Use Case Approach to Gun Control

The gun control debate seems to be getting more demagogic and polarized every time it comes up in Washington.  But it seems to me that if you are willing to consider the use cases that are thrown around as justification for extreme views, we can actually come up with a good set of regs that balance our Constitutional rights and cultural history in support of gun ownership and freedom with the practical realities that crazy people are going into crowded places, including schools full of 5 and 6 year-olds, and shooting people.

Use Case 1: Shooting as a sport that requires the use of semi-automatic weapons with large clips. 

I am not sure this exists, but let’s assume for a minute that there are some sports that require some combination of these.  If it is really for sport, then the shooting would be done at a facility of some kind.  An effective regulation would require competitors to keep their guns at the facility.  This is where you need it, for competitions and most of the time for practice.  The guns would be safer there.  Your little kids can’t find it in the closet, play with it, and accidentally shoot themselves or their friends.  Your suicidal teenager can’t use it to hurt him/herself.  A burglar can’t steal it and use it to commit a crime.  You can’t get desperate during a period of unemployment and sell it on the black market to make ends meet. 

But of course there are counter-examples where this doesn’t work.  What if you live in rural Montana with 25 acres of land?  Why can’t you practice at the range in your backyard?  OK, so instead of categorically rejecting the idea, let’s work with it.  Let’s take the reg out of federal jurisdiction.  Let a place like New York City, where there are no 25 acre backyards, and let them limit these kinds of weapons to ranges and qualified facilities and let a county in rural Montana allow them at home.  Different locations have different values, different priorities, and different circumstances.  This seems better than a federal law either preventing NYC from passing a limit or forcing Montana to have one.

Use Case 2: Self-defense at home.

OK, but what about self-defense at home?  The gun needs to be in the same place as the kids, burglars, and desperate provider.  But how often is a home invaded by a team of 10 burglars?  I am no expert here either, but I suspect it is usually just one or two.  So if you start spraying bullets around with a semi-automatic, you are more likely to hit your family, pets, or neighbors than the burglars.  Accuracy with a smaller gun would be much more effective. But, there are people who really want one of these, so let’s at least try to accommodate. 

Another thing we can do it require fingerprint readers on the trigger.  Years ago, this was too expensive and not reliable.  But now, these things are located on just about every computer to replace passwords.  The greatest benefit is that this prevents all of the above risks – your kids, burglars, or other people simply can’t use it.  And if you want to legally sell the gun, you can reset the reader.  If these can be made inexpensive and reliable, there is no practical argument against them – just the extreme view that any requirement is a bad requirement.

But again, let’s consider the counter-examples too.  What if you have a large estate that could be target of a larger burgling team?  What if you own a diamond polishing factory that often has $1 million in inventory?  OK, but in these cases you probably also have paid security, who can be trained at a much higher level and armed accordingly.  And if you want to be armed too, then get trained.  Not for any kind of gun, I realize that there is too much support for allowing anyone to have a basic handgun, trained or not. But for something more substantial the owner should want training.

But of course we have all heard about certification mills in other industries that sell training and certification without really teaching anything.  I have a better suggestion.  Run this kind of training out of your local police station.  They have a personal stake in making sure you are properly trained because these same officers are responding to the burglary you call in.  If you are not well trained, the random automatic weapon spraying is going to hit them. Also, if the police station has an outside revenue source, we can limit the local taxes that go to fund station operations.  It’s a small amount (how many people are really going to want this?), but any bit helps.  Another benefit is that the police get to know who owns these weapons and when they respond to the home invasion call they know who NOT to shoot at.

Use Case 3: Carrying a weapon for self-defense in public

The motivated “bad guy,” whether we are talking about a criminal or psycho, is always going to be able to get hold of a gun if they really want to.  So carrying one yourself in public does have a logic to it.  I am not sure you can fit a semi-automatic and/or large clip weapon in your purse, holster, or pocket, but it still warrants some consideration.  Again, I think accuracy with a smaller handgun is more effective, but we should at least accept the resolve of those who really really want one of these and find a way to accommodate it.  We can require the same training as in Use Case 2 that is limited just to this kind of weapon.  This makes even more sense for Use Case 3 because the last thing we need is untrained spraying of semi-automatic fire in a crowded mall or elementary school. 

The NRA’s arguments against all of these boil down to the idea that the right to bear arms in the 2^nd Amendment is unlimited.  But even if you do read it as an individual right, as opposed to a militia, it doesn’t say this explicitly.  There is some interpretation required.  On the other hand, it also is legitimate to read it as allowing the maximum flexibility that we can make workable.  So instead of taking the extreme view on either side, let’s create an environment with the least regulation, the least limitation on gun ownership, but that is also practical, workable, and safe.