Something that starts from a drivers licensing model

• age limitations
• limitations based on previous history of unsafe behavior
• required education
• required demonstration of safe gun handling/storage skills and knowledge of applicable laws
• different levels of license endorsement, e.g., licensed for 1 gun, 2-5 guns, or 6+ guns, types/sizes of guns,
• license based on conditions in which they can be used, aka, easier to get a license limited to hunting with a shotgun than concealed carrying a pistol
• background check for any and all sales or transfers of ownership between anyone not in a parent/child/sibling relationship
• remove barriers to suing gun sellers who don’t abide by sales/background check rules when the buyer ends up using the gun to hurt people. Maybe even go so far as to define their level of liability
• remove barriers to suing people who don’t properly store their guns, and lead to gun access by someone who uses it to cause harm, and again, maybe defining some default level of liability
• requirement for gun owners to carry liability insurance
• halt sales of guns from US to known cartels under the bullshit guise of anti-terrorism/anti-drug ops
• funded auditing program at the federal level designed to monitor chain of gun manufacturers to dealers to customers to ensure compliance with licensing requirements

Now the question of how to do all this in a way that wouldn’t get shut down as federal overreach into issues that should be managed by states… Oh, yeah, interstate commerce. Gun control is a more logical application for the interstate commerce clause than how Republicans are prepping to use it for women running from one state to another for abortion access. I’m sure the current majority-conservative supreme Court would see it that way.

In other words, president and control of Congress isn’t enough to affect change on gun control on the national level.

Hot (lukewarm?) take: The first step in fixing the US’s problem with firearm-related violence should not be banning firearms (background checks etc already exist), but should instead be taking measures to prevent people getting into situations where randomly shooting people is seen as a logical choice, such as some form of universal income/healthcare (not gonna argue specifics here because literally anything would be better than our current state of affairs), and a better framework for both understanding and assisting with mental health. Firearm training should definitely also be a requirement.

Unfortunately, if I did somehow become president, I’d bet “President 0x30507DE was found dead in a barrel with 3 gunshot wounds to the back of the head. His death was ruled a suicide.” would be the headlines within about 2 weeks.

Medicare for all. Do away with the private healthcare system.

Free mental health services.

Student debt forgiveness.

Create programs to lift people out of poverty.

Work to abolish systemic issues that impact the low income, minorities, lgbtq, and other traditionally marginalized communities.

Create an amendment codifying the right to abortions.

Protect women’s healthcare.

Remove protections for social media and tech companies that amplify hate speech. Even if I don’t like it, the Nazis get free speech protections, but that doesn’t mean companies get to facilitate and amplify it’s reach.

Create gun training programs that hopefully can teach people that guns are not a solution to your problems; guns are a last resort to protect human life. Not property, only life.

Comprehensive police reform. Reallocate funds and responsibility away from officers so that they can focus on dealing with actual crime.

Remove civil asset fortfiture.

Prevent the sale of military equipment to police departments.

And so much more. I figure if we can get rid of a lot of the underlying causes that make people feel like they don’t have a choice but commit violent crimes then gun violence should decrease.

Without revamping the US to the extent that others are suggesting (like education, free mental & physical healthcare, better benefits even UBI… which tackle the root causes and issues), and more of a “4 years, gotta get it done, gotta make it stick” style legislation…
Require insurance and licencing for firearms, same as cars.
Different levels and uses of firearms require different licnences and insurances.
Licences gives the government some check.
Insurance will essentially enforce it.
No sale/transfer/ownership without valid insurance&licence.

Gun control means keeping weapons out of the hands of those who intend to do harm. Which is why my first step would be to cancel all military aid to Isreal.

Tax the rich and/or defund military or police just enough to pay for decent healthcare and mental health services in this country. Can’t have responsible citizens if you’re driving them to the brink of insanity- these conditions are intentional so the state can turn the mentally ill into free labor in prisons and maintain a military force against the people at large.

I imagine that you’re looking for an increase in restrictions. You’d probably need three-quarters of states onboard to do Constitutional amendments for much there.

I’d probably favor a decrease in restrictions in most respects. Historically, one criteria the Supreme Court used when discussing whether things like shortened shotguns should be legal is whether a firearm is a standard infantry weapon. I think that makes a fair amount of sense, given the rationale behind the Second Amendment, which was aimed at shooting people.

