With gun control a very hot topic...

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I'm going to guess that someone who cannot afford a reasonable registration fee also cannot afford the price of a handgun, just saying.

To what purpose?

To insure that all guns are tracable.  Part of the registration might be 6 bullets which have been fired from said gun for possible gun "fingerprinting" for bullets recovered in possible crimes.

As for the fees... I mean.... I get it.  But I'm telling you, there's a history of racist gun registration, and you're gonna struggle to implement a registration fee in this day and age.

To truly make guns "traceable" you'd need to implement this at a Federal level.  There are 8 states where gun registration is illegal.  You're going to have not only a tremendous 2A fight, but a state's rights fight.  Good luck with that one.  

As for your "bullet fingerprinting" idea - I think you've been watching too much CSI.   LOL!

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

As for the arguments against a national data base of ballistic markings, while it may be a mixed bag it can help solve crimes. It is also pretty simple to require manufacturers to record a ballistic markings record for every gun made.

Also, having guns registered with recorded ballistic markings provides some possibility of tracing if the gun may have been used in a crime. Just another tool in the law enforcement toolkit to help solve crimes. Pooh-poohing it as imperfect is a foolish argument, as nothing in the real world is perfect.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

What problem are you solving with this "solution?"

As for fees.... I can afford it. Wealthy people can afford it. The Poors can't. So it's discrimination, classist, racist, etc. And again, I would ask, what problem does this solve and how does it prevent mass shootings?

I'm going to guess that someone who cannot afford a reasonable registration fee also cannot afford the price of a handgun, just saying.

To what purpose?

To insure that all guns are tracable. Part of the registration might be 6 bullets which have been fired from said gun for possible gun "fingerprinting" for bullets recovered in possible crimes.

Some states already require a fired bullet. Michigan doesn't. The last pistol I bought came with a fired round just in case it was required.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

As for the fees... I mean.... I get it.  But I'm telling you, there's a history of racist gun registration, and you're gonna struggle to implement a registration fee in this day and age.

To truly make guns "traceable" you'd need to implement this at a Federal level.  There are 8 states where gun registration is illegal.  You're going to have not only a tremendous 2A fight, but a state's rights fight.  Good luck with that one.  

As for your "bullet fingerprinting" idea - I think you've been watching too much CSI.   LOL!

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

As for the arguments against a national data base of ballistic markings, while it may be a mixed bag it can help solve crimes. It is also pretty simple to require manufacturers to record a ballistic markings record for every gun made.

Also, having guns registered with recorded ballistic markings provides some possibility of tracing if the gun may have been used in a crime. Just another tool in the law enforcement toolkit to help solve crimes. Pooh-poohing it as imperfect is a foolish argument, as nothing in the real world is perfect.

I'm not pooh poohing it as imperfect. I don't think it's going to do what you think it will. But sure, it's "an idea." I still find it funny that people won't pass voting ID laws because $10 for a state ID is too much of a burden, but you want to implement this red tape nightmare, but hey, everyone's got their thing, I guess.

Lemme know when my local Secretary of State office gets it's firing range installed and I'll show up for compliance. Pew pew!

Yes, some amount of red tape around people getting the things designed for killing is the goal. Nailed it. That is correct. It should not be easier to accomplish than getting an auto loan.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Yes, some amount of red tape around people getting the things designed for killing is the goal. Nailed it. That is correct. It should not be easier to accomplish than getting an auto loan.

I don't fundamentally disagree with you. But...

It's statements like this that make it appear that you're more interested in making it a PITA to own a gun than you are solving the problem of gun violence.

I'm sure that's not the case though.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

As for the arguments against a national data base of ballistic markings, while it may be a mixed bag it can help solve crimes. It is also pretty simple to require manufacturers to record a ballistic markings record for every gun made.

Also, having guns registered with recorded ballistic markings provides some possibility of tracing if the gun may have been used in a crime. Just another tool in the law enforcement toolkit to help solve crimes. Pooh-poohing it as imperfect is a foolish argument, as nothing in the real world is perfect.

I'm not pooh poohing it as imperfect. I don't think it's going to do what you think it will. But sure, it's "an idea." I still find it funny that people won't pass voting ID laws because $10 for a state ID is too much of a burden, but you want to implement this red tape nightmare, but hey, everyone's got their thing, I guess.

