What about people who bring the weapons to a range to practice? Weapon's not worth as much if you can't use it competently, and some states require proficiency exams before you can get a concealed carry permit.

A concealed carry permit is not a carry permit, nor is it required for all weapons transport; there are many other valid reasons for transporting them (and separate laws already exist that cover such transport; in some states, you have to carry them unloaded in your trunk to carry them from place to place, for instance).

(That's just off the top of my head; I've never owned one myself so I'm sure there are all sorts of details, regulations, and loopholes already in place on a state-to-state basis that I've never heard of.)

Technically, Oregon is an 'open carry' state. So with the exception of Multnomah and one other county, you don't need a concealed handgun license if you want to carry your pistol on your hip, which you are legally allowed to do.

You are allowed to open carry in Multnomah county with a CHL.

Heh. I immediately am reminded of the shopping carts in Safeway that start beeping when taken out of range. I have little faith in that kind of technology working reliably, to say nothing of privacy issues getting in the way of its implementation.

I've been blissfully keeping out of discussions related to the recent SCOTUS decision, but I'm honestly of mixed opinions about it. If we look at the wording of the 2nd Amendment, I can see both sides, but I also see how stupid and careless people are with things not even designed to harm others. Cars and religion come readily to mind. Do we really need the help?

I have little faith in that kind of technology working reliably

To say nothing of various ways of circumventing it. When all guns are technologically controlled, only hackers will have guns... *smirk*

This "position-tracking technology" plan might also be struck down for one of the reasons why mandatory trigger locks have also been struck down (to say nothing of other technology, like biometric locks that will only allow the owner to fire then, which hasn't been able to become required yet) - they impose an added burden (i.e. a greatly increased price) on the people who want to purchase a gun... Which has been, admittedly, the intention of some ("If we can't ban guns, we can just make them too expensive for anyone to buy!")

Most of the bad stuff that happens with handguns happens right where the gun is SUPPOSED to be anyway.

Having once had one pointed at my head, with malice, I'm strongly anti-gun, for both emotional AND pragmatic reasons.

I'd like to hear this story some time, that is, if you wouldn't mind telling it.

Or we could implement listening devices into phones, but only alert authorities if they feel that there might be a crime committed based solely on the conversation.

Or perhaps devices in vehicles that slowly stop a car from moving, once it has exceeded the speed limit, taking complete control away from the driver.

All sarcasm aside, and speaking of courts, numerous courts, including the Supreme Court, has ruled that the Police have no duty to protect the citizenry (see Castle Rock V. Gonzales or Riss V. New York or Hartzler v. City of San Jose or most famously Warren V. District of Columbia).

So I personally wouldn't trust a police force having monitoring equipment on law abiding citizens when they are under no obligation to even protect them.

It's a starting point, and (no offense) it's a lot easier to point out the problems in a proposed solution than come up with a better one that reaches a good compromise between the two sides. Almost every pro-gun person I've spoken to, or read, is so zealous about not having his or her rights infringed that anything less than complete freedom to carry anything, anywhere, for any reason, is labeled as patently unconstitutional. The idea that handgun tracking is equivalent to unrestricted phonetapping, to me, is an example of this.

You're still policing the wrong people. People who own guns legally aren't the ones you have to worry about.

And don't give me the argument of "if you're not doing anything wrong, why not?" because I'm not a person that likes having all my movements, purchases, and behaviors monitored.


P.S. I'm sure you'll be signing up for your car insurance company to monitor your driving habits shortly, if you haven't already. If you're with Progressive, give them a call and they'll hook you up right now. ;)

I'm suggesting a compromise between what I see as the strongest arguments in favor and against handgun possession and use. I'm not policing anyone; perhaps the issue is so polarizing that either side would see such a suggestion as an attack. Look how quickly you leaped from handgun tracking to "all my movements, purchases, and behaviors monitored." ;)

I think the batteries would run out.