From a more-restrictive standpoint. Hmm. As things stand, there are some weapons that are generally not accepted for military use, which are generally legal for US citizens.

It seems a little odd for citizens to be running around with weapons that militaries have generally rejected as objectionable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet

The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibited the use in international warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body.[4] It is a common misapprehension that hollow-point ammunition is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, as the prohibition significantly predates those conventions. The Saint Petersburg Declaration of 1868 banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams, along with weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable.

Despite the widespread ban on military use, hollow-point bullets are one of the most common types of bullets used by civilians and police,[5] which is due largely to the reduced risk of bystanders being hit by over-penetrating or ricocheted bullets, and the increased speed of incapacitation.[6]

The United States is one of few major powers that did not agree to IV-3 of the Hague Convention of 1899, and thus is able to use this kind of ammunition in warfare, but the United States ratified the second (1907) Hague Convention IV-23, which says “To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering”, similar to IV-3 of the first Convention. For years the United States military respected this Convention and refrained from the use of expanding ammunition, and even made special FMJ .22LR ammunition for use in High Standard pistols that were issued to the OSS agents and the Savage Model 24 .22/.410 combination guns issued in the E series of air crew survival kits. After announcing consideration of using hollow point ammunition for side arms, with a possible start date of 2018, the United States Army began production of M1153 special purpose ammunition for the 9×19mm Parabellum with a 147-grain (9.5 g) jacketed hollow point bullet at 962 feet (293 m) per second for use in situations where limited over-penetration of targets is necessary to reduce collateral damage.

Flamethrowers are generally legal for civilian ownership in the US and generally don’t require licensing. Militaries have tended to move away from them; they’re a pretty bad way to go. While they haven’t really caused problems in civilian hands and I tend to favor a “don’t regulate unless there’d an actual, demonstrated problem” approach, I have to admit that I’m not necessarily enthusiastic about people running around with them. I think that they’ve limited military application, and they’re a pretty awful weapon to be killed with. They aren’t considered protected by the Second Amendment today.

On the less-restrictive side, I don’t believe that the 1986 federal license requirement for automatic weapons is in-line with the Second Amendment; I’d remove that.

And states are permitted to ban suppressors. Militaries definitely do make use of suppressors. I’d like to see SCOTUS see the Second Amendment as covering that.

Airguns are not considered protected at all, from a Second Amendment standpoint. While airguns haven’t really been very successful from a military standpoint – the world tended to head down the explosive cartridge route – and US states haven’t really restricted them much, they have been used in militaries, and even today, there are large-caliber airguns that are used for hunting. I think that there’s probably a fair argument for protecting them as functionally equivalent; I don’t think that there’s a strong argument to not do so. Not aware of what case law here is; not sure if it’s hit SCOTUS.

What I want to do will require 2/3 of Congress and 2/3 of the State legislatures.

I’d make gun owners liable for any crime committed with a gun registered to them. If they can’t keep their gun locked in a gun safe, they’re negligent. A car is not a safe. It has glass windows, not steel walls. We have car titles. We can have gun titles.

I’d also make ongoing, regular training required. Let’s say once every few months, you have to go to a range and target shoot with your local club. I think that would solve a lot of problems at once. Disturbed people would have to be around sane people a bit. (Hopefully, they make friends but truly dangerous people would get red flagged.) You wouldn’t have as many idiots in gun brawls hitting innocent bystanders. Even normal, responsible gun owners would benefit since it’d be a reminder to maintain their guns and an opportunity to learn from more experienced marksmen.

This is less practical but I’d also love to see a ban on certain guns from being taken off private property (or some similar rule) without it being disabled somehow. I’m not sure that would be possible (technically or to enforce) but I think that would help with the “moron buying an AR with an extended clip” issue while still allowing people with legitimate use cases to protect their livestock or hunt.

Basically, I want every gun fired to be done so accurately and with the intent of the owner. I’m not sure my ideas would get us there but that’s the broader goal I’m aiming for. (Pun not intended).

There’s a whole lot of gun laws and regulations that fall on the states, the courts, and the ATF, so even with the president and Congress on the same page, a lot of stuff can’t really get done easily, so I’m going to assume that the question is more “you can wave a magic wand and set the gun laws however you want them”

1. We’re pretty much going back to square one with basic definitions about what even is a firearm. No more “muzzle loaders aren’t firearms,” type bullshit. If there’s combustion propelling a projectile it’s a firearm. Depending on how technology advances, we also need to consider how we’re going to regulate things like rail/coil guns should those ever become widespread, and it may be worth lumping certain types of air gun into the category as well.

