but charge a tax to those who hunt in another state.
You ever bought an out-of-state hunting license? Hoo-whee, I don't think we need any additional tax on top of that. Especially considering out-of-state hunters are often also paying outfitters ridiculous amounts of money for lodging, gear, and guide services, or otherwise bringing in big chunks of revenue to local businesses.
http://www.maine.gov/ifw/licenses_permits/hunting/index.htm#nonresidentlicensefees
I think we can accomplish a mutually satisfying resolution through actual compromise. For example, instate shall-issue permits to CCW's federally (Something proven to cause no issue from law abiding citizens), and lengthen the federal sentencing guidelines for felons that have guns (Once you have a felony you aren't allowed to have/own/be alone with a gun).
remove the need for pistol purchase permits being needed in certain states (Pistol purchase permit is separate from a concealed carry permit), but make straw purchasers criminally responsible if their guns are used in crimes.
Strike down state-specific magazine capacity bans, but enforce NICS checks on magazine purchases over 7 rounds (NYC's current strict law limit)
Get rid of ridiculous "assault weapon" classifications, and make handgun crime (This is the issue) more punishable with minimum sentencing guidelines.
Make it easier for interstate hunters (It is VERY hard to legally transport guns across state borders, despite that being a protected right under the Firearms owners protection act. States (like NYC) will arrest you for transporting an unloaded hunting rifle with no ammo in the trunk to a hunting site), but charge a tax to those who hunt in another state.
The goal should be to target the largest hotspot of crime (Re-offenders, Handgun robberies), while offering compromises for the people who have shown to be responsible (Long gun owners that can pass NICS checks). Even the GOA would back any one of these (Well, maybe not NICS checks on magazines).
So your solution is to relax existing gun laws and put people in jail longer? Somehow I don't think you've applied much critical thinking to this area.
Can you find that law? Because I can't.
That's likely because it was hidden in an appropriations omnibus bill. Decreasing their funding by the amount of money spent on the study the NRA had issue with and saying that none of the funds for injury prevention and control can be used to "advocate or promote gun control" is essentially a ban on gun research. If they go through a study and find that certain gun control measures would reduce the number of gun deaths, they won't be allowed to publish it. That would be "advocating or promoting gun control". Just to make sure that this is clear... They are legally only able to federal funds to publish papers which are neutral or against gun control.
https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL104-208.pdf
That clause still exists in the CDC appropriations bills and in June an attempt by Nita Lowey to have that clause removed was rejected by the GOP.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3020/text
The CDC chose to enforce a self-imposed ban on gun research on itself after threats to defund it after bias was found in their senior staff.
Dr. Rosenberg, director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, recently extolled the CDC's hope to create a public perception of firearms as "dirty, deadly--and banned."
http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html#fnb288
This (self-imposed) ban was lifted by Obama under executive order a few years back, and the CDC's published research from last year found the following conclusions.
~ SNIP TALKING POINTS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT IN ORDER TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE IT SUPPORTS YOUR VIEWPOINT ~
You are taking pretty much everything out of context. I'm sure you didn't read any of this yourself and are just regurgitating crap from guncite or similar sites. Below are the full quotes with context and emphasis added.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.
If someone attacks you and you defend yourself with a gun, it stands to reason that you will sustain fewer injuries. That in no way indicates that it is a net gain to keep a firearm, or that we as a society are better off with the easy access to guns that we have today.
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Specifically, since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons (Bjelopera et al., 2013).
Not much to emphasize on this one, but it's worth pointing out that since this paper was released two years ago, there have been 112 mass shootings with more than 4 people were killed. If you expand the definition of mass shooting to include incidents where at least four are injured or killed, the number of mass shootings jumps to 994.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence
Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue. One recent study found that the states with the most firearm legislation have a smaller number of firearm fatalities (Fleegler et al., 2013). It is not clear whether this legislation is affecting firearm violence directly or whether states where there is less firearm violence tend to pass more laws related to guns. Analysis of unintentional gun fatalities in 50 states revealed positive associations between the number of guns and the number of fatalities (Miller et al., 2001). Other studies found that gun restrictions had no net impact on major violence and crime (Kleck and Patterson, 1993).
There is empirical evidence that gun turn-in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).
Not much to add here except that gun buyback programs are rarely the proposed solution to gun violence.
