> your statement implies that you consider gun regulations quite
> substantial.
> I do not.
We're clearly talking past each other. What you said was that SCOTUS had "ignored" the "well regulated" phrase in the US Constitution. I said that although we could argue about how much is meant by "well" it certainly does not mean "ignored" (which I took to mean "zero").
> I think far, far more could be done ...
Which you'll finally conceed is a very different statement than, say, "ignored" ...?
----------
> ..., for example:
Oh good, Wojtek gets to Write Gun Control Laws! The usual problem with this kind of exercise, is that people who propose Shiny New Laws often have no idea that they are already living with those laws.
> 1. Ban on fire arm possession in all public places (akin
> to ban on smoking in public places) - for everyone except
> trained personnel in their official capacity who have a permit
> to carry arms in public places.
You already have this law in many places. There are actually four cases:
1) Carrying a concealed firearm, unloaded, in public 2) Carrying an unconcealed firearm, unloaded, in public 3) Carrying a concealed firearm, loaded, in public 4) Carrying an uconcealed firearm, loaded, in public
Three of the four are illegal, unless you have an elusive permit (normal citizen able to get one? No; Long-time gun-gontrol advocate and US Senator able to get one? Absolutely), in California and in many other states.
Note that the vast majority of gun crime in the US involves (additionally) breaking this law, and that when people are charged with breaking this law, it's usually a mistake like during check-in for a flight.
> In reality, many jurisdictions encourage carrying weapons in
> public places (concealed weapon permit)
Permit holders, in the states that allow it, are a small proportion of the total owners in those states. Those who, once getting a permit, actually carry on a regular basis are an even smaller number. And those who, once getting the permit, and going through the hassle of carrying, have violent crime rates that are far below the average non-permitted, non-carrying population.
So: a) you already really have this law; and b) it doesn't appear to serve the Public Interest that you think it might.
> 2. Ban of fire arm sales by anyone but a licensed professional (akin
> to ban on practicing medicine by anyone but licensed physician, or for
> that matter on public sale of food by anyone but licensed vendor) -
> what we have instead is a loophole that you can drive a truck through
> allowing private gun sales by anyone to anyone
I'm in favor of removing loopholes to existing laws. If you're going to have the law in the first place, there ought not be loopholes. I'll just note that the vast majority of guns used in gun crime in the US are gotten in ways that are unrelated to loopholes like that. In particular, the event that brought this dreaded thread to life again is unrelated to this issue.
In return, I would ask that the law as written -- with specific guidance given to the data collection monolith that is the FBI (we know the FBI would never accumulate and then abuse information, right?) to not keep the data for any longer than is required to carry out the law -- be enforced.
> 3. Mandatory registration of all guns and requirement to carry
> registration tag all the time (akin to car registration) - stiff
> penalties for possession of unregistered weapons.
Your papers, please. I really don't see the point of this one. You mentioned this *last century* and I still don't get it. ATF and FBI say that a tracking database is worthless to them.
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/1999/1999-May/009518.html
Prosecutors will tell you: either you find the gun at the scene (in which case no 'tracking' is required); or you never find the gun, in which case no tracking is required. There's a group at ATF that "tracks guns" and they mostly drink coffee. They got a little excitement last week for about 12 minutes while they tracked Adam Lanza's mother's guns back to ... Adam Lanza's mother. Of course by then, the "crime had been solved" ... ho-hum.
> 4. Mandatory background check and waiting period (akin to employment
> or rental application) - which exists only on paper, since the
> Republicans and the gun lobby gutted all enforcement mechanism
Actually, Adam Lanza was "enforced" from buying a rifle a few days before his event.
> 5. Mandatory safety requirements, including mandatory training and
> passing a periodical test (akin to driving license), restricted and
> controlled access to weapons (e.g. weapons can be stored only approved
> safety boxes that are securely locked and that allow temporary
> blocking of access by anyone in the household).
I'm all for safety and training. While we're at it, can we please make it harder to get a driver's license in this country? Because the idiots who get behind the wheel in the US are going to kill someone! Oh, wait ...
----
These (and more!) ideas really miss the point: none of your "adequate" ideas would make a dent in the gun crime in the US. So why are you so hot for them? You freely admit that more laws won't help, and yet you spent 10 minutes detailing your Grand Plan.
Even if they were 100% effective in being enforced, it would do very little about this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=shot+in+oakland
(better than a link to a specific story, this is a link you can use every day to see how well we're doing! bookmark it now! win valueable prizes!)
Think (instead) about ways to deal with that issue, and I'm all ears.
/jordan