As a total fantasy, because none of this is going to happen given our current Congress, let’s play a game of: how would Chuck Wendig do gun control? Like, if I had magical control over all governmental processes, how would I, a humble dipshit, control guns?
Let’s throw up some caveats, though, first.
First, I grew up around guns. My father operated a gun store and also was a gunsmith in his spare time. I reloaded ammo for him. We hunted. I still hunt. I wouldn’t call myself an expert, but I am no amateur. When I say I grew up around guns, I mean it — every room had at least one. The gunshop had a couple hundred. I got a new gun or knife damn near every Christmas. (Note: we never had any military-style “black rifles” around our house. My father didn’t like them, and he passed that feeling down to me.)
Second, let’s all gather around and remember that the Constitution is a living document. Not literally — it won’t fly around the room like a haunted specter, howling the Bill of Rights into your ear. I mean, it is a document meant to change — not easily, no, but it is doable. The Constitution is just a thing we made up. It isn’t a divinely-inspired document. God did not make America. Men did. Old, white guys from a couple centuries back. Jesus did not shit the Constitution into existence. Further, the Second Amendment isn’t an aperture that’s all-the-way open. That word, “well-regulated,” has (arguable) meaning. You can slippery slope it all you like, claiming that any regulations or restrictions on firearms is a restriction on the second amendment, but it’s too late. We already have restricted weapons. You cannot easily go buy an automatic weapon. (Contrary to popular belief, you can actually buy one. It just takes 6-9 months to get approved.) If any restrictions or regulations are in place on any firearm, then the slope is already slippery. It already happened. Barn door’s open. Horse is out. (Also note, Supreme Court declined to reconsider an assault rifle ban in CT.)
Third, banning individual weapons is a fraught path. You can ban certain models, but then there will just be new models. You can ban so-called “assault rifles,” but recognize that definition is more political than technical. Don’t get me wrong — I’m not on the train that anybody “needs” an AR-15. Sure, I know people like them for hunting, but I’m a little old school — you need an AR-15 for hunting, I’d suggest you learn to be a better hunter. (I have opinions about home defense, too, and I still don’t think you need one of those guns.) Just the same, the irony of regulating assault rifles is that they’re a small portion of the problem. You want to regulate them, but nobody says “boo” about handguns, which are the real problem. They’re concealable, semi-auto, and hold enough bullets to kill a bunch of people. A Glock 17 has 17 rounds in its magazine, and you can carry a bunch of magazines on you — okay, sure, it doesn’t afford the accuracy or stability that a semi-automatic rifle would, nor as many accessories, but you do earn the ability to easily conceal. Roughly 75% of gun homicides are committed with handguns.
Fourth, the folks who think “banning all guns” is the answer are, I fear, living in a unicorn world. Nearly 200 million firearms are out there. Somewhere between 40-50% of all households in America own a gun. We are a culture of gun owners. It’s in our pop culture, too. We all have a little Wild West blood in our veins. We’re all cowboys and scoundrels, all soldiers and cops. I know! It worked in Australia. It worked in the UK. And yet, those are relatively small countries comparatively. Plus, the United States is practically 50 little countries stapled together.
Fifth, I’m not sure insurance is the way to go — I’ve seen that a lot and I’ve posited it myself. I’m ignorant of how insurance works, but I have to imagine that insurance on weaponry is also a fraught path. Would an insurance company even have interest in that risk? Would the risk and the cost be so high that it would be a sneaky sideways ban on firearms? Maybe.
Sixth and finally, let’s get shut of the talk surrounding the terrorist watchlist. It’s a problematic list that contains a few thousand American names for reasons unknown.
Oh, and hey, one more: let’s also get shut of the paranoid delusion that we need our guns to revolt against our government. I appreciate that you think this is a good idea, but it is a child’s fantasy. Sure, maybe there will be some kind of apocalypse — some climate change ruination, some pandemic, some whatever — but I’d rather not legislate based on doomsday scenarios. We already have people dying in this country right now due to firearms. How about we worry about the problem in front of us rather than the imaginary zombies we fear will come clawing at our door? (Oh, and for the people who want to battle their own government, I’d argue that you should train less with guns and train more with computers. The government can outmatch you on the guns, son, but you could probably hack the shit out of their systems.)
SO, OKAY, with all that said, what do I, humble dipshit, do?
1.) Close up the secondary market loopholes. Right now, anybody can sell a gun to anybody and it isn’t tracked, nobody knows, it’s just a fluid de facto black market. You can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun because that person doesn’t need a license to sell and you don’t need a license to buy. And have you been to a gun show? Oh, you should go. You will see so much KKK and Nazi propaganda, it’s like a history lesson in horrible human beings. (I also grew up around gun shows, and once upon a time, they were not this way. But I’ve been to a couple since Obama has been elected and ha ha oh shit.) If I sell a car, I have to have the title (though there are ways to wriggle around that). A car is a less lethal, more functional device than a gun, and so suggesting that gun sales be tracked and titled — not really that extreme.
2.) Track all gun sales. All of them. Track all the guns. ALL OF THEM. Oh, I know, I know, you precious dears don’t want to be on “a list.” But you’re already on a bunch of them. You’re not ronin ninja sneaking in the dark-net off the grid, buddy. Got a social security number? A driver’s license? Any bank or credit card statements? You pay your taxes? You’re already on a buncha lists. And maybe, just maybe, you can stop clenching your sphincter about the gun list. The government is not going to use it to come and take away your guns. If you get all blustery about being on that list — a legal, above-board, non-criminal list — then I actually start to worry you’re going to kill somebody with that gun. You know who doesn’t worry about their name being on lists? Normal, run-of-the-mill, non-killery gun owners.