Lemme know when my local Secretary of State office gets it's firing range installed and I'll show up for compliance. Pew pew!

I don't think the politicians in Michigan are ready to go as far as I am proposing, but it would be great if they would. States with stronger gun laws have reduced amounts of gun crime, according to some.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/fact-sheet-weak-gun-laws-are-driving-increases-in-violent-crime/#:~:text=State%20laws%20requiring%20permits%20to,a%20mass%20public%20shooting%20occurring.&text=When%20a%20mass%20shooting%20occurred,77%20percent%20fewer%20nonfatal%20injuries.

TravelinMan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Yes, some amount of red tape around people getting the things designed for killing is the goal. Nailed it. That is correct. It should not be easier to accomplish than getting an auto loan.

I don't fundamentally disagree with you. But...

It's statements like this that make it appear that you're more interested in making it a PITA to own a gun than you are solving the problem of gun violence.

I'm sure that's not the case though.

The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

But, and I’ve said this to, shit man, probably dozens of people that are sitting by where you’re sitting…. What is it that you want to do to solve the problem of gun violence? You’re very good at telling people the quibbles you have with their ideas, but so long as you don’t have a solution yourself, then that means all you want is the status quo and in fact you likely don’t really think there’s a problem at all. So tell us, what would you find a workable solution to be, we’ll start there and build.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

I don't fundamentally disagree with you.  But...

It's statements like this that make it appear that you're more interested in making it a PITA to own a gun than you are solving the problem of gun violence.  

I'm sure that's not the case though.  

The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

But, and I’ve said this to, shit man, probably dozens of people that are sitting by where you’re sitting…. What is it that you want to do to solve the problem of gun violence? You’re very good at telling people the quibbles you have with their ideas, but so long as you don’t have a solution yourself, then that means all you want is the status quo and in fact you likely don’t really think there’s a problem at all. So tell us, what would you find a workable solution to be, we’ll start there and build.

I’d be happy if we just enforced the gun laws that we have.  Stop pleading things down and enforce the law.

Additionally, I’d make the minimum age 21 across the board.  Background checks for all at time of purchase.  I’m OK with red flag laws if we can have clear and transparent methods.  If you want to toss in a waiting period, I’m fine with that.  Let’s prosecute parents who allow their kids to access guns.  

Start there and give it a few years to see how it goes. I fail to see how making law abiding gun owners lives difficult does anything but make the anti-2A dicks hard. We need to focus on the gun violence problem, not the gun ownership problem.

It's hard to separate the gun violence problem from the gun ownership problem. Correlation does not equal causation, but one struggles not to see a relationship. I don't really know what to do with that.

Bottom line is, not everyone is responsible enough to own a gun. Not everyone is responsible enough to have children, either, but we don't go confiscating genitals. The world would arguably be better if we could. Testing rights for minimum competency means they aren't rights, though, so what can we do? All I know is that I don't own any guns or have any kids, so I'm part of the solution. The rest of you idiots need to figure your shit out.

Cameron wrote:It's hard to separate the gun violence problem from the gun ownership problem. Correlation does not equal causation, but one struggles not to see a relationship. I don't really know what to do with that.

Bottom line is, not everyone is responsible enough to own a gun. Not everyone is responsible enough to have children, either, but we don't go confiscating genitals. The world would arguably be better if we could. Testing rights for minimum competency means they aren't rights, though, so what can we do? All I know is that I don't own any guns or have any kids, so I'm part of the solution. The rest of you idiots need to figure your shit out.

There are very few absolutes in this world, death & taxes.

Rights have limits, such as not shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Cameron wrote:It's hard to separate the gun violence problem from the gun ownership problem. Correlation does not equal causation, but one struggles not to see a relationship. I don't really know what to do with that.

Bottom line is, not everyone is responsible enough to own a gun. Not everyone is responsible enough to have children, either, but we don't go confiscating genitals. The world would arguably be better if we could. Testing rights for minimum competency means they aren't rights, though, so what can we do? All I know is that I don't own any guns or have any kids, so I'm part of the solution. The rest of you idiots need to figure your shit out.

