea. I don’t object to #1.

#2 sounds too costly to implement for the good it would do. The kind of gun violence we are talking about is not usually going to require ballistic testing. If I am wrong about this, go for it.

#3 is as unenforceable as prohibition imo. If I want a military style gun, I’ll have one and the law be damned. The same goes for anyone else that wants one.

#4 is already in place for guns sold by dealers and difficult to enforce for private sales.

#5 a cumbersome and difficult to enforce proposal that would have zero effect on gun violence.

Who is going to apply these laws uniformly throughout the country? The FBI, the Gestapo? Not possible imo.

Your last paragraph should have said, no regulation or law can deter a citizen determined to break it.

In the area I live in, #5 would be unpopular, laxly enforced and universally ignored. The others would also get a lukewarm reception by gun dealers and law enforcement. I think it would take a new federal agency to enforce the laws in the way that you have in mind.

I am all for any laws that help weed out fruitcakes like Rodger, who killed using legally obtained pistols after killing his three roommates with a knife.

He was diagnosed with Asperger and had been interviewed by the cops a few days before the killings.

I believe that Asperger should be sufficient to prevent routine gun ownership and the cops should have confiscated any guns registered to him based on the utube posts.

We can do better at preventing these incidents but honestly, I don’t believe your suggestions would do much good.

5) Except for individuals specifically licensed to carry (such as businessmen making large bank deposits), no loaded weapons would be allowed outside one’s home. Use and possession of weapons would be restricted to home defense, firing ranges, or hunting grounds. Weapons in transport would be unloaded, locked in open position, and stored out of reach of the vehicle operator.

Many of these regs already exist, in some modified version, all over the US. It would not involve any draconian measures or implementation of severe laws. However, they would be applied uniformly throughout the country.

It is also clear that no regulation or law can deter a criminal determined to break it. But the institution of gun controls is not meant to make crime impossible, just more difficult to carry out, less likely to produce mass casualties, and easier to prosecute. The gun lobby is always ready with pathetic, infantile comments like “a murderer can use a knife as well as a gun”. Maybe, but given a choice, I’ll take my chances with the knife anytime, and I bet the gun apologist would too. You can’t outrun a bullet. And a knife can only kill one kid at a time.

The Second Amendment as recently interpreted by the Supreme Court is absolute nonsense. The Constitution clearly is written to confirm the right of States to form citizen militias for defense and to maintain public order. But that is a moot point, we have now interpreted the Second Amendment as giving every citizen the right to own firearms. Well, I can live with that, I certainly don’t disagree. But that same court has also established the authority of the states to regulate firearms and their use, so nothing I suggest here can be interpreted as unconstitutional.

Here’s what I would do.

1) All firearms would be registered, and all firearms sales would be logged. The destruction or disposal of every firearm would also be logged and certified. Ownership of an unregistered firearm would be a crime.

2) All new firearms would have to be test fired and a record of the marks on bullet and casing be filed along with the serial numbers. Every bullet found in a victim should be traceable to the last legal owner of that weapon. It may not be practical to apply this procedure to existing weapons already in circulation, but it certainly could be applied to every weapon subsequently
resold.

3) No military-style weapons will be allowed to be manufactured or sold. Those already in circulation would be eligible for a generous but voluntary government buy-back program. The definition of “military-style” would be established by law. Sure, it might be a bit arbitrary, but death and maiming are forever, so get over it.

4) No weapon could be sold without a background check of both buyer and seller. I know its an inconvenience, but that’s the whole point. The gun business should be hard. And let’s face it, we do the same thing with automobiles, and they’re even more common than guns.

I have to go eat my dinner now before it gets cold, but I’ll be back and finish this list later..