3.) Keep rifles and shotguns easy to procure, as in Canada. Also as in Canada, make it harder to get handguns and higher-capacity semi-auto rifles. They basically have, what, three categories in Canada? Non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. For purposes of AMERICAN FREEDOM !!11! let’s get rid of “prohibited” here and simply create classes of restrictedness — you could, say, bump handguns and semi-auto rifles up to Title II, make them much harder to procure. I know, someone out there has a real itchy butthole that they might need to wait six months to buy a pistol or an AR-15, but some hunting licenses take a while to get, and if OMG I NEED A PISTOL TODAY TODAY TODAY it’s probably a good bet you’re raring to shoot someone. If you can say, “Yeah, I can wait six months to get that high-powered lead-spitting shooty-shooty death device,” I think I trust you a whole lot more than the guy who needs it holy shit right now.
4.) Wanna own a firearm? You need a firearm license. It’s like a driver’s license. It’s like a hunting license. It’s like a fishing license — oh, and let that sink in. You need a license to wiggle a worm in the water to catch a trout, but you don’t need a license to buy a machine that can push a projectile through someone’s face at 1100 feet-per-second. Yes, some of that has to do with conservation, but I’d go out on a limb and say we need to consider the conservation of human lives, too.
5.) A firearms license would be like a driver’s license — getting your license the first time would be subject to both training and testing. If it is reasonable to ask that people be trained when operating a vehicle, it is reasonable to ask that people be trained when operating a firearm. This is a win-win for everyone, by the way. The NRA is the one who does most of the training in this country, and would benefit. It would create new jobs. It would ensure that people with guns were trained with them — and would likely offer some training regarding defense with a gun, too. (The fact the NRA does not support training enforcement is to me the clearest indication they support gun manufacturers more than its members. Training helps everybody but the manufacturers.)
6.) Owning firearms of different restricted classes would not only require longer wait times but also more training and, I dunno, a stamp on your license.
7.) Universal background checks — but that could be tied into the licensing, too.
8.) Israel restricts the number of weapons you can have — it’s pretty strict, if I recall. One of each type, essentially, and only if you can show you belong in certain roles. That won’t fly here to that degree, and I can speak to the fact that hunters do in fact use more than one type of gun. Around here, you can’t use rifles to kill much of anything, so that means a 12 gauge for deer, a 20 gauge for birds, a .410 for squirrels. But, some limits could be reasonable on the number of firearms you can own in each class and at each restriction level — you have some ‘splainin’ to do if you need like, 20 handguns. Restricting the number potentially undercuts and identifies people who are hoarding arsenals.
9.) Tax ammunition — casings, bullets, powder, too. I know, you don’t wanna pay more for ammo, but newsflash: any time gun control measures come up for even the whisperiest whisper of debate, prices go up because of price gouging. You’re already paying more thanks to people selling them to you. I was at a gun show just after Obama got elected, and many of the sellers had warnings up at their stalls about how Obama was coming to take their guns (spoiler alert: he wasn’t), and the prices at those tables were jacked up to exorbitant levels.
10.) Restrict certain accessories. We already restrict some, so it’s not strange to want to make sure people can’t buy a drum mag for a rifle — if you need 100 bullets immediately accessible? No.
11.) Make sure all this works nationwide, not just state-to-state. Certainly states could increase the severity of the restrictions if the constituents so demand, but gun control really only works well when it crosses state borders. Also, help the CDC study gun violence. (The restriction against it is no longer in place, but the money for those studies is also not in place. We need to study gun violence and it is perfectly reasonable to do so. Science and data can save us if we let it.)
And that’s it. It’s a start. It’s common sense. It’s nothing particularly revolutionary — for the most part, it assumes if you’re a responsible, law-abiding gun owner, nothing really changes for you except for the interjection of bureaucracy. (And I know bureaucracy is a bad word, but effective bureaucracy is valuable, and far greater than chaos and gun death.) Yes, it makes it harder to get a gun. It should be be harder to get a gun. There’s nothing wrong with it being difficult to procure a weapon that can kill several people in the span of minutes — and let’s remember, firearms have one primary purpose, and that purpose is death and injury. Target shooting is just a proxy for shooting at living targets. Hunting and defense are both part of that equation, and hunting and defense are based on death and injury. (I don’t magically shoot meat out of a turkey and he gobbles merrily and runs on while I collect my bullet-harvested roast. This isn’t Minecraft.) So, if we are to assume that the role of a firearm is to throw metal really fast through flesh in order to injure, incapacitate or kill, then it is probably also safe to assume that there should be a few speedbumps and cross-checks for people wanting that ability.
For those folks who think this is either:
a) not enough
or
b) too much
I have this to say:
Political process is founded on compromise. What I’ve outlined is exactly that. It is middle-ground, common sense regulation — nothing particularly dramatic. Just meant to tighten things up — once upon a time, even someone like Reagan was on board with common sense controls. The NRA was, too. That’s all changed with the increased rhetoric in this country, and we need to cut that off at the knees — but you also have to recognize we can’t just snap our fingers and make the problem go away. Guns aren’t going to go to vapor. Gun culture isn’t going to just disintegrate, either. Any changes we make will have to be sensible and moderate.
But don’t worry, it doesn’t matter anyway. Nothing’s going to change and nobody’s going to do anything and the only needle that’s moving is the one marking the number of people killed.
I’ll also finish up with this:
Vote in November. You want to see change, that’s the only way to get it.
And don’t just vote this November.
Vote every November. Vote actively, eagerly, and every time you have the chance. Owning a gun is a freedom we’re so keen to protect, fine. We also must recognize that voting is a vital freedom, too, and we should be not only keen to protect that right — but also desperate to engage with the political process, because that’s the only way your voice is measured and heard. Not just through tweets, not through petitions, not through changed avatars. But voting.
Comments are on, but moderated.
