Regardless of whether you are pro- or anti-gun control, if you are realistic, you must admit that any "conventional" gun control law has little chance of passing Congress in the next two years. Even what appears to me to be the most reasonable of the usual proposals, a ban on high-capacity magazines for centerfire rifles and handguns, will probably never even reach a floor vote in either house of Congress.
In addition, conventional gun control proposals are thought to be a losing proposition for Democratic candidates. I'm not qualified to judge whether or not they really helped usher in the 1994 Republican victories, or helped doom Al Gore in 2000, but there are certainly plenty of folks out there who think they did - and some of them now hold high positions within the Democratic party.
Are there other things we could try? Things that could do some good, and still have a chance of getting through Congress? Things that most gun owners would recognize as reasonable? Things that even the wingnut fringe infesting the current Congress should be ashamed to oppose?
I believe there are, and would like to suggest a few:
# 1 - Strict civil liability for gun owners, for personal injuries caused by misuse of their weapons. If you own a gun, you are responsible for the results of that ownership, even if you didn't pull the trigger yourself.
Exceptions:
a) If your gun is stolen from a locked container, vehicle, or building, and you report it promptly to the police, you are absolved of further responsibility.
b) If you sell your gun, and report the transfer in writing to your local police, together with a copy of the driver's license of the buyer, you are no longer responsible for that weapon.
With these two exceptions, you would be liable for damages to any innocent party injured by a gun you bought. (It should go without saying, but I'll spell it out anyway - if you use a gun in legitimate self-defense, your assailant would not be entitled to recover damages under this provision.)
# 2 - Anyone convicted of any crime
of violence, even misdemeanor assault, shall be forever banned from owning any firearm. If you've proven you can't be trusted with your fists, why should you be trusted with a gun? Gun owners who commit any crime of violence shall have all firearms they own confiscated.
#3 - Anyone convicted of DUI loses the right to own firearms. Really, if you've proven that you'll operate one dangerous weapon (your car) while drunk, why should we expect you to stay sober around guns?
# 4 - Want a permit to carry a concealed weapon? Then you should be required to buy liability insurance covering the possibility that you shoot the wrong person. The amount of coverage should be adequate to replace the income of a typical worker who might be disabled if you make a mistake with your weapon (or to provide for his/her family if he dies).
The insurance requirement would be only for those carrying concealed weapons in public, not for hunters, target shooters, or even those who keep a weapon for self-defense in their own homes or business. Also, as I would hope is obvious, if you shoot someone in in legitimate self-defense, he could make no claim against your coverage.
Now, none of these measures would have prevented the recent shootings in Arizona, and one can easily cite other gun crimes that would not have been hindered by them. However, these steps have the potential to reduce several types of tragedy:
The liability features of #1 would encourage people to properly lockup weapons. Those who wish to keep a loaded weapon handy would have a very good incentive to be certain they could do so safely. Accidental shootings by ill-trained children or irresponsible adults stumbling across weapons should be diminished. There should also be some impact on the "straw buyer" issue, where someone buys a gun and passes it on to someone not legally qualified to have one.
Point #2 will weed out a class of people who currently can legally own firearms in most states, who clearly should not be able to do so. Most states require a felony conviction to strip an offender of firearms rights, and federal law adds only a restriction on persons convicted of misdemeanors of domestic violence. You can be in the habit of physical violence, rack up court appearances and convictions, and as long as it doesn't rise to the level of a felony, or involve a family member, you're perfectly free to buy a gun. Does anyone seriously think that's a good idea?
The idea behind point #3 is that alcohol and firearms mix poorly. While I think it should be illegal to handle weapons with any detectable blood alcohol, as a matter of practicality, there's little way to enforce that at present. However, there is a large, ongoing, non-controversial effort to detect drunk drivers. And if you'll handle one deadly weapon drunk, why not another?
The insurance requirement in point # 4 might be a bit controversial - some folks will no doubt object to the expense of insurance. However, insurance companies set premiums based on their experience. If the overwhelming majority of CCW holders are responsible, and CCW guns are rarely misused, then claims experience will reflect this, and the insurance will be available for a nominal premium. If the premiums turn out to be high, well, maybe there's a reason for that?
I find it hard to imagine how anyone who claims to be a responsible gun owner could find much to object to in this. I'll admit I'm not affected by #4, as I find no reason to indulge in concealed carry. However, I would certainly be affected by numbers 1-3, as I own six guns (I was once an avid hunter, and still hunt occasionally.) I have not the slightest problem with these requirements, because I keep my guns well secured, handle them carefully, don't drive or handle guns while drunk, and don't assault people.
Does anyone really think that's too much to ask of gun owners?
If the Congressional wingnuts try to shoot these proposals down, I think it would backfire. What are they going to claim? "The GOP is standing up for the right to be careless and irresponsible with guns, without consequences?"