On the morning of the Newtown massacre, a PG article described the "odd" behavior of the recent Portland mall shooter one page (A-11) after a story on Ohio's new law to allow concealed weapons in parking garages at state buildings (A-10).
Imagine how much safer from gun violence we might be if politicians worked to reduce, rather than increase, the proliferation and use of deadly weapons. For example, if guns were regulated like cars, a gun purchaser would be required to:
• register it and renew that registration annually;
• pass a test to show competence and obtain a license to use (and renew it every few years);
• pay enough in taxes or fees on the gun and ammunition to provide the cost of maintaining safety (i.e., police) in a gun culture;
• have only weapons with mandatory safety and identification features to choose from (e.g., permanent serial numbers on guns and bullets, small magazines of bullets, no armor-piercing bullets).
Guns not meeting these requirements would be forfeited, after a period to phase in implementation.
If these requirements are reasonable for car ownership, which no one believes is overly burdensome or contrary to the Constitution, why would they be too burdensome for ownership of deadly weapons?