Don’t get fighty. Don’t be a jerk. I will boot you into the spam oubliette because this is my house and I don’t mind hearing you squawk down there in the dark.
annwjwhite says:
Want to be Vice president? I’ll put you on the ticket for the common sense party
June 21, 2016 — 9:40 AM
jademwong says:
Chuck Wendig for Vice President. It has a good ring to it.
June 21, 2016 — 10:39 AM
Rebeca says:
I’m really thankful that you put so much thought into this. There are a lot of people right now who have every right to be frightened and want to take action, but every time I come across a Youtube video of someone calling for “ban all assault riffles”, I can’t help but feel so defeated. The fastest way the opposing side will shut you up is by pointing out your ignorance. Knowing about weapons and knowing about the real gaps and problems of our current regulations is the way to make a real change.
So thank you for the post, Chuck.
June 21, 2016 — 11:47 AM
Rebeca says:
(side note :sorry! Meant to post this as a separate comment rather than a reply. Mobile gets kinda wonky
Although I’ll say, I’m all for VP Chuck Wendig :P)
June 21, 2016 — 11:49 AM
Janice says:
I’d vote for you Chuck!
June 21, 2016 — 9:52 AM
Kait Nolan says:
OMG, THANK YOU. There’s so much bullshit rhetoric out there, so many people who are uninformed about ANY of it but just parroting the latest sensationalist headlines, it’s incredibly refreshing to hear a balanced, sensible opinion. I also grew up with guns, learned gun safety from the age of 4, outshot most of the boys my age in high school, and I think everything you laid out is perfectly reasonable. Licensure? Hell yes. Training. ABSOLUTELY. Now if we can just figure out how to follow Annwjwhite’s suggestion and make you a candidate of the Common Sense Party…
June 21, 2016 — 9:53 AM
Mikel Strom says:
Regarding insurance: You’d probably want an actuary to verify this, but I’m fairly certain an insurer would write a policy for gun ownership, but it would most likely depend on the weapon you were seeking to insure. Insurers already limit what they will and won’t insure (and to what level), so it could be hashed out to where you can insure some firearms for sport or home defense, with provisos attached requiring you meet storage and maintenance standards, and invalidating your policy if you modified the device.
It would probably still be expensive, so what I’ve suggested is creating a tax deduction to incentivize purchase of insurance. I’d be fine with making the cost 100% deductible. Basically, doing this puts the registration of firearms in the hands of private companies, who already have a vetted legal process for how they communicate your personal info to the government. It lets you create a functional gun registry without the fear of the Feds running a gun grab, and the deduction even means getting some money back from the government for your trouble.
Obviously, there are details here to hash out, but part of why insurance is such an attractive solution is all the ways you could use it to end run most NRA arguments if structured and presented effectively.
June 21, 2016 — 10:02 AM
Rob says:
Hey Chuck, here’s a book you might appreciate that addresses this very issue: Arms: The Culture and Credo of the Gun by A.J. Somerset. Available wherever fine books are sold. I listened to the author speak at a literary festival back in April and had a nice chat with him afterwords as well over some drinks. I’ve only worked my way through a couple of chapters so far but I’m enjoying it. It wasn’t a title I expected to bother with (multi-day festival, lots of authors and worthy books) but his reading and the discussion around it really grabbed me.
June 21, 2016 — 10:11 AM
Meg Moore says:
Well- said!
June 21, 2016 — 10:16 AM
Susan S-F says:
Thank You. I am not, and probably never will be a gun owner, but I do not think I this is “not enough”.
June 21, 2016 — 10:19 AM
Kathleen Cassen Mickelson says:
As someone who pretty much hates guns all the way around, I found this to be one of the sanest things I’ve read on the issue so far. Nicely argued. My dad had guns in our house, too (not to the extent of yours) and he taught me how to shoot his Ruger something-or-other, which was fun at the time, but scary too. The biggest lesson I learned was respect for what a weapon can do. Life is not a video game.
June 21, 2016 — 10:25 AM
urdith says:
One thing I would add is removing restrictions on funding public health research on guns. Right now, laws enacted prevent the Centers from Disease Control or any other federally funded research institute from studding gun deaths or injuries or patterns of violence because they may be used to back up gun control efforts.
Imagine a law in place saying, “You cant fund studies in car accident patterns if they’re going to be used to restrict the free sale of cars.” So cars could be blowing up when someone turns on the radio, but the federal government can’t study the issue or act on it for fear their funding will be cut.
June 21, 2016 — 10:33 AM
Kim says:
I like the idea of common sense. After all we don’t live in the days of dragon and dungeons and be-headings, right? It takes a year to get a license to cut hair, two years to be a nurse and give you a shot or IV of medicine, so, of course, I agree on a license. That gives the would be killer more time for thinking or changing his attitude, or having life changes.
Second, charging tax on ammunition, I like that. Thirdly, I think in light of the age and sex of the killers (Columbine was 17 years ago, this is almost a generation of killings) how about a temporary ban, higher tax or something to dissuade them from purchasing. Or possibly, gun shops must report them to a bureau say up to age 30.
I don’t think any of these things take away rights of American citizens. Looking the other way and ignoring the deaths is insane. Many groups have national association memberships and they have to abide by laws, and work with the government for the people, by the people, etc.
June 21, 2016 — 10:33 AM
Alexa Muir (@amjmuir) says:
Some good ideas here and funnily enough mimic a lot of the steps that Australia took after 1996. They also had lots of guns in civilian hands along with a pretty died-in-the-wool gun culture. Then 35 people got slaughtered in the worst mass shooting in the country’s history (there had been 10 others before that) so the government radically altered the gun laws: No more private sales, a buyback scheme, licenses and the need to justify why you needed a gun (and self-defense does not count).
Since then there are obviously people still being killed by guns but the numbers are a lot less – 59% down from 1996 to 2006 and no noticeable increase in non-firearm homicide. Suicide by gun also dropped by a massive 65%. And mass shootings? None at all since the law was changed.