I think a national handgun registry, where every gun has had a ballistic sample taken from it before it gets on the market would be a good way to go.

This seems like a better idea, but I'm not sure how easy it would be to maintain.

I think you're not getting a clear answer because you're not asking the right question.

The right question isn't, "What compromise do we need to find so that people who want to own guns feel like their rights are being protected?", it's "Why do some many people feel the need to own a gun in the first place?"

If nobody felt compelled to own a gun, this entire topic would be a non-issue. Obviously, there are very sad social situations going on where some people can't sleep at night if they don't have a death machine within easy reach.

If nobody felt compelled to own a gun, this entire topic would be a non-issue.

Well sure, Paul ... but the converse (inverse? contrapositive?) is true as well. To wit: if nobody felt endangered by someone else owning a gun, it would also be a non-issue.

If a firearm could be fitted with such a device

• For a reasonable cost, so that nobody thinks it's a ban by economic proxy
  
• With a neverending power-source
  
• That won't malfunction
  

All valid points, but so far, in 50+ comments, I see only one other proposed alternative. I'm not saying this because I advocate implementing a flawed solution, but more to encourage that other, less flawed ones, are suggested.

I should mention that I do appreciate your analysis here.

But again, this is more pointing out the faults in one solution without proposing another. What do you think should be done?

Fix the socioeconomic underpinnings of violent crime.

However, I'm an engineer, not an economist or a sociologist.

As an engineer, I would recommend against attempting to use a technological solution to solve the issue of gun violence.

Making gun-related crime more accountable would be beneficial. Laws are already in place to this effect. Is there something that I, as an engineer, can bring to the party to improve apprehention and rightful conviction of criminals?

• Technology exists to use acoustic modeling to locate gunfire in complex environments. Pinpointing the source location of gunshots may be helpful.
  
• Most gun crime is committed with store-bought ammunition. Serialize ammunition. Purchases can be tracked like any other uniquely identifiable item in the sales chain. (This is tamperable, but bullets could be serialized on the bullet's base, so bullets would have to be extracted, tampered, and reinserted.)
  
• Unique serialization marks on the firing pin and interior wall of the chamber. Pressure and recoil would mark the spent casing with these serialization marks (these are tamperable also, but if properly designed and implemented would be difficult to eliminate entirely)
  

That's going to make it awful hard for me to take my gun to the range, where I'd be practicing safe handling skills.

Definitely, and someone else raised this point as well. I modified my suggestion upthread.

In my opinion, you'd see more significant safety gains (ie: fewer accidental fatalities) by simply requiring a valid drivers license in order to by gasoline... thus helping to keep all the chronic repeat offender drunk drivers off the road for good.

I could see it being useful to track, especially if the owner had control of the data, to at least help in knowing when (and where) in a case where the gun had been stolen, or moved with out the owner's knowledge or permission.

I've known of this personally in three different circumstances and all ended fatally.

I think that would be very useful, with out touching on the access of the information argument of it all.

Jeez, why don't you talk about viable compromises on abortion next time? Might be an easier discussion to have.... :)

Guns, abortion, and "Chevy vs. Ford" trucks are three topics I almost never talk about with people. Especially on the internet. There's almost no point to dicussing it as very few people don't already have a dug-in position on it.

I'd rather have someone show up at my daughter's school with a knife than a legally purchased handgun. Because you can't take out a whole classroom with a knife, and it takes a closer proximity, so I'm playing the averages with my kid's life.

Legal gun owners shoot themselves, wives, ex-wives, ex-girlfriends, ex-girlfriend's new boyfriends, children, people they "think" are a threat. At School, at church, where ever.Not just the bad guys.

But the laws that allows folks to purchase and carry guns when tens of thousands of folks die each year from gun violence, and the country who went to war to allegedly avenge 3000 deaths, well we deserve what we get basically.

I have never fired a gun nor owned one. That may change soon. If you can't beat 'em. . . . .