Reply #82: You've got a mix there of modest and not-so-modest.

[AtheistCrusader]

Particularly the tagging issue. It's not technically all that feasible to add a mark that will survive the actual use of the round, and if you could, it will add considerable cost to the ammunition supply chain. Not a little bit, a LOT. It might solve a few crimes, maybe. The entire world goes through several billion rounds a year, and of those, many are hand-made. Registering lots of ammo to individuals is logistically daunting. Ammunition is even easier to make than an actual firearm, and even that's not terribly difficult, if you have a highschool metal shop at your disposal.

A firearms registry would be far FAR less expensive, and probably a better start. You'd have a massively reduced set of criminal mis-uses of firearms if we could just keep the guns out of the hands of prohibited people. Every time you see a gang-banger under the age of 21 with a handgun, you see a broken federal law. One that SHOULD result in a direct trace to the person that transferred that firearm to an ineligible person.

But we have a problem here. Two incidents in the US feed into the 'if we register our guns, they will take them' mindset. The california assault weapons registry, where they extended the registration period, then said 'whoopsie, nevermind, we're confiscating those', and then the Hughes amendment that closed the NFA registry and banned all further imported and manufactured select-fire weapons. That's going to be very difficult to overcome. Plus, there's the bullshit lies already ingrained about how 'hitler banned guns for jews' and all that shit. Some of that can be educated away, but the two US bans (one effective ban, one confiscation) set up resistance that is going to be nearly impossible to overcome. I'd do it, I'd register my guns right away if needed, if nothing else, but in hopes they be returned by police if somehow they were stolen. Most Americans will not, and unfortunately, they have historical precedent to back up that opposition.

I think the so-called gun show loophole can be plugged with NICS. Simply require a NICS check on all private transfers, and pay the FFL's to perform the check 'for free' from a federal pile of money. Probably backstopped by another ammo tax. It needn't be much money, actually. That gets not just your 'gun shows', but also newspaper classifieds, garage sales, flea markets, person to person 'friend' sales, etc. Gun shows are actually a fairly small percentage of private transfers, and it's pointless to JUST force gun shows to do a NICS check. If you're going to do it, go whole enchilada, and force checks on private transfers, period. If we take away the associated cost, by backing the FFL's to perform this for 'free', then I think you'll see little opposition. Some people will break the law anyway, because they don't trust that a NICS check doesn't amount to registration, but it'll help. A lot of firearms owners, myself included, never sell a gun, because I really have no mechanism to ensure the person I'm selling to isn't ineligible. Something like a Concealed Pistol license is better than nothing, but if it's more than a day old, the damn thing could have been revoked for all I know.


Idunno about school indoctrination. My highschool had a rifle team in the 60's. Long gone before Class of 96, but the school never once had an accident. I don't know that no student who ever took the class didn't have an accident outside school, but overall, this wasn't a big deal 30-50 years ago. I don't see why it can't be done in a clinical fashion. Much like STD and sex education, I don't think it encourages 'bad' behavior. Maybe make sure it's politics-agnostic. The NRA Eddie Eagle class is actually free of indoctrination, but I can understand that giving you pause. Which is too bad the NRA has such a large and active political organ, because the program is very, very good at teaching firearms safety. A throwback to the days when the NRA was all about teaching people marksmanship, and nothing political at all.