As a UK national I can’t get my head around the need or desire for guns in the home if you’re not a hunter but I respect that American culture is different. I just hope that at some point someone has the bravery and power to force through the changes so desperately needed.
June 21, 2016 — 10:48 AM
terribleminds says:
Was that buyback scheme a forced one, though? As in, you gotta give ’em up and trade ’em in?
June 21, 2016 — 11:28 AM
Reverance Pavane says:
Yes. It was a forced buyback of the newly restricted weapons.
Incidentally a lot of collectors (a group missing in your arguments) were upset because the only way to keep a restricted weapon was to render it completely and irreversibly unusable (not just seal the barrel and remove the bolt and secure it elsewhere). Which kind of destroys the value of the piece. And because overseas collectors knew it was a fire sale prices dropped dramatically. The Australian War Museum (which was exempted from the law) was inundated with donations as people tried to save valuable antiques from destruction. Needless to say antique prices weren’t part of the compensation package.
But on the whole it was a good idea.
June 21, 2016 — 12:20 PM
terribleminds says:
Collectors are not a meaningful subset of anything, because there is no right, nor any value, for collecting outside the novelty and monetary value. Even if we are to assume the Second Amendment is ironclad, I think it’s fair to say the right to bear arms was not meant just so they could be stashed away and admired.
To be clear, I also have nothing against collectors! Some firearms are genuinely beautiful and have historical value. I just mean, it’s not a meaningful factor when discussing gun control. Not to me, anyway.
June 21, 2016 — 12:26 PM
Coco says:
Before the guns even get in our hands, we in the U.S. have an anger and violence problem. We’re too angry and it’s too easy to act on that anger, plus we have loads of precedence to rely on when we’re ready to lash out.
Getting a gd grip on the guns, of course, is a good place to start if we do, in fact, mean to get a grip at all.
Very nice common-sense-y post. Thank you.
June 21, 2016 — 10:49 AM
N.E. Montgomery says:
Thank you for proving that the words “common sense” and “gun control,” used in the same sentence, don’t cause the immediate death of the universe in some ultimate matter-antimatter explosion sort of way.
Love you always, Chuck
June 21, 2016 — 11:03 AM
wizki says:
Chuck–you have common sense. You also know a whole heck of a lot more about this than I (or many other s out there) do. I just wanted to contribute my 2 yen, for what it’s worth: Banning/reducing guns worked in Aus. It works in the UK. And it works in Japan, where I have lived and worked for more than 16 years. Now, the US and Japan couldn’t be more different in many ways–as you probably know, they are often paired against each other in multicultural studies because each is so extreme. America is weird in how diverse it is; we can be proud of this fact, but we have to acknowledge its essential strangeness. Japan, by contrast, is about 98% Japanese, with the other 2% mostly Asian–that’s pretty weird too. Throw in vastly different historical trajectories, and it’s no wonder why we’ve come to different solutions re: weapons in general and guns in particular.
I am not a fountain of knowledge about this–I’m just this translator/editor guy, you know? But as I walk down the street, feeling absolutely confident that nobody can mow me down with a weapon that they shouldn’t have and wouldn’t need even if they did, it’s difficult for me personally to see why we need guns at all. No offense meant to responsible gun owners and people like yourself who grew up around guns and know how to handle them, but geez, thousands dead and all that. I know I am preaching to the choir here.
Seriously, though, thanks for educating us all on this topic. I appreciate rational discussion about it, perhaps because I’m beyond rationality myself when it comes to this. I live my life unafraid, and would rather my fellow humans did too.
June 21, 2016 — 11:08 AM
terribleminds says:
There’s certainly an argument that we don’t need guns at all, that’s true. I don’t really “need” a gun in the strictest sense, though I have fed my family with hunting (not exclusively!) and ate that way when I was young, too. Obviously the trifecta of “need” for guns is:
a) hunting
b) sport
c) defense
and then
d) shh I wanna fucking kill people
Hunting is a real deal thing — around here, there are organized hunts to cull deer, and I know there are others in other areas for wild hogs. Sport is ennh, and home defense is a legit reason — though mostly just because other people have guns, so it’s a mutual need based on horrible people.
Problem with getting rid of all the guns here is that it’s already in the air and the water, so to speak.
June 21, 2016 — 11:27 AM
Avery Flinders says:
To that I would add e) work. Work is one of the main categories of gun ownership in Australia, other than sport – mainly for farmers. Shooting pests and putting down injured or sick farm animals are both a little like hunting, I guess, but the motivation’s very different.
June 22, 2016 — 4:45 AM
S T Cameron says:
In a world where you can’t get anything done because people usually try to jump to the extremes, we need to try the common sense tightening up of what we already have and eliminating extremes that we don’t need (20 handguns / 100 round drums). To you, Mr. Wendig, I say, “Hear! Hear!”
June 21, 2016 — 11:10 AM
lovethismadness says:
Great article, well thought-out. Do you have an opinion on open-carry or concealed carry?
June 21, 2016 — 11:11 AM
terribleminds says:
I do, though it’s complicated — I’m not in favor of open carry for tactical reasons and because I think it constitutes more of a visible threat than a visible defense. Concealed carry is sticky — honestly, I’m of a mind just to get rid of them, but that’s a longer conversation than I can probably have in a comment.
June 21, 2016 — 11:24 AM
lovethismadness says:
I agree. I don’t like open carry for the reasons you stated (I’d prefer that split second of seeing a gun to know I need to fight or flight). I’ve always supported concealed carry, but I also recognize that in many situations, I’d be putting myself in more danger. Thanks for the reply.
June 21, 2016 — 11:37 AM
Doug says:
Don’t agree on all accounts but I would be in favor of most of the suggestions except number 11. If we are going to have gun laws across the country, then make them the same across the country.
If states can’t change them to more lenient as their constituents want, then states shouldn’t be allowed to make them more strict as their constituents want.