A survey of gun owners between 2005 and 2010 found that an average of 232,400 guns were stolen each year (Langton, 2012). Although research in the 1980s suggested that criminals acquired guns primarily through theft (Wright and Rossi, 1986), more recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals (Harlow, 2001; Zawitz, 1995). It is, however, unclear whether prisoners are willing to admit to gun thefts in government-conducted surveys. According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possessed by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market (Harlow, 2001). Another 14 percent of those surveyed bought or traded guns at retail stores, pawnshops, flea markets, or gun shows (Harlow, 2001). However, some experts question the validity of commonly used research methodologies for identifying crime-gun-trafficking prevalence, arguing that trafficking is more closely associated with gun scarcity than inappropriate acquisition from licensed gun dealers (Kleck and Wang, 2009). A better understanding of the validity of different methods to evaluate the sources of crime guns would help inform policies aimed at disrupting the flow of guns to criminals.
Just how many of those guns purchased from drug dealers, street purchases or the underground market were stolen? It's also worth pointing out that flea markets and gun shows are known loopholes for "legally" purchasing a firearm without any background checks.
Regardless, you should be able to tell from the title of the paper (Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence) that this isn't a study so much as an analysis of existing studies in an attempt to prioritize where the research is needed most. It is a catalogue of why a congressional ban on using CDC funding for gun violence research is problematic. When you have surveys of defensive gun use which go from 108,000 to over 3,000,000, you have HUGE range of error and clearly need legitimate research. Research that Republicans and the NRA do not want.
So your solution is to relax existing gun laws and put people in jail longer? Somehow I don't think you've applied much critical thinking to this area.
Article summarizing FBI statistics
Within five years of release, 82 percent of property offenders were arrested for a new crime, compared to 77 percent of drug offenders, 74 percent of public order offenders and 71 percent of violent offenders, the report found.
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4986
Yes. America has a very high crime recidivism rate. When we arrest people for crimes, the punishments should be much harsher. If we arrest someone for a crime, and they take a plea for 1 year, it just enforces that lifestyle. Give them 10. That would take a huge bite out of our crime problem.
If someone attacks you and you defend yourself with a gun, it stands to reason that you will sustain fewer injuries. That in no way indicates that it is a net gain to keep a firearm, or that we as a society are better off with the easy access to guns that we have today.
That's exactly the point of the debate. I believe the bold is a net gain, as many areas have very loose gun regulation with very small amounts of crime. Others think regulation would lower crime in the first place. Do more people use guns for defense or crime?
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
The exact number is disputed, so they included a very low minimum, and a very high maximum. Let's take their cautiously very low minimum. Hell, half it if you want.
1/2 their cautiously low minimum would mean that guns are used for self-defense 250,000~ times a year in the country, when there's only 300,000~ violent crimes reported per year. If in those cases victims sustained fewer injuries (Above point), guns are a definite keeper for me.
Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue. One recent study found that the states with the most firearm legislation have a smaller number of firearm fatalities (Fleegler et al., 2013). It is not clear whether this legislation is affecting firearm violence directly or whether states where there is less firearm violence tend to pass more laws related to guns. Analysis of unintentional gun fatalities in 50 states revealed positive associations between the number of guns and the number of fatalities (Miller et al., 2001). Other studies found that gun restrictions had no net impact on major violence and crime (Kleck and Patterson, 1993).
Of course, guns are used for suicide very often in the USA because it's an effective way to do it. If we're going to ban guns to prevent suicide, we also need to ban carbon monoxide, medicine, and ropes.
Most deaths from firearm violence are suicides, not homicides—60.5%, on average
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122535
Just how many of those guns purchased from drug dealers, street purchases or the underground market were stolen? It's also worth pointing out that flea markets and gun shows are known loopholes for "legally" purchasing a firearm without any background checks.
Around 10-15%
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122535
But, that leaves out a key factor. What usually happens is a straw purchaser will purchase a gun for someone who can't pass a background check anyway, so while the guns aren't considered "stolen", they were obtained illegally. Also, the reason why these criminals can't pass a background check is because they have felonies. They shouldn't have been let out of jail in the first place.
This needs to be implimented, enforced, and expanded
https://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/strawPurchase.pdf
Getting rid of "The gun show loophole" would make buying guns way more of a pain, as sites like armslist wouldn't be allowed to function. Gun legislation and regulation should be aimed at punishing those who are proven to be criminals.
