I think this gun owner's proposals are a step in the right direction. Ultimately, however, I'd like the U.S. to have many of the same regulations that Australia enacted in 1996, including:

1. A purchaser of a firearm must demonstrate a need, be it hunting, target shooting, or occupation (such as security guard). Self-defense and personal protection are NOT acceptable as valid needs. Hunters must prove that they are hunters; target shooters must belong to and regularly attend a licensed firing range.

2. Purchasers must wait 28-days to buy any firearm.

3. A license to own a firearm lasts for five years. Upon expiration, the owner must reapply for permission and re-demonstrate the need.

4. Applicants receive permission to own a gun that is appropriate to their demonstrated need only. For example, a hunter is given permission for a rifle, not a handgun (unless a need to own a handgun has also been demonstrated).

5. No one is allowed to stockpile guns or ammunition.

There are other regulations; those are just five of the most important that come to mind.

I think there's nothing extreme about it. If you need a gun, you can have one (or two), provided you demonstrate the need. People who love sport shooting at target ranges can own a gun, hunters can own a gun, security guards can own guns, farmers protecting their chickens can have guns, et cetera. It's a body of laws that recognize that some people have a real need for guns, while at the same time acknowledging that guns aren't toys and can do enormous harm in the wrong hands.

So darn sensible. Maybe someday we can be as sensible here. I hope so.

I have no use for such things. There are millions like me.

some excellent points that probably most people could live with. Now you are already demanding more. Self defense and personal protection are NOT acceptable as valid needs? IMHO that is the most important reason to own a firearm. I live in a rural area where it could take a half hour or more for a law enforcement officer to show up! Target shooters must belong to and regularly attend a licensed firing range. I can't target shoot in my own back yard if I want?

You have to have a need for a handgun? Self defense!

Can't stockpile guns, thousands of people collect guns and never shoot anyone!

All gun-owners should prove proficiency with their arms continuously. The gun groups should recognize if nothing is done to address the slaughter enabled by the current laws, their would be draconian regulation in the future.

allow bolt, lever and pump rifles and shotguns. no pistols, no semi's (except shotguns?). No more than a 5 shot magazine. I drove through Canada from Alaska with my guns in a gunsafe in the trailer. No problem for them or me and I felt a lot safer NOT worrying
about some "good guy" with a gun.
The heavy armament comes from the need to feel "safe", while we are constantly pushed by the RWNJ's to be very, very afraid.
It's an interesting circular problem, the police are more and heavily armed because the average citizen can now be heavily armed (including armor) and more apt to shoot first out of fear. (usually of unarmed blacks, but whatever). I wonder what that sheriff in Oregon thinks now.
Anyway, good post. my 2 cents. I like what the Canadians are doing AND they like to hunt. I like their healthcare system too.

Some of what he says we need to do, but it is still not enough. People might be able to pass a background check, and be trained in gun use and safety, and be legal to own an arsenal and keep it in a home where a mentally unstable roommate has access to them, like Adam Lanza's mom and like the Oregon shooter's mom. We need a way to keep guns away from mentally unstable people, even if they don't own them. And we need to make the gun owner responsible for the use of those guns by anyone. Not just buying an insurance policy that pays for damages, but some kind of penalty to the owner if that gun is used to hurt or kill another person or in some other destructive way.

And another issue is about the questions on the form that he mentions...who will ever fill in "yes" to a question that would prevent him from purchasing the gun he wants. How the hell do you get info like that without expecting honesty from the person who wants to buy the gun? Anyone who is honest will stop the process right there if they know they have to answer yes to those questions. Anyone who would lie to get the gun should be considered suspect...but it's too late after they get the gun. So what good are those questions? What good is that process?

And why does it take a mental person being declared unsafe legally by a court, or by being committed to a mental hospital? The people who have been committing these big killing sprees haven't had records like that. I'm starting to think that anyone who has seen a mental health provider and has ever been considered a suicide risk or has ever said things that sound like they may be a danger to someone else, needs to be on some kind of national registry that will come up with a background check, and will prevent them from owning a gun, unless and until a mental health provider has them removed from that list because they are no longer a potential risk. Does that mean some people who have mental issues but would never hurt another person with a gun are not allowed to own one? Deal with it. I'm one of those people who would not be allowed to purchase a gun under those circumstances. I'm fine with that. While I would never hurt another person with a gun (willingly), I might hurt myself when I am really depressed. Also, parents need to be held accountable to what their underage children do, if it involves the use of a gun they should not have access to.

Maybe we do need to be some kind of insurance policy that says gun owners are responsible for anything done with those guns...and if those guns are used to kill someone, that person can never get insurance again, so can never own a gun legally again? Unless of course the gun is stolen first and it should be mandatory that it is reported immediately.

But still...none of this is enough. We still need to limit the type and quantity of guns a person is allowed to own...the same way they do it in Australia. There are different categories of guns for different purposes, and you need to meet the requirements for those guns under that particular category. It allows for some gun collectors, for many types of guns, but it does make it more difficult to get a gun. It's working there...not sure if it would work the same here, because our gun culture here is so different from most other countries, but we have to do something. What's happening now is not acceptable.

And we need to have some kind of requirement that loaded guns are not available for anyone to pick up and use. They need to be locked up somehow, somewhere (or trigger locked) unless being used or cleaned by the person who owns them.

I know I've missed some points here that I wanted to make, but I don't have time to go back through the video right now.

He did very well addressing the mass murder incidents. He didn't go far enough in addressing the accidental deaths to children and others due to improper control of fire arms in the home - accidents, etc.

But this is a start that is long overdue.

The way it is now EVERYONE gets a gun because it's their right to have one.

You have to do something wrong before they take it away.

I never would have known it reading DU over the past week.

The problem is many are irresponsible gun owners... and they're ruining it for everyone else.

I never use such things