June 21, 2016 — 11:14 AM
Anthony says:
This is actually pretty close to the conversation I had with several coworkers recently. Simply put “let’s start by treating guns like cars. You want to sell one, you need a title. You want to use one? It needs to be registered, and you need to be licensed. You want that license? You need to be trained and tested.”
The two biggest problems I see around gun-violence in the states is 1) there’s this strange, strong stigma against mental health and not helping those who are mentally unhealthy and 2) very few people know how a gun even works and what it can do.
2 is a problem that can be tackled more easily. People are afraid of guns, and romanticize guns so much in this country. People see a gun and just freak out, regardless of where it is. “No one” knows how to render the weapon safe (i.e. not loaded, safety on, not pointed at anyone.) And people who own guns are often reliant on someone who may not know what they’re doing to teach them proper use and care.
June 21, 2016 — 11:15 AM
Robert Sadler says:
I would also love to see technology catch up to firearms. Maybe a fingerprint scanner to unlock the safety for a set amount of time. Or a key fob that needs to be within 10 feet of the weapon, like how luxury cars unlock their doors when the driver approaches. I believe some of this technology exists, but it’s expensive and far from normal features on weaponry.
Of course, this wouldn’t help mass shooting much; it’s more a measure against children getting their hands on guns and killing themselves or others accidentally, which I think is just as big of a problem.
“Nearly 1.7 million children live in households where guns are stored either loaded or not locked away, according to the San Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. This makes American children 16 times more likely to be unintentionally killed by a gun, compared with similar countries.” – International Business Times
June 21, 2016 — 11:17 AM
Laura J. Quinn says:
The truly horrifying thing is that there was an article about two-three years ago about that technology being tested somewhere, and I brought up the child safety aspect of it and
people
went
nuts.
I mean it. It was frightening. The amount of backlash that’s generated when any restriction on the use of a weapon is mentioned is mind-boggling.
The most common argument I heard was something like: “But if I’m not home and my wife needs to defend herself, or my three-year-old needs to defend himself, what am I supposed to do? Buy each of them a gun?”
Never mind that his wife could probably have her own gun, and that there should NEVER be a situation where a child needs to use a firearm for any reason without an adult…
All I’m trying to say is that I think those are important measures, and they’ll never make it to the states, so long as the mind-set around guns doesn’t change.
June 21, 2016 — 11:36 AM
Robert Sadler says:
This type of defensive passion for the rights of owners is a huge part of why legislation continues to go nowhere. It’s just nuts.
And in response to his comment about his wife – I can program my wife’s fingerprint to unlock my iPhone. So… problem solved?
June 21, 2016 — 12:26 PM
TooManyJens says:
It seems to me that another way to encourage safe practices, and thus cut down on “accidents” (really, negligence) where kids get their hands on loaded guns would be to make the owner of the gun legally responsible for any shots fired from it. Proving that you had reasonable security measures in place that were defeated by unforeseeable circumstances would be a valid defense. But if a toddler gets the gun you left lying around and shoots her brother with it? You’re on the hook for that kid’s injury or death. Period.
People talk about not wanting to punish “responsible gun owners,” and I get that. But can we at least punish the irresponsible ones, instead of excusing them by saying “it was a tragic accident”?
June 21, 2016 — 12:08 PM
Robert Sadler says:
100% with you on this one.
June 21, 2016 — 12:23 PM
addy says:
as a non-american man i have always thought taking all guns would save lives. here in Scotland we had 1 school shooting, Dunblane school massacre. Since then it is illegal to own hand guns and every school is locked tight (only able to open from the inside and during breaks)
that said i have always know that this would be no easy feat in america. what you suggest has opened my eyes a lot on this issue.
taking guns would be near enough civil war. and also if it were legal to own a gun in my country i propobly would for defence.
on another note, every time i read one of your blogs on world issues be they gun, gender, equality and other, i just want to shake your hand. your more than a great author. your a great person.
thank you
June 21, 2016 — 11:24 AM
Laura J. Quinn says:
These are some of the most concisely and intelligently put thoughts I’ve heard on the matter to date.
Everybody is so emotional when it comes to their guns, either because they’re vehemently against them, or vehemently require them in every room of their house, and car, and shitter.
Personally, I don’t get it. I don’t particularly want to own a lethal weapon, but I don’t knock anyone that does. So long as they know what they’re doing and, you know, are trained and licensed in the operation of said machinery.
Have your guns. But why be a maniac about it?
I think your proposition has merit and thankfully lacks that appeal to everyone’s lizard brain.
But you’re right. Nothing will change. It’s so cynical to look at it this way, but I honestly have no idea how anyone is going to get anything done in a country that is currently ruled by fear rhetoric and appeals to gut-punch knee-jerk reactions.
June 21, 2016 — 11:28 AM
JohnFromGR says:
How about we do this:
1. agree that there is no such thing as an accident with a gun. All possible actions performed with a gun are deliberate and premeditated.
2. Every pre-meditated action taken with a gun, which is not expressly legal, is now a federal felony.
3. Automatic death penalty for all federal felonies committed which involve the use of a firearm.
All responsible gun owners will agree that these simple adjustments to existing laws are rational and place the onus of responsibility firmly on gun owners.
June 21, 2016 — 11:30 AM
Gail Keim says:
Were there a few females helping to colonize this country – along with the ” old, white guys”?
June 21, 2016 — 11:51 AM
Nicholas Hopkins says:
Very nicely said. I’m a gun owner and would support these requirements. I’m a big fan of licensing for firearms although I would like to license people to have children too. Thanks for being rational about a topic that tends toward screeching and gnashing of teeth (possibly with excessive salivation).
June 21, 2016 — 11:52 AM
Skellington says:
Not a big deal, but of the gun murders with weapon reported, for 2014, it was 5562 by handgun, 248 by rifle, 262 by shotgun, and 93 “other guns”. The rest were weapon or type unreported.
