Nothing gets the 'wingers in a bigger tizzy than the issue of Gun Control. "They're coming to take my guns right before they haul me off to the camps!" they say. The NRA almost completely owns the issue and takes pride in administering the litmus test of a politician's fealty to the only constitutional amendment that seems to matter to these people. I propose a rational middle ground in this debate, but all that means is that the gun nuts will just dismiss it out of hand. Still, Yoda's wisdom aside, I can at least try...
First of all, one of the reasons why Gun Control is such a controversial topic in this country is that both sides aren't even talking about the same problem. For starters, the overwhelming majority of gun deaths and injuries are caused by cheap, low-caliber handguns. It's the easy availability of these weapons and their lethality that Gun Control measures seek to mitigate. The Assault Weapons Ban had some silly criteria that made it easy to despise, but at its core, it had provisions that went towards this end.
However, guns are such an important part of personal and cultural identity in many areas of the country that ANY government action to lower gun deaths is immediately opposed. The increased gun sales ever since President Obama won the election is a testament to this paranoia. I have to ask, if Obama was going to take your guns away (or start up those "Death Panels" or whatever), what is he waiting for? We're in the 4th year of his presidency and...nothing...bubkis! But I digress...
Effective Gun Control legislation should focus on the availability and lethality of cheap handguns. I don't care how many rifles or shotguns somebody owns, as long as they keep them secure. I don't even care how many rounds they can hold or if they have a laser sight or whatever. Long guns cause too small a share of the gun deaths and injuries in this country to worry about, at least for now. The drug cartel wars in Mexico not withstanding (legalizing some or all recreational drugs would end this in a matter of weeks, but that's a whole other matter...), the focus HAS to be on handgun-specific measures.
So, how can we diminish the availability and / or lethality of cheap, low-caliber handguns? First of all, the 10-round magazine limit from Assault Weapons Ban was actually effective in this regard. The only 2 legitimate uses for handguns are personal protection or target practice and a 10-round magazine does SQUAT to interfere with these activities. If you're hunting with a handgun, you're doing it wrong! If you need more than 10 rounds to protect yourself, your aim is bad or you just need to bring more clips. 10 may be an arbitrary number, but it's better than mandating that all handguns be 6-shooters (and come with a cowboy hat or something).
Anyway, limiting the number of rounds in a handgun clip can reduce gun violence, but what else can be done? It seems impossible to keep the bad guys from getting handguns without making it a hassle for law-abiding citizens to do the same. Background checks at gun shows and other measures intended to make sure the wrong people don't get them are a non-starter politically. Besides, many handguns used in violent crimes are either stolen or bought on the black market anyway.
Something COULD be done about the ammunition that goes into these weapons, however. I'm not a ballistics expert, but there's gotta be a a way to make non-lethal or less-lethal handgun ammunition for use in competitions and target practice while severely limiting the availability of the more lethal, kill-a-guy-type of ammunition. The lead pollution bullets cause is horrendous anyway, so can't we at least make them out of steel, copper or some other metal? Since bullets made of harder materials won't deform as much as they pass through the human body, this could decrease their lethality a great deal. A lower-density bullet would also have less penetrating power and decelerate more quickly as it traveled. Ceramic rounds that shatter on impact could be even MORE effective at reducing deaths and injuries. I know some rifles use handgun ammunition, but for the most part, changes to ammunition availability and lethality can have a big impact (or smaller impact, technically).
If the gun nuts would actually think about the issue, they'd realize that even their fantasies of rising up against the government and "watering the Tree of Liberty" would not be imperiled by severely limiting the availability of lethal handgun ammunition. If you're going up against Uncle Sam with a 9mm, then you aren't going to do much damage anyway. They would still get to watch "Red Dawn" with that strange sensation in their pants and they would still be able to shoot at posters of Jane Fonda as much as they want. They'd even still have a few kill-a-guy bullets to defend themselves, or at least they will once they get them off layaway like Chris Rock envisioned. Alas, hoping for rational thought with these people is nearly impossible...
A "black market" in lethal ammunition might spring up, but transporting a profitable amount of lead bullets is a lot harder than transporting a profitable amount of cocaine or even beer! The price on lead bullets would still go up as intended, limiting the frivolity with which people send them flying at each other. A steep tax on lethal handgun ammunition could go towards subsidizing the less or non-lethal rounds to bring these changes about.
I'm really interested in what people think of these solutions and what possible problems could arise from their implementation. I'd like to think that the NRA could take a look at these recommendations and come up with a dispassionate and reasoned take on them, but I know that's asking for WAY too much. As always, ending the "War on Drugs" could bring down gun violence a great deal, but as long as we see that as an impossibility, this is the only other way I can see to deal with the problem.