The fact that you call gun ownership a "problem" tells me all I need to know about your position and desire to find a reasonable solution. Thanks.

I want my lawn jarts back.

TravelinMan wrote:

Cameron wrote:It's hard to separate the gun violence problem from the gun ownership problem. Correlation does not equal causation, but one struggles not to see a relationship. I don't really know what to do with that.

Bottom line is, not everyone is responsible enough to own a gun. Not everyone is responsible enough to have children, either, but we don't go confiscating genitals. The world would arguably be better if we could. Testing rights for minimum competency means they aren't rights, though, so what can we do? All I know is that I don't own any guns or have any kids, so I'm part of the solution. The rest of you idiots need to figure your shit out.

The fact that you call gun ownership a "problem" tells me all I need to know about your position and desire to find a reasonable solution. Thanks.

Is it reasonable to call gun deaths a problem?

If so then the root casue of gun deaths, which is guns, means that gun ownership is a problem.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

The fact that you call gun ownership a "problem" tells me all I need to know about your position and desire to find a reasonable solution. Thanks.

Is it reasonable to call gun deaths a problem?

If so then the root casue of gun deaths, which is guns, means that gun ownership is a problem.

And another one. Thanks for playing.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Is it reasonable to call gun deaths a problem?

If so then the root casue of gun deaths, which is guns, means that gun ownership is a problem.

And another one. Thanks for playing.

What to make of your reply?

Are you really claiming that gun deaths are not a problem?

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

And another one. Thanks for playing.

What to make of your reply?

Are you really claiming that gun deaths are not a problem?

Gun violence - and the ensuring deaths - are a problem.

Gun ownership, is not a problem. This can be proven statistically, but I'm sure you know that.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

What to make of your reply?

Are you really claiming that gun deaths are not a problem?

Gun violence - and the ensuring deaths - are a problem.

Gun ownership, is not a problem. This can be proven statistically, but I'm sure you know that.

Right it's not the ownership in and of itself, it's the owners.

Jake from State Farm wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Gun violence - and the ensuring deaths - are a problem.

Gun ownership, is not a problem. This can be proven statistically, but I'm sure you know that.

Right it's not the ownership in and of itself, it's the owners.

It's an incredibly small percentage of the owners, but yes. Absolutely.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

What to make of your reply?

Are you really claiming that gun deaths are not a problem?

Gun violence - and the ensuring deaths - are a problem.

Gun ownership, is not a problem. This can be proven statistically, but I'm sure you know that.

Admittedly with the ratio of guns to people in the US being what it is, most guns are not used to kill people, yet, though the potential with our current politics has increased. This does not change the fact that in a gun death the gun is the root casue of the death.

Right now, the leading cause of death for those under 18 years of age is by gun. So, for that segment of the population this is the major problem.

All of the screening procedures possible, if gun ownership is loosely controlled, will not stop death by guns.

A clear solution in the elimination of guns in the public via highly regulating them, probably not politically viable, but still a dream.

Tighter regulation, such as used in some States, has been shown to reduce gun deaths, so it seems like a reasonable compromise.

Debates about gun control always end up being semantical because there is no real argument against gun control that is more important than saving lives.

TravelinMan wrote:

Jake from State Farm wrote:

Right it's not the ownership in and of itself, it's the owners.

It's an incredibly small percentage of the owners, but yes. Absolutely.

And to eliminate gun deaths guns must be kept out of that group of current gun owners. How would you do that?

Gun owners care more about their guns than saving lives. They are so afraid that they will lose their guns that they're not willing to advocate and submit to control that will likely allow the vast majority of them to keep their guns therefore enabling more and more gun deaths.

Gun ownership is part of the problem. Wake the fuck up!

Motown Spartan wrote:Debates about gun control always end up being semantical because there is no real argument against gun control that is more important than saving lives.

The other problem is that the "we must save lives" group just stubbornly insists the answer is to

A) Make legal gun owner's lives more difficult, and

B) Get rid of all the guns.

A is dumb and unproductive and B is impossible. But what about the childrenz?!?

TravelinMan wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:Debates about gun control always end up being semantical because there is no real argument against gun control that is more important than saving lives.

The other problem is that the "we must save lives" group just stubbornly insists the answer is to

A) Make legal gun owner's lives more difficult, and

B) Get rid of all the guns.

