Speaking of compromises...here's my thought experiment on firearms.

[Dial H For Hero]

1) A license to own firearms. It would have multiple levels.
A) Any manually operated long gun. Said license would be no more difficult to obtain than the current ATF instant background check.
B) Handguns. License would require a similar background check, as well as a training course. Details to be hashed out. Would allow legal concealed carry nationwide.
C) Semiautomatic long guns. Background check, separate training course.
D) Full auto. More extensive background check and training course.

2) Note that the above includes universal background checks.

3) Also registration.

In return:

1) All licenses would have explicit guarantees as to reasonable cost and not having unreasonable training requirements. Licenses can be combined, each renewable every 5 years.

2) Repeal of the NFA, with SBRs and full autos treated as above. No background check for suppressors other than requiring license A or higher.

3) All magazine and "assault weapons" restrictions repealed.

l would point out that I can currently obtain everything listed (with the exception of NFA items) in most states with far less paperwork under current law than I could under this proposal. For that matter, I can still (and have) obtained NFA items should I be willing to put up with the red tape.

Any takers?

[Abnredleg]

1. Registration would be the problem

Because that is a necessary prerequisite to confiscation, and there are many who would favor that. I'm not a gun owner but I know people who are and while they usually don't have an issue with background checks and training, they have a visceral reaction against registration.

I understand the value of doing so but there is simply not enough trust in society to implement it.

[Dial H For Hero]

2. It's more of a thought experiment on compromise than a serious legislative proposal.

There's no way either side would accept it.

[krispos42]

3. Despite the perpetual hysteria...

...the majority of firearm homicides are with handguns. 90% of all firearm homicides are done with handguns. Rifles are about 5%, shotguns are the last 5%.

It would make more sense to swap "B" and "C". Yeah, semiautomatic long guns have more power and longer range than handguns, but as the numbers clearly show the easily-concealable handgun is carried in public and used in crime (sometimes resulting in a handgun homicide) far far more often than rifles. Career violent criminals aren't going to be roaming the streets with an AR-15 or AK-47 in their pants, but they will with a pistol.

A rifle may have more potential for death and injury than a handgun, but the reality is that handguns live up their lesser potential far more often.

[PTWB]

5. This is absolutely correct.

The hysteria that gun grabbers have toward rifles, and more specifically the AR-15 variants, has always been a complete mystery to me. The amount of deaths attributed to rifles every year is tiny. The amount of deaths attributed to rifles in mass shootings is a statistical anomaly compared to all gun deaths annually.

The fact that grabbers expend so much energy trying to ban something that barely even registers as a blip on the gun violence radar is just insane. It is purely emotion driven with no basis in reality. Handguns are responsible for 90% of gun deaths but they focus on the AR-15 to the exclusion of all other weapons.

I've made some proposals in this forum to achieve meaningful, common sense gun control without infringing on our rights. My proposal to pass Universal Background Checks, Safe Storage Laws, and Minimum Standards for Concealed Carry would do far more to save lives than their calls to ban the AR-15 would, but look at how negatively the grabbers responded to my proposals!

It is apparent that they're only interested in maintaining their outrage. They've got no interest in actually passing legislation that would save lives and reduce violence. Why? Beats me.

[beemerphill]

4. Most of these are actually acceptable.

The registration is troublesome. For registration to work we would have to trust ALL officials and ALL computers with access to the data. This would be hard for any of us to do.
The other thorn in this plan is that when the RKBA side gives an inch the antis will immediately ask for twice what we conceded in the first place. We will hear that their demands are only "reasonable" and be expected to believe them. When we don't we will be called all of the usual names. This is the way it has been in the past and will probably occur if the legal gun owners cede some of our rights in the future. This is the reason that until I see some REAL guarantees from the antis I will not compromise or surrender any of my Rights.

[yagotme]

6. "YOU MUST COMPROMISE!!!"

"Okay, I'll give in a little."
"YOU MUST COMPROMISE AGAIN!!!"
"Okay, here's a little more."
"NOT ENOUGH!! YOU MUST COMPROMISE MORE!!!"
"No, I've given enough. Where's your part???"
"GUNNUTZ!!! AMMOSEXUAL!!! GRRRR!!! GRRRR!!"

[AndyS]

7. This actually has merit.

The major thrust of these proposals is to make getting a gun a bit more difficult. To insure that the new gun owner is capable of handling the gun. Registration is something long past due so that if a gun owner becomes a prohibited person law enforcement knows what they own that must be surrendered. Licensing is good, I can embrace that.

The NFA repel is, for me, a non starter. As is the reduction on other restrictions on sbrs etc.

I think we can agree that a lot of people have guns that really shouldn't either because they have no idea of how to use, care for and secure them or personal circumstances make them a possible danger to themselves or others. Anything that either weeds out or insures qualification is a good thing. Also anything that makes guns less universally available.

Gun ownership should be a select club with requirements worthy of the solemn responsibility and duty to safety it requires.

Who the hell ever thought Hero and I might see common ground . . .