My intent with this post is not to swat the hornets nest but to have a civil conversation about a practical matter that affects all of us here. My background is growing up in a gun owing family. I shot bow and arrow and bb guns from age 5+, rifles from 7+, and got a shotgun for my 13th birthday. I went to college in a republican district that was attended by mostly republican students from right leaning suburban and rural areas in the state. I own hand guns and long guns today. My favorite gun for target shooting is a WASR-10 AK with iron sights & I regularly shoot clays at a local members only club. I've been reading this forum since 2009 but rarely participate. All that being said, I believe that common sense gun control measures will protect the institution for the future, not hurt it. I know some of you feel the same because I've talked to many politically right leaning gun owners who agree, some of whom have large class III collections and whisper to me in a very very low volume. It is a fact that countries with less guns have less gun deaths. It is also a fact that banning guns in the US is neither achievable, practical, nor desirable. However burying our collective heads in the sand to the growing numbers of gun deaths and political pressure for bans of various kinds is not a sustainable strategy if you care about your hobby, your sport, or your rights. The majority of gun deaths are self inflicted by white men (the majority gun owing group) against themselves. No one wants this. We need an achievable and effective gun policy that is not going to start a second civil war yet will contribute to public safety in the country we have, not the perfect country we wish we had. As a policy this is what I'm thinking: A license to purchase, own, and operate any semi-automatic firearm that can accept a detachable magazine which can be attached/detached without the use of one or more hand tools. Note: The word ban is nowhere to be found. Who would implement and regulate? : NRA firearms instructors are trained rigorously to teach safety and effectiveness. Local Police are instructed in the same way and are taught safety. Both groups are qualified today to teach and certify as safe large numbers of Americans interested in obtaining a license for a detachable magazine semi-automatic (DMSA). That’s right, local & state police and NRA certified civilian instructors would be required to teach citizens a home safety course and target training. Congress would lock in today’s safety and training standards as the minimum standard going forward and would set limits on class pricing (min/max), class size, and the certification of instructors. Police and NRA instructors would charge a fee to cover costs of providing this service. All instructor programs would be required to carry liability insurance that will pay victims of gun deaths in the event that a trainee or graduate of that program intentionally and unlawfully kills themselves or harms another individual using a DMSA. How would you prove that you have the license?: Congress would provide funding through the highway funding bill to state DMVs to include a certification stamp on new drivers licenses and ID cards. An addendum type document issued by a DMV would suffice in the interim until a new license is issued or requested to be issued. Using a drivers license would standardize the process for notifying police of the increased potential for a firearm in a car in the event of a traffic stop and would contribute positively to gun owner safety and police safety on all fronts. All shooting ranges would be required to check for the license if someone wants to operate a DMSA on the premises as a condition of their insurance coverage. How would the policy roll out?: First, there would be an 18 month window to obtain the license. At first it will simply allow the operation of any DMSA and ownership will remain unlicensed as is current policy. After 24 months, anyone found owning or operating a DMSA without a license would be cited for a violation of the law (misdemeanor subject to surrender/confiscation by court order and fine). It would not be illegal to sell one of these illegally owned DMSAs to a legally licensed individual. Any state to choose to not participate in the program would lose federal highway funding. License validity and renewal would be on the same schedule as a drivers license. What is the likely effect?: Safety training should reduce accidental discharge and irresponsible storage which contribute greatly to gun deaths among children. The licensing process will slow down acquisition of the types of firearms most lethal to crowds in a realistic and sustainable way. The licensing process co-opts interested parties like the police, the NRA, insurance companies, and the gun industry and puts everyone on the same side of the table to work toward preventing gun deaths. The insurance part of the process keeps the police and NRA instructors honest and gives a clear path for recourse; any rubber stamp operation will eventually become uninsurable and will not be able to proceed certifying people. Most gun deaths are self-inflicted so instructors will be forced to implement some sort of mental health screening regime in order to identify risks in advance that would result in them becoming uninsurable. The federal government would not be directly involved in mental health screening or registering gun owners. The policy does not… Ban assault rifles; require a national registration; ban any firearms or any accessories such as stocks or magazines; affect revolvers, most shotguns, or most rifles commonly used for defense and hunting; restrict ammo; change the legal age to purchase a firearm; require the registration of any firearms; require the mandatory registration of all gun owners. So, am I insane? Suggested improvements? Something else that achieves the same result?