For What It's Worth - why we need gun reform, not control

A new year, a new government, and talks quickly shifted back to immigration reform. Birthright citizenship came back into the spotlight, and it appeared that the anchor baby defenders would finally have to answer the hard questions.

These talks came to a halt, and for good reason. Tucson, Arizona joined a list that no resident wants their hometown to be on. A senseless act of violence killed 6, injured 13, and left distraught families and a grieving nation wondering why it happened. It makes me physically sick to think about the amazing individuals who were injured or are no longer alive, and I cannot imagine the pain being felt by their families.

The scenario is not a new one: mentally unstable, weapon acquired, violent plan executed. A breakdown at any stage would have prevented it, but much attention will go to the weapon of choice – the gun. I understand how gun defenders argue that crazy people can use other violent means. I also feel that it is in gun rights activist's best interest to prevent violent individuals from carrying out these acts with their prized possession. In my opinion, the best way to preserve the right to own guns is to help make sure they are not used in senseless acts of violence. Make sense?

To simply say, “bad people do bad things and there's nothing we can do” is WEAK. There has to be a better way. We are a country of innovators, and that should go beyond science and technology. We are the United States of the great compromise, the balance of power, and a constitution that is solid as a rock, but flexible enough to change if needed. Our portfolio of innovation is more than Apple's latest lineup of gadgets.

I find it wrong to scream about a problem without offering a solution. Here goes:

In the recent cases of Virginia Tech, Ft. Hood and Tucson, one thing stands out that (to my knowledge) has never been highlighted: they all purchased their weapon alone. All shooters walked into a respected place of business, met the requirements of gun ownership, and walked out with the tool that they would need to carry out their disgusting plans.

Owning a gun is a big deal. There are great uses for guns (primarily rifles and shotguns), but in a civilized society, the potential negatives far outweigh the positives. The amount of responsibility that goes along with gun ownership is huge – kind of like owning a car (stick with me on this). Buying a car takes a while to process, and the bank loaning the money does a good job making sure the borrower will pay it back. It’s typical for a young person looking to buy a car to need co-signers. The young man or woman has to ask parents or well-off friends if they will assure the bank that it’s safe to make the loan, and this means the co-signers will have to put their money where their mouth is.

What if we made firearm buyers do the same thing? What if we required someone to cosign for a gun? It wouldn’t take away any rights of the law-abiding gun buyer (what hunter doesn’t have buddies?) and it would prevent a reclusive lunatic from easily purchasing a firearm from a store. Sure they could buy from the black market, but at least there’s the chance that the seller is an undercover cop.

I would be happy to cosign for a close friend who wanted to make that purchase, and I would take on the responsibility of remembering the gun if I ever thought they became unstable. It won’t completely prevent bad things from happening. I get that no one can read the minds of their best friends, but it says something if someone can get a few people to vouch for them on this type of purchase.

Like I said before – it’s a big purchase, and there should be disclosure amongst friends and community. I’m planning on becoming a gun owner, maybe soon. Regardless of the rules, I’ll be sure to take some friends.

If conservatives are demanding that the 14th amendment be reinterpreted because the current conditions call for a different policy, they need to give the second amendment the same treatment.