The NRA has spoken. The solution to gun violence is more guns. Guns everywhere. Armed guards in every school. They say that more guns don’t cause gun violence, they solve gun violence.
Never mind that their argument is easily disproved. Take a look at the accompanying chart, which shows the rate of firearms-related deaths by country compared to the rate of gun ownership. As you can see, the US is a bit of an outlier, but the relationship between gun deaths and guns is clear – the more any country has of the first, the more it will have of the second. Of course, any five-year-old could have told you that. It takes the tortured logic of the NRA to pretend otherwise.
Unfortunately, in many ways, that cat’s out of the bag. By most estimates, there are already as many or more firearms in private ownership in the US as there are people.
The Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre has finally put gun control back in the forefront of public discussion. The NRA’s solution is predictable – Congress should act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to place armed guards in every school. The Wall Street Journal, that celebrated bastion of liberal thinking, estimates the cost of that proposal at $6.7 billion (yes, with a B) dollars. By comparison, US federal spending on education in 2012 comes to $49.9 billion. I’m waiting for the right-wing legislators on the end of the NRA’s leash, the ones constantly barking about cutting spending, the ones that were carrying on in the last election cycle about how teachers were lazy, overpaid leeches swelling the deficit by sucking at the public tit to start barking at the NRA with the same ferocity with which they were barking at the NEA, to start asking hard questions about where the money is going to come from. I’m waiting, but I’m not holding my breath.
If an outright ban on private ownership of firearms, or even handguns, or even semi-automatic rifles with unlimited capacities of ammunition is probably politically impossible, what can be done? I have a proposal.
Let’s treat guns exactly like cars. Just bought another car, and I had to go through the same process I always do. I had to submit paperwork to my state proving that I had transferred ownership of my old car to its new owner, paperwork that proved who the new owner was. Then I had to file more paperwork proving that I am now the owner of the exact car I bought (transfer fee $25). I have to display a license plate on my car that specifically identifies it as my vehicle ($99 a year). Now that I live in Chicago, I also have to buy a city sticker ($80 a year). In addition, I’m also required to carry liability insurance so that, should I kill or injure anyone with my vehicle, or damage their property with it, I can pay for it.
To recap, if you own a car, it is your legal obligation to maintain a provable chain of custody for that specific vehicle with the state – you have to register it, license it, prove when you sell or dispose of it and to whom. In the meantime, you’re liable for what’s done with it. That’s why various municipalities can mail me a ticket if a car registered to me is caught on a red light camera somewhere. Doesn’t matter that they can’t prove I was driving it. My car, my ticket. And you have to pay for the privilege of owning one – license plates, city stickers, insurance. I haven’t heard much whining about how any of that is a violation of my precious liberties. I can own all the cars I want.
So why don’t we treat guns exactly the same?
You want to buy a gun? Swell. I say you register that weapon, by serial number, with the state. And let’s register its ballistics, too, just in case anybody wants to file a serial number off. And no more private sale or gun show loopholes, you buy a gun, you register it. Period. And if you own a gun now that isn’t registered, you go and register that one. And then you pay for a license for that gun, every year. (Hey, you say, I already have an FOID card. Sure, I say. I already have a Driver’s License, but I still have to buy plates for my car.) If your city wants to tack on a city sticker, that’s up to them. Oh, and insurance. Let’s require every gun owner to carry a policy that will cover death, injury or property damage attributable to a weapon registered to them at the same minimum levels required for motor vehicles.
I’m betting you’d see a pretty wide spread on insurance rates. That six-shot .38 revolver you inherited from grandpa would probably be pretty cheap. That 14-shot 9mm, that’s gonna be more. You buy a Bushmaster and a mess of 30 round clips like, say, the Sandy Hook shooter? I’m betting you’re gonna pay Ferrari rates on that.
You lose your gun, or it’s stolen, you have an immediate obligation to report that to the police and to file necessary paperwork with the state. You don’t and your gun is used in a crime later, then you’re still on the hook. In fact, how about a red-light-camera-type law? When a slug is recovered at the scene of a gun crime, tie the ballistics to the last registered owner of the weapon. Maybe the state can prove a criminal act, maybe not, but it can slap the owner with a fine, say $10,000 maybe? No problem for you responsible gun owners, right? You aren’t going to commit any crimes. Your guns are safe. So keep track of your guns or face the consequences, just like I do with my car. Oh, and if NO private legal owner of record shows up, well, there’s always the manufacturer. They own it until they sell it. Everybody needs to keep up with their paperwork.
