I just read your silly op-ed, "A way out of the violence". Exactly what additional "sensible gun laws" do you want? Please be specific. Remember the 17 year-olds in your one example were already breaking laws by possessing firearms. And I'm fairly sure murder is illegal already.

I live in a state with relatively few restrictions on firearms possessed by honest folk. And we have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Even so, when I decided to purchase a new .22LR rifle the process went this way:

The manufacturer, besides getting a business license, had to petition for specific permission to make firearms. Because it is so licensed, its facilities and records are subject to no-notice inspections, 24/7/365. Once it had that license it then had to provide an example of the .22 rifle to the government and get permission to manufacture that model. If any functional change is made -- like an improved safety or loaded chamber indicator -- it has to send another sample to the government to get permission again.

Once made, the law requires that each individual .22 rifle be serial numbered. Unlike a massive implement of destruction -- you know, automobiles which kill more people than guns -- a gun's serial number can't be riveted on; it must be etched, engraved, molded or stamped directly into the frame. The manufacturer must keep records of all serial numbers until it goes out of business.

Now the manufacturer transfers the .22 to a dealer. First, it must verify which of the 50 variant state laws it must comply with. Some states already ban some firearms types, or have special packaging requirements. Ballistic fingerprinting may be required.

Once the manufacturer confirms it can lawfully transfer to a state, it has to confirm that the receiving dealer is properly licensed. No, not just a business license, but a federal firearms dealer's license. Additionally, states like mine also require a local firearms dealer's license.

When the dealer receives the soon-to-be-mine .22, he must immediately log it into records he is required to keep until he goes out of business. And when he does shut down, he must turn all those records over to the government. Oh yes, the dealer is also subject to those pesky no-notice 24/7/365 inspections.

Now I, a military veteran, ex-cop, ex-licensed security guard, who has already passed a background check for a concealed carry license walks into the store. The dealer is required by law to perform due diligence to make sure I'm not buying the .22 plinker for some disqualified felon. So he'll ask me questions about who it's for or where I'll use it.

I've picked out my rifle and stated my intent to purchase. Now I have to show government-issued photo ID and fill out a multi-page application. If I answer a question incorrectly the dealer cannot sell me the plinker. If I answer a question with "Y" instead of "Yes" and the dealer doesn't make me fix it, his license can be revoked and his inventory could be confiscated.

When I'm done filling out the application, I still can't pay for the .22. The dealer has to call the government and get permission to complete this specific transaction. Usually this happens within a few minutes, but the government is allowed to make us wait for two days. If my name is too similar to some disqualified person, the government will refuse permission (kind of like folks with names similar to those of supposed terrorists on selectee and no-fly lists). But let's say they don't make that error, and I did get permission

Remember the records the dealer had to update when he received the .22? Now he has to update them to show that the gun was transferred to me. And my application goes into the records, to be held for twenty years or until the dealer goes out of business, when the government gets the records.

So I pay my money and I get my new plinker. It comes with a chamber lock that I don't want (when I do lock the gun it will be in a far more secure case) because so many locales require the locks that the manufacturer finds it less expensive to include a cheap lock than to sort out which jurisdiction requires them.

When I run low on ammunition, I can drive over to Wal-Mart to get more. I can't buy a rifle there because Wal-Mart cut a deal with Massachusetts. To get the .22 cartridges I have to show government-issued photo ID to prove that I'm old enough and that I live in-state. If the clerk suspects that I might be a disqualified person, he will refuse to sell it to me (that due diligence thing again).

If I end up broke and unemployed and decide to sell my plinker to buy food, I can make a private sale in this state. But I still have to exercise due diligence to avoid selling to a disqualified person. If I make such a sale, even if I didn't know the person was a felon or illegal immigrant, I can be sent to federal prison for many years. Some people check photo ID and require the buyer to sign a statement that he is eligible to purchase a firearm. Some people run the sale through a dealer so a background check can be run. If I were to knowingly sell a firearm to a felon, not only could I go to prison for that, I could be charged as an accomplice to any crime he might commit with the gun.

But I still have the plinker. There are a plethora of laws regarding how and where I can use it. There are parts of my town where it is illegal to fire it. If my neighbors think my shooting is too noisy, they can try to get my safe range shut down (there's a law for shooting ranges, too; but this isn't a problem, because my neighbors shoot as much as I do). It is illegal to hunt deer with my .22 because it isn't powerful enough to guarantee a humane kill.

Legally, I can open carry a pistol, but if I get in a car I have to unload it first unless I have a special license (which I do). But if I'm going hunting, another law says none of my guns can be loaded in a vehicle even with the license.

Those are the hoops we already jump through, in a state with relatively few firearms restrictions.

So tell me exactly what additional "sensible gun laws" you want to impose on us honest folk? And how exactly do you figure to get the criminals (like your 17 y/o murderers) to obey these additional "sensible gun laws" when they already ignore the existing laws?

So tell me exactly why your answer to the problem of violent criminals is more restrictions on their victims?

While residing in other, less firearms friendly, states I have used a legal firearm to defend myself from multiple muggers on three occasions, and to defend a woman being attacked in a dark parking lot on another occasion. I don't think there are too many guns. There are too many criminals.

And if any of your additional "sensible gun laws" would disarm victims, I'd have to question your motives and wonder if you simply want to guarantee a safe workplace for violent criminals.

Sincerely,

So you're telling me that you wrote an article advocating more gun restrictions, but the topic is too far "off of my path" to discuss it.

Do you really want to fix your crime and violence problems? I'll give you a hint, and then a solid recommendation.

First, take a look at the Brady Campaigns state ratings. You can find a graphic of the ratings here:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Anti-gun+violence+group+gives+NH+low+marks&articleId=13378ff2-a19e-4bd9-9661-dc03d7152f43

You might enjoy reading the reader comments, too. But look at that table. Look at the states with the best Brady ratings, and ask yourself what else they have in common. (Hint: high crime rates) Now work your way down to the "poorly" rated states. Low crime rates.

And my recommendation: Scrap your current gun laws and adopt New Hampshire's laws. We have one of the lowest total deaths by firearms in the country, and the _the_lowest per capita firearm death rate. And it isn't because we don't have guns. We do. A lot of them. And we use them to control criminals. You don't have to take my word for it; look at the FBI numbers yourself:

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Homicide/State/RunHomOneYearofData.cfm

In 2005, the latest year for which data is available, NH had a grand total of 18 homicides. That year Minneapolis alone had 31 homicides.

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/2005-meetings/20051104/docs/10_MSSP_Final_Report.pdf

Either we're doing something very right, or you are doing something very wrong.

Look, I'm an ex-cop. I heard from a heck of a lot of violent felons that what they feared most was the possibility that their intended victim might have a gun. Several specifically stated they _liked_ gun control, because they don't obey laws anyway and can always get a weapon, but it does mean helpless victims they can prey upon.

You don't need gun control; you need criminal control.

Sincerely,