Here are some laws I'd like to have to obey:
• You must have a license to operate a firearm before you can buy a gun. This license is only issued after you have attended a level of training roughly comparable to what our law enforcement officers must complete, and passed a proficiency test. This license must be renewed every four years, and is dependent on passing ongoing tests of visual acuity and reaction time. The right of an individual to possess this license may legally challenged by anyone at any time (all costs paid by the challenger). If so challenged, the license holder must retake, and pass, all existing tests, and pass a psychological evaluation in order to regain his license.
• A significant fee/fine will be imposed on anyone who discharges a weapon anywhere other than registered shooting ranges, or registered hunting areas. (This is not a perfect analogy, but the cost of speeding tickets is one of the prime reducers of speeding, and the concomitant automotive injuries/fatalities.) This fine is imposed on a bullet-by-bullet basis. This allows anyone to stand their ground/protect their castle/insert cliche here, but maybe there'll be that extra 10 msecs of thought that'll save Uncle Don, who got up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom, or, more significantly that spouse who just WON'T LEAVE IT ALONE!!
• It will be illegal to possess more two clips' worth of ammunition for any one gun at any time. If you're in the aforementioned registered hunting area, and you can't bag a deer in twelve shots - well, maybe hunting's not in your wheelhouse. If you're at the shooting range, and you run out, you walk 8 feet to the counter and buy more.
Why are these laws even being considered? You know why. A gun is a power substitute. I was going to say "penile substitute", but that would be exclusive. It gives you more power than the sum of your muscles. It allows you to subdue others that you could not subdue with your muscles alone. In sports, we call that "cheating".
We do live in a world that contains situations where the use of a gun is what can only be called an appropriate response. What I don't want is a world where the person who draws a gun to solve a problem has no training with that gun. If you look at that first hypothetical law above, you can pretty much substitute "car" for "firearm". We require our car operators to have training; why not our gun operators? A phrase my students get tired of hearing (besides "Does this outfit make me look fat?") is "The key to proficiency is repetition and familiarity". Significant occurences in our lives (like firing a gun under pressure) should not be unfamiliar.
There are those who will read my modest proposals and say that all these inconveniences will take the fun out of the sport. These people have never taken a family of four to a major-league football game. Firing a gun without inconvenience is (obviously) not a god-given right - we are not born with it. I was not born able to play the piano - I had to practice. And when Ann-Margaret was on TV, I would've told you that practicing was pretty doggone inconvenient. But I eventually realized it was necessary.
And to profess that operators of devices that subdue others against their will (and have the ancillary ability to kill) should not be trained, licensed and registered - oh, let's say "well regulated" - is ludicrous, it seems to me.