2. No private sales or transfers. Everything gets the full background check, no excuses. We’re also making those transfers free, available in more places (instead of going to a gun shop you can do them at a police station, with a notary, the DMV, post offices, etc.)

3. We’re tightening up that background check, getting all states on the same page about what sort of offenses disqualify someone from owning a firearm, how those offenses are reported, etc. officers, clerks, judges, whatever who drop the ball on making sure those offenses are reported correctly face big-time criminal liability if someone uses a gun in a crime that they purchased legally but shouldn’t.

4. More uniformity between different state laws, we need all of our systems working together seamlessly, a firearm that would make someone a felon in one state shouldn’t be legal to walk around with the next state over. We need to expand a whole lot of circumstances that would prevent someone from owning a gun (I work in 911 dispatch, we have some regulars in my area that police are at their home every week or even every night that we have caution notes attached to their addresses that someone there owns a gun or multiple guns despite the fact that they’re constantly getting into fights with their family, neighbors, seem to be constantly drunk out of their minds or are suffering from significant mental health problems. We need some way of separating those kinds people from their guns.)

5. We’re overhauling healthcare, and including mental healthcare along with regular physical healthcare. It’s going to be totally funded by the government, no out of pocket costs. It’s going to become as normal to go in to see a shrink once a year or so for a mental health check-up whether you’re having problems or not as it is to go in for your annual physical. You need a clean psych screen within the last year before any gun purchase, transfer, ammo purchase, or to renew a carry permit (which under point 4, enjoys complete reciprocity among all US states and territories) and under certain circumstances your doctor can advise the police that you’re a danger and they should remove any weapons you own.

6. Training, again free. No purchases or incoming transfers without a gun safety course. No carry permits without a more advanced course that also covers a whole lot legal, liability , moral, and ethical issues and a stringent marksmanship test.

7. You can get rimfire weapons, or manually-operated center-fire rifles and shotguns at 18. 21 for semi auto. We’re keeping the general NFA framework for machine guns intact but we’re raising the cost of the tax stamp drastically, legal NFA items are used in a vanishingly small percentage of crime, they’re not a major public safety issue, they’re more of a luxury good and a collectors item, so people can pay a big premium if they want one. We’re also moving all of the non-machine gun NFA items into the regular 21+ category, there’s too much hazy bullshit about short barreled rifles/shotguns and handguns that are functionally exactly the same but legally different because reasons. They’re all the same thing now. Silencers/suppressors are already pretty damn available under the NFA in most states to anyone who wants them and doesn’t mind jumping through a couple hoops, and again don’t get used in many crimes, and there’s some good arguments to be made for them being used to help protect hearing for recreational shooting. Things like binary triggers and bump stocks are getting regulated as machine gun parts, along with obvious examples like auto sears and lightning links because that’s what they’re trying to do while skirting the law.

8. Regarding “ghost guns” we’re going to call 80% receivers/frame guns now, they need to be serialized and those making and selling them needgo through all of the other hoops a regular gun manufacturer would need to go through. If you want to mill your own gun from a block of metal, or 3d print one, or cobble one together from plumbing parts, you also need to serialize it and submit records that that gun now exists. We can’t really do anything to enforce that at the point of manufacture, but if it turns up used in a crime we want to have some hope of tracing it and holding people responsible who allowed it to end up there. Really all gun parts except for basic screws, pins, etc. should be serialized and recorded the same way.

9. Storage- locks are mandatory when the gun is not under your direct supervision, and at home you must have a proper gun safe to store them. No leaving firearms in your vehicle regardless of how well you’ve hidden it, or what kind of safe you’ve bolted into your center console or glove box. Again, we can’t really enforce that until that gun ends up stolen or some kid gets ahold of it and shoots themselves or their friend, but it gives us an avenue to hold people responsible when that does happen. If you don’t store it properly and something happens, you’re facing jail time.

10. We’re doing some major lobbying reforms so that gun manufacturers and organizations like the NRA can’t basically just buy politicians anymore. Really, the NRA probably needs to be disbanded after the maria butina thing.