Regardless, you should be able to tell from the title of the paper (Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence) that this isn't a study so much as an analysis of existing studies in an attempt to prioritize where the research is needed most. It is a catalogue of why a congressional ban on using CDC funding for gun violence research is problematic.
If the CDC ban was from when they had an extremely impartial director, I don't know about their current staff, but if they're less biased, I wouldn't be opposed to that.
You ever bought an out-of-state hunting license? Hoo-whee, I don't think we need any additional tax on top of that. Especially considering out-of-state hunters are often also paying outfitters ridiculous amounts of money for lodging, gear, and guide services, or otherwise bringing in big chunks of revenue to local businesses.
http://www.maine.gov/ifw/licenses_permits/hunting/index.htm#nonresidentlicensefees
http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/licensing/prices.html
http://www.coloradodirectory.com/hunting/huntingseason.html
No, I haven't, and I wasn't aware some states did that already. That's my point though, it's hard for hunters to know exactly what to do/how much to pay because it varies so much by state. The ATF is supposed to regulate commerce related to firearms, and they've failed dismally in this regard.
Yes. America has a very high crime recidivism rate. When we arrest people for crimes, the punishments should be much harsher. If we arrest someone for a crime, and they take a plea for 1 year, it just enforces that lifestyle. Give them 10. That would take a huge bite out of our crime problem.
No, that just increases recidivism. When people are arrested for crimes, you look at the nature of the crime and the environment that they are in and you provide a clear path out of that life.
I'm offtopic anyway.
Also the idea of m855 (the round in question) piercing level 3 body armor and killing police is pretty absurd
It's even more absurd insofar because
a) you can legally own guns that fire ammo with 8-10 times the ballistic energy (at that level, it really makes no longer a difference whether the vest stops the bullet), and
b) if you really plan on shooting at cops, you very likely will want to train a lot first. That means you will need a lot of ammunition, and therefore you will likely make it yourself (as it is cheaper).
Now, while you're at making your own bullets, you can as well buy a 4mm wolfram-carbide router bit (full HM, not mounted), which you can get for around $20, and which incidentially has just the perfect diameter and twice the length to serve as hard metal core for 5.56x45. So basically, you can make armor-piercing bullets with a lead mantle and normal aerodynamics at little over $10 per shot. If you buy bits in larger quantities (like 20-30), they're likely considerably cheaper (and I'd guess nobody would ask questions). You would need to build a suitable jig to precisely center the cores (should not take more than 15-20 minutes and require little but a precise saw and drill press), and you will need a diamond saw since WC is approximately as hard as corundum. Wolfram-carbide is not quite uranium, but it comes close in weight, and is considerably harder.
Actually, don't ask me why the military uses uranium at all (Hum...probably they mix in some nuclear waste uranium, which is a convenient way of getting rid of that stuff?! 
Now there's a strategy! Rather than fight with your local environmental protectionists where to store the waste, go to the Persian Gulf, and shoot it into the environment). Seriously though... uranium is toxic, and it's brittle too. Handling it, shooting it (which creates toxic fine dust that is inhaled), and walking into areas that you had under fire previously really aren't all that much of awesome ideas. So... not sure why this is used at all.
Also, reasonably, you wouldn't want to use armor piercing ammo for any "normal" application anyway, for a few obvious reasons -- not just price but also lack of stopping power, and general safety (can't tell who else the shrapnels will hit in addition to your target). You can shoot rabbits and deer, and even burglars perfectly well without armor piercing bullets (indeed better and safer). And yeah, the King of England won't dare to enter your grounds either if all you have is lead ammo. And if you really want something with more kick for killing large deer, there's always brass.
Unless you plan to go to war, you do not need armor-penetrating ammo in the first place... It's not like there is any good reason for anyone who isn't planning to go to war and snipe at enemy heavy machine guns to own anti-material ammunition. Ordinary ammo of reasonably large caliber works all too well against anything "biological", including animals that weight >800kg and people wearing vests.
Of course, if armor piercing ammo is illegal, then self-made armor piercing ammo will be illegal, too. But since any possible use of this ammo is highly illegal to start with (like, shooting at police), that probably doesn't make much of a difference. Once you use that ammo or any other ammo in this way, they will hunt you down and shoot to kill anyway. Well, maybe not in Germany... but I'm pretty sure they'll hunt you like a rabid dog in the USA.
