A tricky argument. It seems to work uphill against a variety of factors. One that came to mind is the "heirloom" factor, i.e. keeping grandpa's gun around becau

A tricky argument. It seems to work uphill against a variety of factors. One that came to mind is the "heirloom" factor, i.e. keeping grandpa's gun around because he treasured it. One idea that I think could also stand a chance would be a constructive dilution of the space. Developing (and perhaps even government-sponsoring) a range of alternatives to suit every contingency. For example, let's say you could get a discount on insurance by specifying a home or personal defense system which works in layers. As the layers are built up, the need for a gun is eased a bit, naturally. The onus is on the operator to justify their need. Also, the defense system-design tools would suggest contingencies instead of suggesting one-shot-solves-all weapons. How about incentive X if you switch to a different type of home lock, or public transport? When the time comes to specify and fit out a weapon, the weapon machinery itself is custom-printed or assembled to suit the security meta-system the consumer selected. Perhaps given your other security layers, you decide on a sick-looking gun that shoots "composition 2" or whatever the ammo design is (maybe a step up from rock salt) with a terrific roar. And you happily choose this because you get a hefty financial incentive and spare weapon design credits to make that thing auto-aim for center of mass (avoid disfigurement lawsuits) and look good doing it. People would be able to choose their level of force/lethality across a number of factors when they pick a product, and with a wide enough range available, it ought to be easily possible to automatically and culturally incentivize less-lethal choices. Regardless, I think we are heading this way slowly anyway, just look outside the US and among non-gun fans in the US, there is already demand for e.g. non-lethal training pistols to be used in self defense...or at least that's what my local sporting goods store staff tell me. Recent protests, speaking of violent ones, also seem to show the way people in general are trying to work creatively with the weapon question. (An icky problem but it's nature at work, and seems to be headed less-lethal; we seem to discover that killing people dead isn't so necessary as humans used to think) Finally, at least one respected weapons contractor is looking to fit US police with ballistic shields for use in things like regular traffic stops. The space is changing and the stakes for handgun ownership are changing naturally, but could be changed even more creatively.