4 ms·
Right now, provided a serial number, American police can trace a gun used in a crime to its last legal owner. It takes a number of phone calls -- first to the m
by donw 10y ago
Right now, provided a serial number, American police can trace a gun used in a crime to its last legal owner. It takes a number of phone calls -- first to the manufacturer, then to the gun store, then to the first owner, and down the chain -- but it generally works.
And, although it's not mandated by law, gun owners do tend to keep records on private party sales. Nobody wants to be in the situation of "we found this Glock at a crime scene, and it appears to be yours?" and not be able to provide evidence to the contrary.
So a registry doesn't really offer any real utility... except to confiscate those weapons down the road.
If you want to promote safe storage, the best solution would be a tax benefit for buying safe-storage equipment. Gun safes are expensive, at least if you want something that can't be crowbarred open in a few minutes.
Something else that I would love to see, and stealing a page from the Swiss, is universal gun education.
There are more guns than cars in the United States, and I find it negligent that not every American learn not just gun safety, but also how to safely store, handle, and yes, fire a gun -- even if they never plan on owning one.
- alkonaut 10y ago> If you want to promote safe storage, the best solution would be a tax benefit for buying safe-storage equipment Yes, a tax benefit seems like something you would probably need to add to a bill requiring safe storage, just to get it past lawmakers and special interest groups. > Something else that I would love to see, and stealing a page from the Swiss, is universal gun education That sounds like a good idea. Not sure if having it mandatory even for never-to-be gun owners is the best use of resources, but at least having it as a requirement for a license sounds reasonable - just like driving. Being a Swede we have (and had) mandatory gun education. For men at least. Same thing in Switzerland. Conscription! (now everyone is again elgible for conscription but far from everyone will be required). So that problem is at least solved in countries with conscription armies. Obviously, neither Sweden nor Switzerland ever trained everyone in gun safety but there is mandatory training before ever using a gun at least, because the licenses require it. So owning a gun for hunting requires passing an exam, Military obviously includes a lot of training, and owning a gun for sports of personal protection is simply not a concept.
- donw 10y agoI'd actually be fine with a mandatory year of military service, but not sure how well that would sell politically to other Americans. Personally, I think it would do a lot to connect Americans from different walks of life. I know a lot of people in SF that have no idea what rural California looks like, and that works the same way in the other direction. As far as licensing goes, that's off the table for historical reasons, and also why I say that we should make gun education universal. Pretty much every gun control law in the United States, starting after the Civil War, and up to and including California's Assault Weapons Ban and Open Carry Ban, have been primarily to limit gun rights for the poor, and for minorities. It's why the laws are so patchwork, and make so little sense. So, given that history, public education is the most sensible way to promote responsible gun culture and firearms safety, without imposing the licensing burden that is still used today as a means of discrimination.