11. Cops have to jump through the same hoops as everyone else when they’re not on duty. No carrying around your duty weapon if you’re not on the clock. No exceptions that they can carry a firearm without a regular carry permit, no “no firearms allowed except for LEOs” type policies. If they’re not working, they’re not a cop.

EDIT: 12. We’re also gonna throw a ton of money at education, social welfare, decriminalize drug use, vocational training, affordable housing, etc. to keep people out of poverty and decrease crime overall.

I don’t think the premise holds water.

How can one have congressional support for an issue which actually helps people? Is helping people, in this instance, the most profitable choice for the individual representative? Because they do not care about the betterment of humankind, and they are no longer beholden to the people. The representative at large is a warmongor, an oil baron beneficiary, a gun lobby shill, a two-bit huckster, a thief, and an active erodor of democratic principles. There is no such thing as congressional support among two opposing parties, whose real goals both are aligned against the people, in that, again… If helping people isn’t the number one most convenient, profitable, best way to get somebody else’s ass kissed, it ain’t even a priority. We need to do something about the fascism problem first, then melt the guns into participation trophies for the men who carry them now. Problem solved.

I’d focus less on the actual guns, and more on the ammunition. Guns don’t fire without them, so if a potential shooter can’t get ammo, the effect is the same as if they can’t get a gun, but there are a few crucial differences:

Guns are increasingly easy to manufacture at home if one so desires, with things like 3-d printed guns becoming a thing, and as such, I feel that trying to regulate the actual gun is a losing battle in the not too distant future. A gun is basically just a lump of metal, or any sufficiently strong material, arranged into a certain shape. Bullets however require explosives, and explosives with the right properties at that, and the ability to manufacture that at home is much less common, and would be subject to regulation anyway given the inherit danger of explosive chemicals.

I would not totally ban bullets, mind. Even if that could somehow be made to work constitutionally, there is still the issue that there are some legitimate and generally harmless uses for a gun (things like hunting or sport target-shooting at a safely cordoned off place like a range), and that while uses like home defense might not be particularly likely to help much statistically, they are still culturally important in the US, so if you manage to entirely ban them, people will probably vote in people later who will reverse the bans, and then you have the problem back. In a democracy, one has to try to align with what the people want, and any gun control law in the US is going to have to be made to acknowledge that, like it or not, a significant fraction of the country like guns and want to be able to have them in some capacity. This doesn’t mean that we should give up on gun control, but that the legislation needs to be more nuanced than just “no more guns allowed, problem solved”.

What I would do, is give an allowance for how many bullets one is allowed to purchase in a given period of time, and a quite small one. One would be allowed to purchase more than than this if it can be proven that the previously purchased rounds have been fired, for example, by bringing back the spent casings (I figure this would have an added benefit in incentivising people to find and clean up these when doing things like hunting or practice shooting at home). I figure that, given that hunting rifles tend to be single-shot devices that aren’t fired a whole lot in a single trip (since a loud noise like a gunshot will probably scare off a deer if one misses), and that home defense weapons like a revolver don’t get fired often at all and don’t need to have more than a couple rounds to be a deterrent, having only a handful of rounds available at once shouldn’t impact these uses too much. One would also be allowed to buy ammunition in unrestricted quantities at a licensed and inspected (for compliance with laws like this one) gun range, with the caveat that unused ammo must be returned, presumably for a refund, upon leaving, and that the range could face legal penalties if people are allowed to take ammo in exess of their normal allotment off the range. The goal of all this is to create a situation where it is very difficult to possess more than a small number of rounds at once, and thus make a mass-shooting more difficult to carry out.

I wouldn’t address it, honestly I think a better way to handle the issue is to fix our education & healthcare systems and stiffen up penalties for unsecured firearms some.

I think that would solve the vast majority of the problem, and there would no longer be sufficient reason to bother.

I’d appoint a person to publicly talk about gun control and advocate Congress.

Someone who loves firearms so much that they are personally offended by a lack of respect for gun safety. If you have ever been to a gun range and been chewed out by the range safety officer, you know what I mean.

That’s not enough support to be able to handle the gun control question. The supreme court is the real key. In theory it should be possible to pass sane gun control laws but over the years the supreme court has bent itself into pretzels trying to interpret any random yahoo with an AR-15 as being a “well-regulated militia.”