I haven’t seen any attempt to break down the 2000 other firearm deaths, but assuming similar proportions, I think closer to 90% of murders are with handguns.
But otherwise, a perfectly reasonable proposal.
June 21, 2016 — 11:54 AM
Steve says:
Thank you! The vitriol I hear makes me question the motives of the, uh, vitriolers, and this is a refreshing respite.
June 21, 2016 — 11:56 AM
Damian Trasler says:
Talking about this on Twitter drove me off the internet for a week or so, because I wasn’t equipped for the rabidity (is that a word?) of a pro-gun person I follow. I felt running away was the wiser course (since she wasn’t going to listen to my arguments, because I’m not American and therefore don’t get it.
Thanks for laying this out in a more reasoned and sane way than I’ve seen anywhere else. You won’t convince her, because she doesn’t see a problem (If gun owners were the problem, she says, you’d see much more killing. The number of dead people is too small to indicate a problem.)
Now I have to go lie down again.
June 21, 2016 — 11:59 AM
Jim Perry says:
Great piece, Chuck. I was able to forget for a second that you’re a bleeding-heart Lib and I’m a red-state Christian Conservative wacko!
Seriously, though, very sensible IMHO. Takes the rhetoric out of it if you really look at it objectively. The only issue with the car analogy is you drive your car visibly with a license plate and registration sticker that other people can see and police can use to get information in a traffic stop. If you’re driving around without registration and proper title people can see it. If you’re walking around carrying no one can see it, no one can monitor it, etc.
I believe that for personal defense man is sovereign over his person. I do believe in a person’s right to carry that weapon on their person, given the circumstances in this country. Personally I prefer open carry because that person is declaring, “Hey I have a gun.” That person isn’t going to surprise anyone pulling a gun out of hiding. I think we need more police and ex-military guys protecting our “gun-free” zones such as schools, etc. In an OFFICIAL capacity, mind, not just in their spare time. So far I don’t think any cops or veterans have shot up a school. My kid’s high school has Sheriff’s deputies on site. Our politicians have armed security everywhere they go, why not our kids in this day and age?
Anyway, probably your most reasonable post ever 🙂
June 21, 2016 — 12:04 PM
Will Paddock says:
I also grew up around guns and I have a lot of fond memories of shooting with my Dad and my Aunt and Uncle (eventually got up to some fun IPSC courses). But I agree with just about everything you posted here regarding reasonable tightening of regulations. I really don’t get the reaction when people suggest licensure like with cars. Or even regulations of private sales from one person to another without a background check. And clearly those who think they’re going to use their guns to defend against some imagined government crackdown haven’t seen photos of the kind of hardware that even the police use now. A Beretta isn’t going to do a whole lot against something of that magnitude. I applaud your common sense ideas. You have my axe… once I’ve cleared an axe-wielder background check and passed Axe Safety 101.
June 21, 2016 — 12:23 PM
terribleminds says:
They push against it because they have been sold a lie, and it’s a stupid lie, that somehow licensing will be a slippery slope to them just marching in and taking your guns. Like, AH HA NOW WE KNOW WHERE YOU ARE, GUN OWNER, and black-ops soldiers will crash through your windows and take the guns you just told them about. Then they’ll check your name off a spreadsheet and shoot your dog.
June 21, 2016 — 12:27 PM
Pat says:
Absolutely agree. I took a gun course, passed, and got my certification when I became a homeowner (single woman). Then I realized I wasn’t ready to use one to kill a human being, as instructed by the officer and former State Trooper who taught the course. I quote :”Aim to kill, not wound. ” Nope, not for me.
June 21, 2016 — 12:38 PM
Kate says:
That “aim to kill” attitude was one I learned when I had my first shooting session with my dad as a kid. He told me: never, ever point a gun at someone unless you were able to shoot; when you shoot, you shoot to kill. I don’t argue against those statements, because I think they’re valid for a variety of reasons.
I have a gun. It’s stored unloaded, and the ammunition is stored separately. Because I’ve thought long and hard about what I’m capable of and what I believe.
And as an occasional target-shooter and sentimental gun owner (a gift from my father,) I’d be happy to comply with registration and licensing of my gun. But people like me would, wouldn’t we?
June 21, 2016 — 3:02 PM
Zaq says:
Hey man, I couldn’t agree more with every single facet of what you said. As a guy with a couple guns who also grew up around them, hunting and target shooting, etc, I think this is a measured response to our current epidemic.
Devil’s advocate though, real quick? “A battered spouse should not have to wait to buy something to defend her- or himself with.” But that’s already the law of the land, so, feh.
June 21, 2016 — 12:39 PM
abookcook says:
Yes, so very much. Everything I had been searching to say about the issue, or very nearly. As a girl who grew up in the country, hunting and gun owning, I appreciate what you’ve said here. Our nation is amazing, but so difficult to get things done because of too many people on both sides refusing to see reason. This is logical and well thought out and presents a solution that would actually be effective!
Just recently found your blog and I’ll definitely be hanging around more. Thanks for sharing!
June 21, 2016 — 12:45 PM
Sue Bolich says:
Well stated, and interesting from the standpoint that I just wrote an essay I’m waffling about publishing that also proposed the NRA be enlisted to provide training. That’s a public-private partnership that could work, and would force both sides to work together instead of just scream at each other. As part of that, no one would be able to take possession of the legally purchased weapon without undergoing 3 consecutive days of safety training under the eye of an instructor trained to spot suspicious behavior. Ex-cops would be a good choice for those instructors. How many itchy, angry or depressed people would get flagged before they pick up their gun at the gun store and run out to shoot their ex? Or turn it on themselves? None of the solutions proposed address the street criminal buying his guns illegally, though. The folks willing to jump through the hoops to own a gun will continue to do so, and the rest will hit the black market. Which will always exist no matter what you do. But as someone who grew up in a hunting household, shot competitively (both small bore and high power) in college and the army, and who believes that the majority of gun owners do act responsibly and should not be treated like children who can’t be trusted with grown-up stuff, I do have to concede that we’re no longer in the country I grew up in, Changes are necessary. But I maintain adamantly the right of self-defense, and as an historian and army officer I have a different perspective than you on the worth of an armed populace deterring the ambitions of their own government or someone else’s. But this was a good article worth sharing. Thank you for putting forth solutions instead of just rhetoric.
