This is a bad example. I've been notionally pro-ownership but also pro-regulation my whole life, and one of the major problems with gun legislation in the US is that it's incredibly poorly written and does not reflect the technical reality of guns.

The government allows private ownership of automatic weapons, but hasn't issued any new tax stamps for 50 years. You can convert any semiauto gun into a full-auto gun for a few cents of 3D printed parts (or a rubber band). The hysteria over "assault weapons" basically outlawed guns that _looked_ scary, while not meaningfully making anyone safer.

I think yes, it is reasonable for Congresspeople to fire a gun before they legislate on it, because otherwise they are incapable of writing good laws.

Good gun regulation in the US would probably look like car insurance, where gun owners need to register and insure their weapons against the possibility of crimes being committed with them. There are so many guns compared to the amount of gun crime that it would probably not end up terribly expensive, especially if you own a gun safe.

▲

deaux 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The mistake you're making here is assuming that

> The hysteria over "assault weapons" basically outlawed guns that _looked_ scary, while not meaningfully making anyone safer.

This wasn't the goal by the congresspeople, and that them having fired a gun would've changed that goal.

That was the goal. They knew they weren't going to be able to pass any kind of legislation that actually msde people safer, but they wanted to look like they were "doing something".

This is incredibly common. It's the primary reason behind the TSA and its continuous expansion, for example.

	▲	cogman10 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> It's the primary reason behind the TSA and its continuous expansion, for example. I'd also add that the TSA is a good reason why we shouldn't expect talking legislators to gun ranges would make better gun laws. The reason the TSA is what it is is because legislators fly more than most people. If you've ever been to DC you see a lot of this sort of security theater everywhere. So much of the TSAs budget should be redirected towards what would actually make long distance travel safer, improving the ATC and Amtrak.

▲

butvacuum 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thats defacto gun registration- and worse: registration with a private entity not beholden to due process. Given current realities, anybody who registers their firearm in such a manner can expect a no-knock raid because they were nearby when somebody phoned in an engine backfire as a gunshot.

▲

avidiax 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So make it allowed that the insurance is tied to the gun. You buy a lifetime policy for that serial number, provide payment, and you're done. Payment can be provided anonymously at a window in cash, if that's your thing.

If you want discounts because you live in a low-crime area, have a gun safe, have many guns, etc. then obviously the storage location for the weapon needs to be declared to the insurance company.

▲

wombatpm 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

ATF is not allowed to digitize any of its records around gun sales or transfer of ownership.

	▲	browsingonly 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's not true. They have millions of digitized 4473s. They are banned by law from creating a searchable registry of gun owners but they digitize paperwork on a daily basis. https://medium.com/statute-circuit/the-atfs-quiet-digital-tr...

▲

doubleg72 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can get a stamp for full auto easily, my neighbor is an FFL and gets them frequently

	▲	jeremyjh 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You can transfer them. You can't register a new one. This is why H&K transferable sears are like $50k.