A is dumb and unproductive and B is impossible. But what about the childrenz?!?

People, you are arguing with an irrational person here that doesn't care about children's lives, only his ability to easily own guns. He proved it when he made "childrenz" a punchline.

This is exactly why we don't have gun control. Asshole's like TM not willing to give anything up to reduce gun violence. It is selfish, hypocritical, and just plain fucking stupid. They are traitors to the American people.

Motown Spartan wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

The other problem is that the "we must save lives" group just stubbornly insists the answer is to

A) Make legal gun owner's lives more difficult, and

B) Get rid of all the guns.

A is dumb and unproductive and B is impossible. But what about the childrenz?!?

People, you are arguing with an irrational person here that doesn't care about children's lives, only his ability to easily own guns. He proved it when he made "childrenz" a punchline.

This is exactly why we don't have gun control. Asshole's like TM not willing to give anything up to reduce gun violence. It is selfish, hypocritical, and just plain fucking stupid. They are traitors to the American people.

So you're an A AND B kind of guy then? Hope that works out for you.

TravelinMan wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:Debates about gun control always end up being semantical because there is no real argument against gun control that is more important than saving lives.

The other problem is that the "we must save lives" group just stubbornly insists the answer is to

A) Make legal gun owner's lives more difficult, and

B) Get rid of all the guns.

A is dumb and unproductive and B is impossible. But what about the childrenz?!?

Gun owners have the responsibility to not hurt or kill others or themselves with their guns. It doesn't matter that a vast majority do not do that when a significant minority, in terms of injury and deaths to others or themselves, do, and that the ownership of guns is the root casue of why they are able to do that.

Thus, the burden falls on all gun owners to help solve this problem via additional requirements on all gun owners due to the misbehavior of a few gun owners, unless of course you have a different solution which will reduce gun injuries and deaths.

TravelinMan wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:

People, you are arguing with an irrational person here that doesn't care about children's lives, only his ability to easily own guns. He proved it when he made "childrenz" a punchline.

This is exactly why we don't have gun control. Asshole's like TM not willing to give anything up to reduce gun violence. It is selfish, hypocritical, and just plain fucking stupid. They are traitors to the American people.

So you're an A AND B kind of guy then? Hope that works out for you.

I value life so yes. It's disgusting that you don't.

Motown Spartan wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

So you're an A AND B kind of guy then? Hope that works out for you.

I value life so yes. It's disgusting that you don't.

It's disgusting that you resort to name calling and gaslighting.

People like you are why we will never solve the problem of gun violence in America.

People like you are why America has become a divided, angry group of tribes.

TravelinMan wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:

I value life so yes. It's disgusting that you don't.

It's disgusting that you resort to name calling and gaslighting.  

People like you are why we will never solve the problem of gun violence in America.  

People like you are why America has become a divided, angry group of tribes.

We are angry at the tribe that continues to enable the killing of children. That's your tribe fuckface! And what kind of snowflake refuses to move off of a position because the other side of the issue is angry? So if I'm not angry we can solve gun control? We've been trying that for years and it just keeps getting worse. My god you're an idiot. And what is more disgusting, name calling or making fun of dead childrenz?

TravelinMan wrote:

Cameron wrote:It's hard to separate the gun violence problem from the gun ownership problem. Correlation does not equal causation, but one struggles not to see a relationship. I don't really know what to do with that.

Bottom line is, not everyone is responsible enough to own a gun. Not everyone is responsible enough to have children, either, but we don't go confiscating genitals. The world would arguably be better if we could. Testing rights for minimum competency means they aren't rights, though, so what can we do? All I know is that I don't own any guns or have any kids, so I'm part of the solution. The rest of you idiots need to figure your shit out.

The fact that you call gun ownership a "problem" tells me all I need to know about your position and desire to find a reasonable solution. Thanks.

Stop playing semantics.

If you are advocating for an age bump to 21 for gun ownership, aren't you admitting there's a "problem" with people under 21 having guns?

NigelUno wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

The fact that you call gun ownership a "problem" tells me all I need to know about your position and desire to find a reasonable solution. Thanks.

Stop playing semantics.

