Like it or not, we're back here again talking about gun control.
The typical response is that gun control is not the answer. That's true: the solution to the problem of violence (not gun violence, but simply violence) is far more complicated than gun control believers would ever be willing to countenance. That being said, I think it is hard to deny that sometimes there are people who end up with guns when they really shouldn't have any. It's just hard to tell who those people will be.
Therefore, in the interest of not appearing to be obstructionist jerks, and reconciling half of the population with the other half, what would we be willing to concede, legislatively?
You can say nothing, sure. But I don't think that's reasonable. I think there are things that can be done without compromising what we value.
Here's an example I "invented" myself (no idea whether it's been suggested before). We all know the "gun show loophole." Before you say it, I know: it's not a loophole and it's not about gun shows. But we know what they're talking about: Private transfers, minus a background check.
IMO, background checks are good. The more, the better. Therefore, I propose that a simple solution is to allow private, non-FFL citizens to run background checks. Open up NICS so that a private sale can be completed WITH a background check, and without having to create the registry we all dread in order to enforce it.
Some particulars: The background check would still not be "mandatory" for a private sale. However, it would serve as a form of indemnity should the firearm sold end up being used for unsavory purposes. You would therefore either run the background check or risk some degree of responsibility for not having done so. I don't love that idea, mind you, but this is, in my opinion, the only "universal background check" compromise with legs.
To protect privacy, if that is a concern, the transaction could perhaps involve the buyer running the background check themselves (thus not requiring that private information/PII be surrendered) and presenting documentation to the seller. There would need to be some form of protection to prevent anyone from just randomly running background checks on anyone else (maybe require an SSN or something).
This, in my opinion, can solve the issue. We don't surrender anything in terms of rights, we get the universal background checks that (I think?) we all want, and there's no registry to worry about later.
So, what are your thoughts? Critique my idea, tell me whether it's an acceptable compromise, or point out the flaws.
I worry that our "not one step further" position is simply leading to catastrophe, in the form of outright bans. There are reasonable steps that can be taken without compromising things we care about. Feel free to suggest any other ideas.
The typical response is that gun control is not the answer. That's true: the solution to the problem of violence (not gun violence, but simply violence) is far more complicated than gun control believers would ever be willing to countenance. That being said, I think it is hard to deny that sometimes there are people who end up with guns when they really shouldn't have any. It's just hard to tell who those people will be.
Therefore, in the interest of not appearing to be obstructionist jerks, and reconciling half of the population with the other half, what would we be willing to concede, legislatively?
You can say nothing, sure. But I don't think that's reasonable. I think there are things that can be done without compromising what we value.
Here's an example I "invented" myself (no idea whether it's been suggested before). We all know the "gun show loophole." Before you say it, I know: it's not a loophole and it's not about gun shows. But we know what they're talking about: Private transfers, minus a background check.
IMO, background checks are good. The more, the better. Therefore, I propose that a simple solution is to allow private, non-FFL citizens to run background checks. Open up NICS so that a private sale can be completed WITH a background check, and without having to create the registry we all dread in order to enforce it.
Some particulars: The background check would still not be "mandatory" for a private sale. However, it would serve as a form of indemnity should the firearm sold end up being used for unsavory purposes. You would therefore either run the background check or risk some degree of responsibility for not having done so. I don't love that idea, mind you, but this is, in my opinion, the only "universal background check" compromise with legs.
To protect privacy, if that is a concern, the transaction could perhaps involve the buyer running the background check themselves (thus not requiring that private information/PII be surrendered) and presenting documentation to the seller. There would need to be some form of protection to prevent anyone from just randomly running background checks on anyone else (maybe require an SSN or something).
This, in my opinion, can solve the issue. We don't surrender anything in terms of rights, we get the universal background checks that (I think?) we all want, and there's no registry to worry about later.
So, what are your thoughts? Critique my idea, tell me whether it's an acceptable compromise, or point out the flaws.
I worry that our "not one step further" position is simply leading to catastrophe, in the form of outright bans. There are reasonable steps that can be taken without compromising things we care about. Feel free to suggest any other ideas.