June 21, 2016 — 1:02 PM
Pavowski says:
Hate to leave an empty comment, but I just totally agree with everything here.
June 21, 2016 — 1:16 PM
Bex says:
Thank You. This is the first sensible Gun Ramble I’ve read in a very long time. I think you ARE more than right in many of these beliefs about the system. * I personally love the Idea of a “gun owner” license.
June 21, 2016 — 1:16 PM
Lara says:
I totally agree with all of the above except this: “You know who doesn’t worry about their name being on lists? Normal, run-of-the-mill, non-killery gun owners.” Yes, it’s common sense. But common sense doesn’t always help irrational fears.
I’m all for the tracking, but yeah—*raises hand*—I’m afraid of being on a list. But I’m also afraid of child services taking my kids away every time I have to leave my kids in my fenced backyard to go inside to pee. I’m also afraid of whales eating me. Or giant squid blinking at me.
The fact is, many Americans—especially in rural towns—have been hearing the DON’T EVER TRUST THE BIG BAD GOVERNMENT message their whole lives. Those scare tactics are even more frequent with conservative media outlets sharing viral outrage.
We need voices like yours to say “Being afraid of a gun sales list is an irrational fear, right up there with man-eating whales. The rational fear is unchecked gun sales.” And I’ll say “But killer whales DO kill people.” And you’ll say “But only people who are asshats.” and I’ll say “Okay, okay, I’ll try to be less irrationally terrified.” And Lady Wisdom will say “Score one for common sense!”
June 21, 2016 — 1:57 PM
Kieran Meyer says:
This is hands down one of the most well-spoken arguments in the gun debate I’ve ever read. Thank you for sharing this.
June 21, 2016 — 2:05 PM
Chris Mata says:
Sadly the common sense party has a hard time getting elected.
June 21, 2016 — 2:11 PM
C. B. Matson says:
Sooo… everyone mostly agrees. Do they really? Or does the “opposition” simply fear the oubliette? Are we all just brainwashed “liberals” – in the pejorative sense? Or have we become the Moral Majority and just don’t know it, don’t wanna admit it? If our present Congress members can’t adjust to changing circumstances, maybe we should vote for someone who can.
June 21, 2016 — 2:32 PM
Kate says:
Wendig’s a cool dude. Tends to see both sides of an issue (in my opinion) and encourage positive communication. Seems like a really upbeat guy who doesn’t foster bullshit nastiness. So…people who respect that are his self-selected audience.
Pretty sure the haters are still out there en masse. = (
June 21, 2016 — 3:12 PM
Kate Pavelle says:
Good points, Chuck! I’ll chime in with three comments:
1. Collectors – there could be a collectors’ license. It’s not a license to stock-pile for resale. If the collector can demonstrate knowledge and gun-geekery, and if they share this knowledge with the world, then okay.
2. Carry permits – carrying a gun is a totally separate skill set and mindset from just having one in a locker and transporting it to the shooting range once a week.Before a person obtains a carry permit, they should be instructed in basic gun retention, target ID, and public safety education. Some states require a short course (AZ), others just do a basic background check (PA).
3. Safe gun disposal – It’s hard to get rid of firearms and know they go into responsible hands. If there is a divorce in the house, or depression, or if a gun owner no longer wishes to shoulder the very real responsibility of gun ownership, there should be a way to A. get the weapons into “safe storage,” and/or B. sell them to a *responsible* party. If a person glances at their gun locker and thinks, “Nah, I’d never do that,” it’s time for those guns to find a new home.
June 21, 2016 — 3:22 PM
Gareth Skarka says:
I’ve said it elsewhere, but the “gun culture” stuff is the elephant in the room — we don’t talk about it, and there’s no way to legislate it (even if there was a will to).
But for those of us who grew up in areas of the country where it’s just not a “thing”, it’s the hardest thing to wrap our brains around — I mean we literally don’t get it. The folks who grew up in “gun culture” areas assume I’m bullshitting them when I say this — because they, in turn, literally can’t comprehend of an America where it’s not a “thing.”
And nobody wants to talk about the fact that the cultures within America are so far away from each other as to qualify as “foreign countries” anywhere else in the world.
June 21, 2016 — 3:51 PM
Ruth Nestvold says:
Very reasonable, very well presented.
Unfortunately, it will never happen. 🙁
June 21, 2016 — 3:52 PM
daniel quentin says:
I know that i’m in the minority in this enclave of enlightened social justice warriors, but I hope I can make a few comments. First I appreciate the fact that you’re not a wild-eyed socialist gun hater. I too know guns. I too have never owned a firearm and probably never will with youthful great grands running around who can’t imagine that death from the barrel of a gun is real and not reversible.
Secondly, your ideas seem fairly low key, except for your love of LISTS. Lists are good, nothing bad will happen to people whose names are included on lists of gun owners. Tell that to the people in the northeast whose names were on such a list and those names and addresses were publicized by the local newspaper. I dont know if anything bad has happened to them, but…
Third, why would it be a bad idea to have your name on such a list? We are a law abiding country and nobody will ever pass a law to confiscate guns as they did in Australia. Not even after the 50th mass murder done with automatic weapons few if any law abiding gun owners possess. That’s the problem. None of your ideas will do absolutely anything to prevent massacres by crazies and soldiers of islam. They can use (semi) automatic weapons purchased at Walmart or shotguns or long rifles or Saturday night specials. And since most experts agree that there are AT LEAST 300 million weapons in the US at least, some smart liberal politician (Hillary?) will finally bite the bullet and realize the ONLY way to really cut down on those weapons is to take them ALL away from the “bitter clingers” who are destroying the country.