If you are advocating for an age bump to 21 for gun ownership, aren't you admitting there's a "problem" with people under 21 having guns?

Draw whatever conclusions you'd like. I was asked what I'd propose to do about the current gun violence problem, and I responded.

Painting the 99.9999999375% of responsible gun owners as uncaring baby killers is not the way to productive results.

TravelinMan wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Stop playing semantics.

If you are advocating for an age bump to 21 for gun ownership, aren't you admitting there's a "problem" with people under 21 having guns?  

Draw whatever conclusions you'd like.  I was asked what I'd propose to do about the current gun violence problem, and I responded.

Painting the 99.9999999375% of responsible gun owners as uncaring baby killers is not the way to productive results.

If the 99.9999999375% of responsible gun owners are not willing to take the responsibility that owning a gun requires as a group, then they are doing nothing to stop the "baby" killing.

If all the "baby" killing was done by people under the age of 21-years the solution you proposed would have some validity.

The 15 year old at Oxford High used a gun purchased by someone who was over 21 years old.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Draw whatever conclusions you'd like.  I was asked what I'd propose to do about the current gun violence problem, and I responded.

Painting the 99.9999999375% of responsible gun owners as uncaring baby killers is not the way to productive results.

If the 99.9999999375% of responsible gun owners are not willing to take the responsibility that owning a gun requires as a group, then they are doing nothing to stop the "baby" killing.

If all the "baby" killing was done by people under the age of 21-years the solution you proposed would have some validity.

The 15 year old at Oxford High used a gun purchased by someone who was over 21 years old.

I believe you missed the point entirely.

The 99.9999999375% ARE the gun owners who are taking responsibility and doing the right things. But what I hear you saying is that if 16,000,000 people can't somehow figure out how to prevent one person from acting badly, then the 16,000,000 must be punished. I suppose that is a possible solution, although I do question it.

As I have other "good ideas" presented within this thread. But shame on me for pointing out issues that you're going to have trying to implement these "good ideas" because any nay saying whatsoever clearly makes me a hateful baby killer who isn't willing to do anything to solve the problem.

Forgive me if that kind of attitude makes me just slightly uninterested in playing your reindeer games.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Draw whatever conclusions you'd like.  I was asked what I'd propose to do about the current gun violence problem, and I responded.

Painting the 99.9999999375% of responsible gun owners as uncaring baby killers is not the way to productive results.

If the 99.9999999375% of responsible gun owners are not willing to take the responsibility that owning a gun requires as a group, then they are doing nothing to stop the "baby" killing.

If all the "baby" killing was done by people under the age of 21-years the solution you proposed would have some validity.

The 15 year old at Oxford High used a gun purchased by someone who was over 21 years old.

You also seem very intently focused on my one point about raising the age to 21, despite the fact that I offered many other suggestions, as well.

So you're saying that raising the age will do nothing and therefore we shouldn't do it? You're opposed to raising the age to 21? Sorry - that's a bit of gaslighting you probably didn't deserve, but that's the way it comes off.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Haven't seem.anything yet that says that gun dealers have to file gun sales info with the state as to who has bought a gun, only that the gun dealer has to keep a record.

Anyway this isn't anything like requiring that gun owners registor their guns.

A serious gun registration would mean that law enforcement, using a data base, would know within minutes of find a gun with a S/N, who the owner is.

The dealer must keep it on file. It is the purchaser who must submit the paper work to the local police department, who enters it into the state computer.

What happens if the purchaser doesn't submit the paperwork?

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

The dealer must keep it on file. It is the purchaser who must submit the paper work to the local police department, who enters it into the state computer.

What happens if the purchaser doesn't submit the paperwork?

They would be classified as an illegal gun owner and subject to prosecution, fines, jail time, having their guns taken away, no dessert before bed time, etc.

TravelinMan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

But, and I’ve said this to, shit man, probably dozens of people that are sitting by where you’re sitting…. What is it that you want to do to solve the problem of gun violence? You’re very good at telling people the quibbles you have with their ideas, but so long as you don’t have a solution yourself, then that means all you want is the status quo and in fact you likely don’t really think there’s a problem at all. So tell us, what would you find a workable solution to be, we’ll start there and build.