As the chart shows, more guns equals more gun deaths. But all the gun rights people say “Not my guns, mine are safe, I’m responsible.” Fine, prove it. Establish a solid chain of custody for every weapon and be willing to assume civil and, depending on circumstances, criminal, liability for any death, injury or property damage done with that weapon for as long as you own it (or even after if you happen to “forget” to keep up with the paperwork.) Just like you, and all the rest of us, do with our cars.
You want to own five or ten or a hundred guns? Then you pay for five or ten or a hundred licenses. Just like with your cars. I can already hear the cries from the gun lovers. “But I’ve got 72 guns! I’d never be able to afford that!” Hey, I’d like to own more cars. Be nice to have a convertible for the summer, maybe a van for when I have company, but I’ve got a right to own a car, I don’t have a right to afford one. So I’ve got one. I get by.
The money from the fees can pay for the school guards. The insurance would mean society has a place to go to recoup the massive medical costs and other expenses that private gun ownership creates.
You want to the “right” to own a weapon? Then step up and take the responsibility that goes along with it.
Or shut the fuck up.
This is an excellent proposal and I would add one thing: co-signing requirements. When you buy a gun, two of your fellow good guys have to sign for your character and, to some extent, take responsibility for what you do with it. Australia enacted a version of this and it helped. Since our gun rights culture is rooted in—or at least rationalized by— the Second Amendment, this is also consonant with our traditions. The second amendment references “militia” and militia is inherently plural and inherently social.
I am in some despair over this issue. Our generation has waited too long on this and responded too feebly. As you point out, we already have so many guns in circulation that we can only do so much. But we need to do what we can.
“I tremble for my country when I realize that God is just.” –Thomas Jefferson, in a moment of clarity about slavery. This is our generation’s slavery, our great defining shaming sin.
I am a gun owner and I also agree with this proposal and have, in fact, been arguing for many of the same points over the last week. I see a strong corollary between gun ownership and car ownership and so see background checks, licensure, written testing on gun safety and gun laws, a range test, mandatory insurance, title and registration, transfer of title paperwork and periodic re-evaluations with a vision test as positive steps in keeping guns out of the hands of irresponsible kooks and mass murderers. A nationally issued FOID card would also be a good deterrent. I do see some significant problems with Mr. Fenton’s addendum, primarily that co-signing shifts the responsibility away from the actual gun owner and tries to spread the liability out in ways that are unfair and too casually related to the gun owner. Co-signing as proposed presumes that you can know what someone will do with a gun years from now. I wouldn’t be willing to assume that responsibility for someone else nor do I see it as being necessary to keep the pressure where the pressure belongs: on the actual gun owner.
Brad, I’m glad you agree. Tell the NRA. Because I’m betting they don’t. Responsible gun owners need to start putting heavy pressure on that organization, because they resist any attempt to put any limits or accountability on gun ownership, and they are the 800 pound gorilla. If Lapierre doesn’t speak for you, make sure he, and everyone else, knows it.
These ideas are really reasonable for how to deal with gun control. While I am not a gun owner, I have used firearms from my service in the US Army. There you go through rigorous training in safety and marksmanship to become “qualified” to use the weapon, regardless of whether it is a pistol, a rifle, or a machine gun. In basic training, we had two weeks of this type of training before actually being handed a real rifle. If we had an training/permit/license program instead of filling out a sheet of paper saying things like “I have never committed a felony” or “I am not addicted to narcotics” with a short background check done by the state, I think we would have a more informed, responsible, and safe gun owner. Also, adding in the yearly licensing and need of insurance, like a car, might deter the amount of firearms being circulated around the country due to a loss of demand.
I turned in my NRA member card years ago. They don’t represent responsible gun ownership but rather gun manufacturers.
I agree with your proposal and have felt that way for many years. When I owned a gun it was registered as per the laws in the state I lived and I purchased an insurance rider for it under my homeowners insurance. When it was stolen I immediately contacted local law enforcement and reported it.
Any responsible gun owner would have no problem doing the same.
The only change I might suggest is exceptions for some gun collectors. There are many who collect not for an arsenal but for show. Of course they would have to prove the gun was not in use for hunting or security some way in order to get lower or different insurance/registration requirements. Just like classic car owners are not required to update the car to current EPA or safety regulations.
