If that's how you judge what was accomplished, ban back-yard swimming pools, ladders, bunny slippers, and flip-flops. That will save many more lives than anything proposed in the article.
While Mr. Kristof takes a very naive approach to gun violence, at least he's willing to admit that the 1994 AWB (and "assault weapon" bans in general) is a fools errand and had no affect other than burdening law abiding gun owners.
His use of the coal-gas v. natural-gas ovens in GB is interesting but misguided. Ovens aren't meant to be inherently dangerous. Guns are. There is nothing that can change that. There was a study done in 1976 by Norman Kreitman that found that there was a correlation in the decline in the overall suicide rate after the switch from coal gas to natural gas, the only real affect was on older males (75+). For males under 45, the suicide rate was effectively unchanged. THe suicide rate in the overall population decreased during this time also decreased, but suicide rates in the vast majority of industrialized countries declined at approximately the same rate during this time period, regardless of whether coal gas or guns were available. This correlates directly with improved psychiatric/psychologic treatment in those same countries.
Those who are bound and determined to kill themselves are going to find a way to do it. We've had several high school students commit suicide in the last two years and quite a few more who have survived suicide attempts. Of all of those, only one was with a firearm and nothing proposed in the article regarding gun law changes would have prevented that. The gun was his gun and he was 18. Neither safe-storage laws or "smart" guns would have applied to him since he would have had access to his own guns, even in safe storage, and he would have been an "authorized user" of his own "smart" gun.
The majority of gun owners may favor universal background checks, but the majority of gun owners are also opposed to a federal gun registry. Why is this important? Because the only way to enforce a UBC law is to have a federal registry. What would be the exceptions to the UBC? If I'm at the range with a friend and they want to have a chance to shoot one of my guns, is that considered a transfer and would it require a background check? If so, would I have to get a background check to get it back? What about lending a gun to someone in my hunting party because theirs isn't working properly? What about inheritance and gifts? And what about the tax liability for each transfer? Washington state's current UBC law states that every transfer also incurs the sales tax based on the fair-market value of the gun along with any other taxes that are imposed by the state on firearms transfers. "But criminals won't be able to pass the background check to get the gun and we'll all be dancing in happy rainbow and unicorn land!" Um. Criminals don't buy guns themselves. They either steal them, have someone who who will pass a background check buy it for them (called a straw purchase), or buy it from another criminal who stole it. All of those methods are already explicitly illegal. A straw purchase is already a federal felony, but it is almost never prosecuted. Same with lying on the 4473 form filled out by the buyer under penalty of perjury when buying a gun from an FFL. If the buyer is denied, and it isn't a case of mistaken identity (more common than you'd think), there is a very good chance that they potential buyer flat-out lied on the form. It's almost never even investigated, let alone prosecuted. That, right there, is the biggest issue. We have firearms laws in place, but they're almost never prosecuted. Less than 0.01% of the background check denials are ever prosecuted and those are usually added to other charges as an afterthought.
Smart guns? Microstamping? They're wonderful in theory, but are so easily defeated in practice as to be nothing more than adding unnecessary expense to a firearm. If the "stamp" is inside the chamber and deep enough to effectively imprint into the shell casing, it will interfere with the proper operation of the gun. That's not something I want to deal with if I'm depending on that gun to protect myself and my family in my home. If it's shallow enough to not interfere with operation, it's easily polished away in a few minutes. Also, with some steel cartridge casings, there is no effective way to imprint the stamp in the chamber of a standard semi-automatic handgun. If the stamp is on the firing pin surface, it will probably be peened out of existence on its own withing a couple hundred rounds. Bad guys will also simply polish off the firing pin tip and, voila, no more microstamp.
Smart guns create their own set of issues. Who's allowed to shoot the gun? Only the registered owner? Whoever the owner decides? If it's only the registered owner, why is my wife not allowed to use it in defense of our home simply because I'm only allowed one person on the smart gun? What if the batteries go dead? Does it make the gun inoperable? What about bad guys? If someone steals that gun, a law saying that it's illegal to remove the "smart" part of the gun and turn it back into a "dumb" gun isn't going to stop them. It was already illegal to steal the gun, why would they care about the other part of the law? (It's not that hard. Every smart gun prototype that has come out has been "broken" in very short order after it's release.)
Smart guns may have a very small affect on firearms suicides, but that will be offset by deaths from smart guns that fail when law-abiding gun owners are attempting to defend themselves. Pin numbers? Really? What's the first thing that goes in a high-stress life-or-death situation? Fine motor control. "Mr bad guy, can you hang on a second. I keep getting the pin number wrong on my gun." Um. sure. Fingerprint scanners? I use them on multiple occasions every day on some very high-end hardware and they only work the first time about half the time. If my hands are dry or not completely clean, they won't work. And these aren't scanners that have been minaturized to the point of working in a gun without making in unnecessarily cumbersome. I shouldn't have to ask a bad guy to wait while I wash my hands so I can defend myself.
Liability insurance for gun owners hasn't been thought through by those proposing it. If a car is stolen and used in a crime, the owners liability insurance doesn't apply to the victims of the crime. Same with guns. Insurance companies aren't going to pay out for that and a law requiring it wouldn't stand up in court. If a gun is used in self defence, such as when someone breaks into a home, the gunowners liability insurance isn't going to cover the death or injuries sustained by the criminal. So that leaves accidental shootings. Having talked to several insurance agents about it, the probability of an accidental gun discharge/accidental shooting happening from a specific gun is so infintesimally small that the premium wouldn't cover the effort that the agent had to put into selling the policy. I don't believe that liability insurance is the real goal here, but a back-door registration mechanism. After all, how would it be enforces without some sort of registration?
Safe storage requirements: My guns are always locked up when not in use. Your definition of "use" may differ from mine though. I always have one gun that is loaded and ready to use. It is always on me, except for when I'm sleeping, showering, or somewhere I can't carry. In the last case, it's locked up. In the other two cases, it's within arms reach of me. I don't have kids at home that can get to it without my knowledge. I have grandkids that are curious and they know I have it. When they're over, the gun is on me, and if they're staying the night, it gets locked up. With that said, since I don't have any curious little hands seeking it, why should I be required to keep it locked up at night thereby delaying any response that I might have to an intruder? Do I think keeping guns not necessary for immediate defense locked up is a good idea? Yes, I do. Do I think there should be a law requiring it? No, I don't. I think exercise and a healthy diet are good ideas also, but I'm not proposing that those ideas be enforced by law.
As you can see so far, everything proposed wouldn't affect criminal activity in the least, but would place create a great burden on law abiding gun owners. Also, none of the proposals would have prevented any of the mass shootings that have apparently reached "epidemic" proportions. Oh, wait. They haven't. They've actually declined since 1990 due in part to the significant increase in law abiding gun owners being allowed to carry firearms for defense of themselves and others.
And one more thing: Mr. Kristof proposes a "and a 10-year prohibition on possessing guns for anyone convicted of domestic violence, assault or similar offenses". Anyone convicted of domestic violence already has a lifetime prohibition on gun posession. The same goes for all felonies and violent misdemeanors. Changing it from lifetime to 10-years would be a step backwards and illustrates the naivete of Mr. Kristof.
