These are what have been proposed in the past:
● Banning every sinister looking “assault” weapon.
This has been tried and proven negligible in terms of preventing any crime.
● Requiring every transfer to be “registered” and cleared the FBI’s NCIS system.
Canada tried this recently and Canadians could not wait to abandon it once they found out that such a system is cost prohibitive and accomplished nothing to deter crime. In short, trying to keep track of every transfer was bankrupting the Canadian government!
● Requiring a “psychiatric clearance” on every gun owner or prospective gun owner.
This would be invasive and expensive and fraught with abuse. Most people would be denied because their beliefs do not line up with the “liberal” agenda that permeates the fields of psychiatry and psychology. Moreover, the average person could not afford the cost of a professional evaluation; hence, this would be a ban on gun ownership. The lawsuits alone from those who would become victims of crimes unnecessarily because they were deprived of the means to protect and defend themselves would ruin every psychiatrist and psychologist involved in making such determinations.
● Requiring a $50 per gun per year tax to be filed on one’s 1040.
This is defacto “gun registration.”
The problem with the current NCIS and the federal government at large is that they keep the data on gun purchases and gun purchasers on file in spite of the fact that IT IS AGAINST THE LAW FOR THEM TO DO SO. So, new gun purchasers are already in a “gun registration” program, albeit illegal.
The problem with gun registration is GUN REGISTRATION ALWAYS LEADS TO GUN CONFISCATION! This is exactly what happened in America in cities like New York City. First, there was the seemingly innocuous requirement to “register” all of a particular type of firearm. Then, this was followed by outright banning those firearms. Those owning those weapons were made criminals overnight!
All of these and the attitude of “prohibition” gave us “organized crime” in the early 20th century and will give us more organized crime in the 21st century. America never had much of an alcoholism problem prior to alcohol prohibition. By glamorizing weapons and making them “forbidden fruit” we have already created a mystery to which our children find the temptation(s) impossible!
In contrast, what we need is more openness about guns. While I loathe what we call “public education,” there is one course I would like to see required in order to obtain a high school diploma:
I want to see a requirement that all students must complete a firearm safety course approved by the NRA and I would like to see all students offered the opportunity to develop basic marksmanship skills.
By exposing our children to positive and practical uses of guns and gun safety, we de-mystify firearms and make them less of a mystery. We make them less “sexy” and we remove some of the mystery and allow our youth mastery of gun safety and real gun control—how to shoot safely and hit the target.
We need to eliminate “gun free zones” as much as possible and we need to “liberalize” the right and ability of responsible citizens, male and especially female, to carry concealed weapons freely most everywhere. All states which allow concealed carry have seen significant deceases in crime.
Also, we need to make it more legal and less cumbersome for a person who successfully defends themselves or others with a firearm. For instance, In Arizona’s Maricopa County, courtesy of some very dumb state legislators, if a man or woman discharges a firearm in public in self defense or in defense of a child or even by accident, that person is going to prison for a mandatory year and a half!
Such laws, while well intended, are of the devil, the “de-willers” who think they as glorious elected leaders know everything and, more erroneously, think they can control everything.
Another thoughtless debate in Arizona was the call to require gun lockers be built on campuses when that defeats the purpose of concealed carry. Concealed carry means that no one knows who is armed and as a direct result a person really must think about the risks they are taking when they use a gun mischievously. They must calculate the possibility that an armed citizen may pull a gun and stop them!
Contrary to what Piers Morgan claimed that the citizen in Oregon did NOT use his weapon, he did in fact use his concealed weapon properly. Certainly, the fellow at the mall in Clackamas did not pull his Glock’s trigger but HE DID USE HIS GUN!
The mere presence of a firearm is all it takes more often than not to stop crime. When the shooter at the mall saw that pistol pointed at his head, he stopped the mayhem he had started and turned his gun on himself!
I’d say: Had that armed citizen NOT pulled out his weapon and aimed at that gunman’s head, the gunman would have kept shooting. I conclude that fellow who did NOT shoot his gun saved many lives that day! The mere presence of a firearm is often all it takes to stop a crime.