I’d be happy if we just enforced the gun laws that we have.  Stop pleading things down and enforce the law.

Additionally, I’d make the minimum age 21 across the board.  Background checks for all at time of purchase.  I’m OK with red flag laws if we can have clear and transparent methods.  If you want to toss in a waiting period, I’m fine with that.  Let’s prosecute parents who allow their kids to access guns.  

Start there and give it a few years to see how it goes. I fail to see how making law abiding gun owners lives difficult does anything but make the anti-2A dicks hard. We need to focus on the gun violence problem, not the gun ownership problem.

Okay, I will split this into preventative and punitive.

Preventative:

minimum age 21
Background checks for all at time of purchase
red flag laws
a waiting period
stop pleading things down

punitive

prosecute parents who allow their kids to access guns

To those I would add

Punitive / tracking info for potential criminal use.

Yearly gun registration for all guns with or w/o ballistic sample & with revoking of right of ownership if qualifications are no longer met.

TravelinMan wrote:

Cameron wrote:It's hard to separate the gun violence problem from the gun ownership problem. Correlation does not equal causation, but one struggles not to see a relationship. I don't really know what to do with that.

Bottom line is, not everyone is responsible enough to own a gun. Not everyone is responsible enough to have children, either, but we don't go confiscating genitals. The world would arguably be better if we could. Testing rights for minimum competency means they aren't rights, though, so what can we do? All I know is that I don't own any guns or have any kids, so I'm part of the solution. The rest of you idiots need to figure your shit out.

The fact that you call gun ownership a "problem" tells me all I need to know about your position and desire to find a reasonable solution. Thanks.

You referred to it as the gun ownership problem first, I was merely maintaining the established vocabulary for consistency's sake.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

I’d be happy if we just enforced the gun laws that we have.  Stop pleading things down and enforce the law.

Additionally, I’d make the minimum age 21 across the board.  Background checks for all at time of purchase.  I’m OK with red flag laws if we can have clear and transparent methods.  If you want to toss in a waiting period, I’m fine with that.  Let’s prosecute parents who allow their kids to access guns.  

Start there and give it a few years to see how it goes. I fail to see how making law abiding gun owners lives difficult does anything but make the anti-2A dicks hard. We need to focus on the gun violence problem, not the gun ownership problem.

Okay, I will split this into preventative and punitive.

Preventative:

minimum age 21
Background checks for all at time of purchase
red flag laws
a waiting period
stop pleading things down

punitive

prosecute parents who allow their kids to access guns

To those I would add

Punitive / tracking info for potential criminal use.

Yearly gun registration for all guns with or w/o ballistic sample & with revoking of right of ownership if qualifications are no longer met.

Those are all nice ideas, and I think easily implementable except for your registration idea, as per previous discussion.

I would want to know more about your "Punitive / tracking info for potential criminal use. " Someone having their guns stolen and then prosecuted because the thief turned around and used them in a crime, seems like kicking a victim of a crime for being robbed. But again, I'm sure we could work out the nuances of it.

Yeah, all good ideas. I'm on board.

Love,
Your local baby killing hate machine.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Okay, I will split this into preventative and punitive.

Preventative:

minimum age 21
Background checks for all at time of purchase
red flag laws
a waiting period
stop pleading things down

punitive

prosecute parents who allow their kids to access guns

To those I would add

Punitive / tracking info for potential criminal use.

Yearly gun registration for all guns with or w/o ballistic sample & with revoking of right of ownership if qualifications are no longer met.

Those are all nice ideas, and I think easily implementable except for your registration idea, as per previous discussion.

I would want to know more about your "Punitive / tracking info for potential criminal use. " Someone having their guns stolen and then prosecuted because the thief turned around and used them in a crime, seems like kicking a victim of a crime for being robbed. But again, I'm sure we could work out the nuances of it.

Yeah, all good ideas. I'm on board.

Love,
Your local baby killing hate machine.

Wouldn't timely reporting of gun theft resolve that issue? Sure, the gun may be stolen and used in a crime before the theft is discovered, however, an owner who makes a timely report (time TBD) upon discovery of a theft should cover that.

It is listed under punitive because I was too lazy to create a third level, which is really just to help solve crimes and to some extent "motivate" gun owners to be responsible.