No, that just increases recidivism. When people are arrested for crimes, you look at the nature of the crime and the environment that they are in and you provide a clear path out of that life.
I agree that would be preferable, many countries have implimented prison systems that are based on rehabilitation instead of punishment, and it's worked out great for them. However, the USA's system is geared towards punishment with little if any rehabilitation, and instead of giving out punishing sentences, we create easy ways out to reduce the stress on our prison overcrowding issues.
The preferable solution would be to rehabilitate criminals that can be resocialized and not jailing non-victim crimes, but I think simply locking the violent criminals away from society would be an easier fix politically.
Samoth: Yeah, I wasn't going to go into how easy it is to manufacture a gun, or reload ammo (I've only reloaded shotgun shells, but bullets seem pretty easy too).
About AP ammunition, I agree, it's not really useful at all for 99% of cases. Too much overpenetration, and less effective against soft targets (AP ammo will pass through a body without causing as much hydrostatic shock, and is less-lethal than other kinds of ammo. Good AP rounds will even pass through the lighter ballistic vests and be less-legal against them than standard rifle rounds, for example).
For some reason hardened AP ammunition was made illegal in the USA as part of the 1986 (I think?) bans, despite it not really being used in crimes or shootings for the above reasons. There are technicalities to get around the ban as well, as the ban states that the ammunition must have a full metal case of only a few listed metals. So if you make full AP ammunition with .05% of another material, it's legal. No one does that though, because again, that kind of round has no utility unless you plan on shooting at SWAT officers in level 3-4 armor with thick plates normal bullets won't penetrate, Even then, you'd probably want a .308 gun or slug shotgun which no armor will protect you from the impact force, regardless of where the projectile gets stopped.
To your a) point, funny enough, some states have banned (tried to ban? Not upheld by a judge yet?) .50 caliber guns because they can be "too lethal", or "Are anti-aircraft weapons" (Ask NYC's police department), so concept of bans based on lethality/velocity aren't exactly too far away.
Education is circumvented by the cia.
Yes, a standing army of citizens wouldn't beat the US army, however assymetrically it would. Ied's for tanks, mortar strikes on bases, exexutions for service members families... The government can't wage war on an armed country. What would stop someone from drilling a hole in their trunk, parking along a road, and shooting service members that walk by, or looking them up, finding their families, and burning their house down?
Equipment is useless without people to operate it, and destroying morale destroys armies.
My phones autocomplete butchered some grammar
Well, I don't think the CIA/NSA/Whoever already controls EVERYTHING.... the internet is a big place and if some people in China manage to breach the "digital great wall", US citizen will find unbiased information... by, like, reading foreign websites.
Okay, lets turn to syria for a quick glance on how well an armed country can wage war against a regular army... it turns out even with real military weapons delivered by outside powers these rebels are still pretty much no match for the syrian army.
And would it have made a difference if every syrian citizen had a home-defense gun at home when the war broke out, when even modern assault rifles, machine guns and RPGs seem to be useless against infantry of questionable training but with reasonably modern equipment, and russian MBTs from the 70's?
Fact is you cannot fight modern military equipment head-on without the same military equipment and trained soldiers to man them.
You talk about assymmetric warfare... now, the ONLY reason assymetrical warfare will ever yield a result other than costing many lives over decades is because a regime still cares what the world thinks about it.
(And the important part to take away here is: a non-armed protest has THE SAME effect, if not a bigger one, as long as enough people carry it and are determined enough. You and I might not agree with Ghandi or might be able to do what he and his followers did, but man did it work well, and actually costed WAY less lives than the armed alternative)
Many asymetric wars are waged for decades without any real conclusion in either direction, because the regime being fought does care about how the outside world sees them, but not enough to actually give in. Most of the time, asymetric attacks are just stings that might keep the conflict ablaze, but doesn't really harm the military or regime.
And lets not talk about the REALLY scary regimes from way back (not naming them, you know which I mean).. the ones that actually managed to minimize rebellion by the sheer brutality of their retaliation. The ones that would burn a village just because it was said to hide rebels.
Now, how will you try to harm military personel when your own government/military has gone bad enough for you and other citizens to actually risk your lives to remove them from office? Do you think anyone will get near a military base when the guards will get orders to shot any non-military person on sight as soon as they get nearer to the base than a mile? Do you think your mortar troops will ever range in on a target in time to actually hit it before they get blown up in the age of armed drones?