So,once the decision is made that these bitter gun nuts are the enemy, inevitably armed cops will show up at your door and you will have the choice of submitting – or dyng. I know that’s crazy.It’s never happened in Germany or any of the other places GREAT LEADERS have arisen to make HOPE and CHANGE a reality.
That is the great hope I have for the future. There are too many guns, too many people who will cling to them, to make it easy for the Hillarys of the future to come up with a FINALSOLUTION (ie – take away alll the guns and do something about the bitter clingers).
I know this is paranoid. Unfortunately, I’ve seen too much of the Millenial attitude that anti-abortion, pro-gun, conservative, white males and members of the 1 percent don’t need to be listened to or considered as having any views that need respecting. We are on the wrong side of the issues and are expected to listen carefully to the views of our youthful betters and reespectfully die away.
Good luck. we were boomers once and crazier than you are, but most of us grew up.
danielqsteele
June 21, 2016 — 4:00 PM
decayingorbits says:
Very well said, Chuck. I especially agree with #5. I had to take a “hunter safety course” to get my hunting license when I was like 12 or 13. I didn’t need it to possess a gun, mind you, but it has always seemed absurd to me that people object to this idea.
The irony is the NRA requires people who use their ranges (I’ve used the one at their National HQ several times) to take a safety course (and take a test!), yet find that objectionable outside the confines of their own operation.
June 21, 2016 — 4:09 PM
JACQUELINE YORK says:
Holy fucking jesus- thank you. Yes, completely common sense. It’s like I wrote this… I say this shit all the time and the gun people in my life lose their ever-loving minds. So. Fucking. Weird.
I would also add- the CDC piece- there should be a way to donate money that goes into a designated fund for gun violence research. Then, all of us who feel so powerless and know that guns are never going away will feel like- hey, I did something! You know, other than wailing and gnashing our teeth.
Awesome piece!!
June 21, 2016 — 4:20 PM
Alejandro De La Garza says:
From your computer to Congress’ ears, Chuck! But they aren’t listening to common sense anyway.
June 21, 2016 — 4:25 PM
Michelle says:
The most cogent argument on gun control I’ve seen on the internet. It wouldn’t close all the backwater channels people use to get guns, but it would go a long way in making sure guns aren’t hyper available to unbalanced nut jobs. And I think that’s the place where we need to be.
June 21, 2016 — 4:35 PM
Alma Alexander says:
COuld you clone yourself, please, so we can vote multiple versions of you for every seat in Congress…? (What? You said it was a fantasy. Just adding another layer. But I’d vote for you. For ALL of you. Because WHAT YOU SAID. All of it.
June 21, 2016 — 4:49 PM
Larry3 says:
What about low capacity firearms? Black powder front stuffers, of course, are not regulated at all, but how about my single action target pistols? My Ruger Single Six .22 has a 9.5″ barrel, and reloading takes a while. It’s remove the spent case, insert the new round, rotate the cylinder and repeat. I’m not going to sneak up on anybody with it. I also have a single action .44 magnum with an 8-3/8″ barrel that weighs as much as some rifles. If you need more than six shots, you are pretty much out of luck, but it’s a good hunting handgun. I was 18 years old before my dad would let me shoot a repeater. When I whined and sniveled he said, “You don’t need a better rifle, you need to be a better hunter.” I still have the single shot .22 rifle I bought with my own money when I was 12 years old. I also own a Mauser my dad mail ordered from Montgomery Wards for $25. Kids can’t own firearms any more. Since they shot Kennedy, you can’t mail order firearms either.
Universal background checks sound great, but most mass shooters sail right through the background check issue. The Orlando shooter was a licensed security guard and passed an FBI background check. Are you going to require every psychologist, rabbi, priest, minister and imam to report conversations to the FBI? What are you going to do about people’s privacy? What are you going to do about the hate speech that primes people for violence? Are you going to start banning preachers, politicians and activists?
The actuarial risk of firearms is trivial. 60% of gunshot deaths are suicides and there is no victim. Of the remainder, over half are gang banger action with stolen and illegal firearms that wouldn’t be insured anyway. You are talking about insuring 300 million guns against less than 5,000 firearm deaths a year, and anyone with an umbrella policy is already covered anyway.
Making gun laws uniform across all states is going to be the “Attorney Full Employment Act.” My state defines the organized militia as the national guard, and the unorganized militia as all males between the ages of 18 and 45. The state constitution also guarantees the right of citizens to carry firearms for self defense. That was ratified by Congress at statehood, and the little-noticed 10th Amendment guarantees that the states have the right to set their own standards. That’s why it’s hard to get a concealed carry permit in Massachusetts, but a snap in most western states. You could try an amendment to the constitution. Good luck getting a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states. In your dreams
June 21, 2016 — 6:40 PM
Caleb Jones says:
I’m probably gonna get logically wrecked by the reply I get, but I’m smelling a little 1920s here.
Remember the 1920s prohibition on alcohol? how it backfired spectacularly? I know your laws aren’t total bans, but I can’t help but think mafia McBigboss is gonna make a killing and grow in monetary power in a strikingly similar fashion.
However, Michelle somewhere above made a good point as it’d keep it out of unstable peeps hands, but some of the more strong willed nuttos would probably go to McBigboss and pay whatever extortionate price.
On a lighter note, imagine a speakeasy for guns?
June 21, 2016 — 6:45 PM
terribleminds says:
My laws proposed aren’t total bans or even partial bans. Nothing I said is anything like prohibition.
June 22, 2016 — 8:40 AM