It’s fascinating that you choose to juxtapose these two issues. If you don’t trust the government to have a back door into your phone, why do you expect gun owners to trust the government with control of guns? And they do not trust the government. If the government can get involved in someone refusing to bake a wedding cake, there is no limit to the petty micromanagement they will impose if given the chance.
So, try offering gun owners some real concessions:
==Make it impossible for criminals to sue their victims, or bystanders who act to aid victims or apprehend the criminal. Not just throw the case out, but the defendant doesn’t even need to respond.
==Since the 14th Amendment says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” it clearly recognizes deprivation of life as a legitimate penalty. Capital punishment IS Constitutional. Debate is OVER.
==Court verdicts and appeals shall be based solely on issues of factual guilt or innocence. If you’re concerned about false convictions, then why have an intellectually and morally decrepit system that wastes time on procedural matters not connected with guilt or innocence? How many people don’t get a hearing because the courts are clogged with yet another appeal from some guy whose guilt is beyond question?
==In fact, do what many other countries do and make judges responsible for determining the facts.
Those concessions might persuade gun owners to trade reasonable regulations in return. But how do we keep unstable people from getting guns?
One proposal to limit gun violence is to restrict the mentally ill from owning guns. This measure might put a serious dent in the number of gun suicides, but will scarcely affect gun homicides. Very few gun homicides are due to mental illness. Elliott Rodger, the teenager who posted a video manifesto outlining his anger at being ignored by women before killing six people, had been to a number of therapists but never diagnosed with a mental illness. To screen out people like him, we’d have to consider every socially isolated or even merely quirky individual as mentally ill, and maintain a nationwide registry. Moreover, we’d penalize everyone who had the sense or integrity to recognize they needed help. That would probably outrage civil libertarians every bit as much as gun owners.
Gun owners want the burden to fall on people who commit gun crimes, but that won’t help the people who get shot in the meantime. And a significant number of gun criminals either kill themselves or force the police to do it, so capital punishment won’t be a deterrent. Indeed, it’s hard to see what registration would do before the crime.
So what might help? We don’t want something that deprives current lawful gun owners of any liberties, nor do we want a definition of “mental illness” so broad it snares a large part of the population, most of who are guilty of nothing worse than mild eccentricity. But we don’t want to wait until people actually kill someone, because by then it’s too late. We want something that tightly screens dangerous people.
There’s one common factor in a large fraction of gun crimes: a sense of entitlement that the criminal has a right to lash out at others for real or imagined slights. Elliott Rodger was angry that women wouldn’t respond to his awesomeness despite his affluence. He also committed other acts that, in retrospect, pointed toward his final outburst. He followed a couple and threw coffee on them, splashed coffee on two women who refused to pay attention to him, and sprayed a group with orange juice from a Super-Soaker. In fact, a lot of shooters have prior records of minor violence before they graduate to the big time. The logical way to control gun violence is to act when someone shows some precursory violent tendencies.
So here’s the plan. Anyone who ever commits an act of violence except with very strict legal authority loses their right to own a gun. This wouldn’t require any gun owner to register because it applies only to future acts. The registry right now is blank. The only requirement on current gun owners is a firm personal commitment to hold their temper and act responsibly.
==Unless you have specific legal authority (police, military, teachers and principals in school, security personnel, and so on), you have no authority whatsoever over anyone else. The teacher has the authority to discipline your child in school. You have no authority to attack or threaten the teacher.
==The only exception is self defense or defense of others. You have no authority to accost someone walking down your street and demand to know why he’s there. And there’s no exception for “feeling threatened.” If you don’t have the judgement to know for certain if you are threatened, you don’t have the judgement to own a gun.
==Conviction for any violent act costs the offender his gun rights. Felonies, of course, but misdemeanors, too. Even disorderly conduct. Any offense under the influence of alcohol or drugs costs the offender his gun rights. If you can’t hold your liquor, you can’t hold a gun.
==All domestic violence costs the offender his gun rights.
==Any vandalism or cruelty to animals costs the offender his gun rights.
==Threatening anyone with a weapon costs the offender his gun rights. That includes you, Y’All Qaeda. And any landowner who thinks it’s okay to shoot at trespassers.
==Any act of road rage whatsoever costs the offender his gun rights. Tailgating, aggressive driving, trying to run someone off the road. If someone cuts you off, call 911 and report it. If the police don’t take it up, then there’s no problem. You have precisely zero authority to enforce the rules of the road.
==Accidentally discharging a weapon costs you your gun privileges. If you can’t play responsibly with your toys, you lose them. Accidentally discharging a weapon in the military earns you an Article 15 (equivalent to a misdemeanor if it’s a serious Article 15). Also negligently storing a weapon so that children can access it. The people whose son shot a neighbor child because she wouldn’t show him her kitten may not have violated any laws, but they should never again be allowed access to anything more dangerous than a butter knife. And if it’s legal to have an outdoor shooting range where you are, and someone gets hit, guess what? Also, hitting anyone by mistake while hunting.
==Threats (on line or in person) constitute valid grounds for a search warrant (a rule that could very well have prevented the Columbine shootings), and threats of violence constitute grounds for losing gun rights.
==These apply to everyone. If you’re a police officer or member of the military, and you engage in frivolous violence, your career is over. Yes, I know being a cop is stressful. Deal with it or change jobs.
There is no excuse whatsoever for anyone ever to commit any of these acts, and they very frequently show up in the backgrounds of shooters. They are far more reliable predictors of eventual lethal violence than someone merely being diagnosed with mental illness. Anything on the list gets you on the do-not-sell registry. Plus, the court punches a hole in your ID, just the way we punch holes in expired passports. Plus, the police get a search warrant for your guns. All you have to do to keep your guns and stay off the radar is grow up and keep your temper. If you never attack or threaten anyone, you can have an arsenal fit for a battalion in your basement and nobody ever needs to know. You can have total anonymity.
So you mean, if I lose my temper and kick the dog or hit my wife, I should lose my right to a gun?
Well, why don’t you just castrate us while you’re at it?
Since a lot of our gun violence boils down to an overblown sense of masculinity, I’m totally down with that idea. But it would present certain Eighth Amendment problems.