Sure, you probably can find witty tactics to circumvent most of these safeguards... fact is, as long as you do not blow up most nukes inside the US, your asymmetric war will not do the damage and just increase the brutality with which the military will retaliate.
About morale... I think this is a far more complicated thematic actually affecting both sides (why would/does an army turn against its own people? Why do people risk their life against a regime? How much are people ready to give up for their freedom? How far does a soldier go for his pay? Does the soldier believe in what he does?)...
Lets say your fictional freedom fighters are actually hellbent on dying for their cause... How much damage will you need to do to break an armies morale? Will attacking military personel make them desert their duty? Or will you just make them more determined to follow their leaders orders? Will you actually turn their questionable actions against their own people into a "just" fight to defend their own or their families lives?
And hoping for widespread support from the citizenship in case of a civil war like that is kind of like hoping to score the jackpot, as long as you are concentrated on doing the damage against military and regime. Either you maximize the damage you do (at the cost of additional collateral damage), or you try to win sympathies with your fight (which means trying to minimize collateral damage).
In the end, YOU could be seen as the bigger problem by a large part of the population if you manage to kill more civilians with your actions than the army ever did. For most people, their health/life comes before their wealth, and their wealth comes before their freedom. Not many people are ready to die for their freedom.
I think we can accomplish a mutually satisfying resolution through actual compromise.
That sounds reasonable, because a flat out ban would only hurt the wrong people... but that means that both sides need to show the ability to be reasonable and actually view things in a non-populistic, realistic way...
Like the run haters accepting that there are legitimate reasons for a private person to own weapons, that not every weapon is used in a crime, and so on...
For the other side it would be that maybe, just maybe, in 2015 you CAN back down from a right given to you 150 years ago at least a little bit when it makes sense... and that maybe you shouldn't blindly listen to people that are only on your side because they make a good living out of selling weapons to private persons. They might fight for your cause, but for all the wrong reasons.
funny enough, some states have banned (tried to ban? Not upheld by a judge yet?) .50 caliber guns because they can be "too lethal",Ironically, if you are a hunter here, and you shoot at deer, the law requires you to shoot a bullet with a caliber of at least 6.5mm which delivers at least 2kJ at a distance of 100 meters (so the minimum ballistic energy at the muzzle must be something like 3kJ, more if you shoot at longer distance). The reasoning is that you do not want a wounded animal to go rampant in the next village, nor are you to cause excess agony in the animal.
Which means that a .308 rifle is only just about powerful enough to be legal, if you shoot at deer. M855 would be "not lethal enough", though you might shoot at small game with it.
Similarly, a pistol that is to be used for a finishing shot for any type of animal (and this is the only legitimate reason to own a hand gun which you may have at home) must deliver at least 200J, so .32ACP is pretty much the smallest gun which is just about legal.
I understand you point of view about assymetric warfare being relatively untested against brutal goverments in the mordern world, especially when the populace is heavilly armed. The closes example I could find, really, is the Ukraine, where the rebels kind of got what they wanted, but not really.
It's untested, but I mean, it's a safeguard. It might not be perfect, but having an armed populace would be better than not having one in that situation.
If the government did declare open warfare, and just start bombing cities, I'd expect our (also heavilly militarized) police to begin rebelling in that case as well, along with the national guard and militias.
in 2015 you CAN back down from a right given to you 150 years ago at least a little bit when it makes sense
I think there's already been steps for that, in the major gun bans/regulations on record (The big ones being 1934 NFA and 1986 FOPA/Houghes). The problem is that neither one of those had any compromises that are followed by the states. The NRA actually didn't challenge those as well (And there's corruption in the NRA where board members bought tons of pre-1986 machineguns, and then agreed to the ban only if their guns weren't included. They then sold those guns for 20 times their original value, with some being worth $170,000~ today still in their hands).
The problem is that most gun regulations aren't really compromises, they're "Ban assault weapons", "Ban standard magazines", "Ban gun show sales without NICS" without anything given in return. I gave some pretty fair compromises above in this thread, which really both sides should be for because they restrict criminals from positioning themselves for crime, while also Repealing state-specific regulations that hamper the legal gun owners.
For example,
remove the need for pistol purchase permits being needed in certain states (Pistol purchase permit is separate from a concealed carry permit), but make straw purchasers criminally responsible if their guns are used in crimes.
I don't see why anyone would be against this compromise on either side of the aisle.