Who would be responsible for all of this though? Local law enforcement is already overwhelmed and overworked. Do you propose a new national government office? What truly worries me is most of the ranting I have recently observed is by non gun owners who seem to believe anyone can walk into a corner Handee Hugo and purchase any gun and unlimited ammunition. In reality that could not be further from the truth. The problem is each state has there own gun laws and all are easily worked around if you are truly intent on doing so.
I don’t see how things would be any different for gun collectors unless they could prove that the firearms where inoperable. There would be no requirement for them to update the weapons, so the comparison with cars is not analogous.
As for the apparatus, it seems that most Secretary of State offices have systems in place that could be adapted to this purpose pretty easily. And sure, it would be relatively easy to avoid the process, especially for guns already in circulation (they are a lot easier to hide than cars). But we take people’s right to drive away for violating driving laws, so i would establish measures to revoke your right to own a weapon if you are found to be out of compliance – with an attendant right to come and search your property for and to seize and other firearms. Again, no problem for those who follow the law.
And you can walk into any gun show and walk out with a weapon. Ammo’s not hard to come by, either.
I don’t disagree w responsibility and gun ownership. Your chart proves only that it takes guns to shoot people. Harvard law article also proves that removoing guns has converse relationship to murder. They use cords. Knives, etc I am with you on enforcing the jaws, accountability, etc.
the gun argument is more emotional than logical. I reject that. No guns killed children mothers fathers…?in okc. Hate and fertilizer.
Think and research rather than react w divisive and ineffective options such as NYC mayor.
Again, I agree w ownership= responsibility.
Well yeah, it takes guns to shot people. If someone bears me ill intent, I’d much rather have them come after me with a knife, cord, club, whatever. Witness the nutjob that ran amok in a school with a knife in China the day before Sandy Hook. Injured 30, killed nobody. No, limiting guns won’t eliminate violence, but it will lower the death toll.
That’s a very tiny chart. Are there any countries in the lower left that are desirable to live in?
You also fail to account for the fact that vehicles don’t need to be licensed or insured if they aren’t driven, which you’d need to reconcile in order to make this a viable comparison.
Virtually all of western Europe, Australia, Japan – you know, hell holes like that.
I would like to add to your car analogy if I may.
I don’t know about you, but I took Driver’s Ed before I got my license and had to pass a test. These days Driver’s Ed. (the classroom portion) is mandatory to graduate from high school in IL and you still have to pass the test before you can get your license.
How about a mandatory gun safety class with test that must be passed before being allowed to purchase any gun?
I’m in complete agreement. Even if you buy a gun only for target practice, someone can steal the gun and cause mayhem (as what happened in Newtown) or accidentally shoot themselves or someone else as dozens of children do every year. Gun owners need to be responsible for their weapon if they want to buy one.
Good post, Dan. Another requirement of most states is that the car is inspected every year to make sure that it is in good working order and safe. Given the number of guns, this might be a bit of a burden (good for jobs, though) if it is done every year. But a reasonable time could be established. And this also establishes current custody.
This is a good faith proposition, but the flaw in this argument is rooted in the fact that is owning a car is a privilege, while the ability to bear arms is a constitutional right, as is the right to vote. Imposing a tax or fee on a privilege is perfectly legal, but imposing this on a right amounts to a poll tax, which is demonstrably unconstitutional.
There is nothing unconstitutional about tracking gun sales and closing existing loopholes, but attaching fees to that won’t fly.
There’s a fee for an FOID card, so I guess it’s not so unconstitutional after all.
We require a permit to exercise certain First Amendment rights so I don’t see a problem here. Being a constitutional right does not mean that it can’t be regulated.
Seems a good idea. Maybe the processing can be handled through state DMV offices with the cost of registering and licensing high enough to pay for the program. But I imagine each state can work out the details and customize them to local needs. I believe this proposal fits with the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms was so that men could fulfill their obligation of serving in the militia/National Guard.
California already has all this except the insurance. My liability insurance to instruct is $300 per year. Hasn’t made any difference.
If I can take my loaded handgun any place I can park my car (“bear” as well as “keep” arms), I’d consider your proposal. I don’t think insurance carriers are going to price by type of firearm nearly as much as by zip code, but what do poor people in bad neighborhoods need guns for anyway, right?
We could just tax the heck out of the bullets and insist on a buyers registry for those. That way those who claim that gun licensing is somehow an infringement on a constitution right can bear their bulletless guns wherever they want to. If, however, one the bullets purchased by them gets recovered at a crime scene they would be in some serious
hot water.
Brad D: You raise a good point. I understand that the worst way to ensure that something gets done is to assign three people to do it. Co-signing is my coinage and distorts the policy suggestion. I believe Australia refers to what’s required as two character references. That distributes responsibility very differently–it doesn’t take any away from the shooter. Your unease about such a process also makes a point about the NRA’s view that we can make a stable, clean bifurcation of the world into good guys and bad guys. Between Andy Griffith and the sociopathic punk who shot up the theatre in Colorado, there’s a volatile continuum.
Everyone has a cute off the cuff solution. Tax bullets, then what bout those that make their own? Limit magazine size to N-many bullets, enforce it. Chain of custody, why? I can’t control what the next owner does with my old car.
Registration, well the first purpose is TAX collection. But I ask , ok registered then stolen or sold all I did was make it easy for the government to take property. Maybe we should do that to cars, hey bud three tickets this year, we are from the gov, give us that car. Tough if its your property, don’t for get to pay the loan.
There is a lot of forgetting about laws that do exist. For example if you want
a gun from ZXcompany in Utah and you live anywhere else, their FFL has to transfer it to your FFL (at a cost) in your state before you can take possession. If you live in MA or CT where the AWB is sill in effect as a state law you might not be able to legally purchase it. Of course you need a FID (FOID in many states) to buy any ammunition there as well. Its a felony to even posses a expended cartridge [ammunition component]. You will fill out a federal 4473, it has the serial number, on it, you will go though the NICS check every time before the gun handed to you.
Then there is the silly laws around assault weapon (assault rifle is a machine gun and restricted already). Consider this a mini14 is a sport semiautomatic intermediate cartridge rifle, here in MA if you take the wood off and make it a plastic stock and add the barrel shroud to replace the wood that was the fore grip (front of the rifle you hold) you can’t add a third cosmetic feature as you are now making an illegal weapon and its a felony. Still shoots the same and all other things are unchanged save for appearances. How does this prevent criminals that don’t use them as they are hard to conceal from getting any old handgun and robbing the minimart?
I don’t own but I’d like to. However, the laws of this state means about 300$
before I can legally buy. So the poor can’t, that’s discriminatory. But hey we used to many years ago do that so “those people” could not get guns. Long
and bad history there.
But hey lets have another law. Maybe this law will work and the criminals especially the criminally insane will obey the federal 1000ft school gun free
zone or the little sticker on the doors that say no guns here, plenty of unarmed
and potential victims for sure but, no defensive weapons. Oops that didn’t
work in CT, just like the assault weapon ban there.
Yep, make it someone else’s job to make you safe. After all when your being attacked you can just push pause and wait 5 or 10 minutes for the police to sort it out. Or in reality so they can arrive and call for the ambulance, mortuary or maybe even try to figure out who did that with the hammer.
Oh yes, I forgot to even say that means I’m paranoid and assault never happens to people like the women with a restraining order.
Damn it we don’t even have a complete story of what happened! I don’t! We [the public we] have a lot of headlines and news with all sorts of inaccurate and incomplete reporting but who has the whole story? The bother of that guy was
harassed to no end for the same name even though his address was NJ. Oops, just one little lynch mob. We didn’t make his life more hellish, it was only on the internet, not. At least we didn’t hang him, much.
Sorry for some sarcasm and snark. I do really think when I hear this, did they think, do they know what laws are on the books both federal and their states, before making proposals? Or is it just WE [that collective WE that is somebody else] have to do something because this is terrible and must be prevented. If I can make just one person stop and think about it in a realistic way I’d be pleased. Hell an admission that this is not simple and there is a lot of feelings and less fact making the show would be a step.
So far so much disappointment.
Eck!
As a gun owner, the Constitution also guarantees free speech, free press, assembly, no search and seizure, and the mighty 2nd amendment has not protected any of them from being regulated. “Press” means major newspaper. Bloggers get arrested all the time. Libel is punishable speech. Protestors are put in “free speech zones” and if you march without a permit, hello jail. NYC cops can frisk you for looking funny (and by that I mean black or hispanic).
So what liberty are guns protecting?
I think we should be able to own them. I want a psych eval first, I want full registration, I want no mail order sales of ammo. I want any rifle with a detachable magazine over 5 rounds to be treated like a handgun- waiting period, limit of purchase, pass a training course. And all handguns and military style rifles should have to be sold through a federal firearms licensed dealer. Gun shows and private sales? hunting guns and antiques only.
There are ways to make us safer and not affect the hunting culture.
Those who rely on guns and bullets to “save” them are filled with fear. They believe their brothers are out to get them, and that there is no loving Creator to protect them.