Daniel Webster is making his list, checking it twice, gonna find out if his proposal is sugar and spice...or delusional.

I don't have any big problems with most of the first paragraph. Legally mandating some of the things in the fourth point would be a problem, but those are things anyone planning to carry concealed should do on their own, with the possible exception of conflict resolution training (because a lot of people simply don't need instruction on how not to be a dick in a conflict situation).

The rest is nonsense, obviously.

For example, I think training is a good idea for handgun owners that would go some way towards preventing accidental shootings, but would do nothing to cut down on suicides or murders.

Other though not so much. Why should someone with multiple misdemeanor alcohol convictions be banned from owning a gun? I fail to see any relationship between that law and preventing any type of gun violence. I also say no to "safe storage" laws, which are largely unenforceable in any event. A waiting period of two weeks is a non-starter.

My handgun already has a loaded chamber indicator. My understanding is that the smart gun technology isn't particularly good, but if one that is designed that works I wouldn't be opposed to it.

The rest is just anti-RKBA crap.

In fact, there is only one, number 2 in paragraph 1, that I'd even agree with.
The rest is just BS meant to impede legal gun ownership. Not one thing with the exception of the aforementioned, impacts criminals at all.

Merry Christmas Oregonceasefire:

"...legislative and educational, that could reduce gun violence by 30 to 50 percent in five years."

The additional training and target practice and conflict resolution sounds great. Securing guns, safer too. Add in mental health funding for the small 4 percent figure they cite for mentally ill people committing violent crime. Microstamped code on each bullet. I assume they mean casing. Normally, you can allow for non-technical terminology in layman discussions, but this is a big error for a group trying to propose significant legislative changes and don't know the difference or don't care.

Terminology aside, all these things cost money and more importantly for many gun owners, time. Works out great for me as I'm upper middle class income with a flexible schedule. Second best gun fight is one where you are the only person with a gun. Not so much for a single mom or lower wage guy working two jobs, neither of which provide paid time off. Maybe we could help defray the costs by imposing a poll tax to vote?

I'm strongly in favor of the additional training and it will surely move the average CC person into well regulated militia territory. So if society is supposed to benefit by this proposal for a significant increase in training and re-establishing the oft times referenced well regulated militia, society should help pay for it and include legislation where gun training and training time will have some sort of reimbursement from the State as last time I checked the police, national guard, etc. were paid and supplied.

Most of the rest I see as incremental gun confiscation and yet once again the average gun owner is treated as second class citizen as police are generally exempted from the microstamped casing regs.

Finally, what if after three years gun violence has not dropped by a rate that will reach their 30 to 50 percent goal in 5 years? Automatic sun setting clause? Buy back of all the high tech guns and bullets? I'll bet that decriminalizing drugs would reduce the gun violence rate by more than all the measures combined.

Is a good idea. To be honest, there are a lot of people who own guns that probably should not, and not because they are criminals but because they are careless and irresponsible. Training might help those folks avoid accidentally shooting themselves or someone else.

On gun specific solutions, it's one of my top priorities that I'd like to see a higher standard and more resources and one that you can get both sides of the issue on board with. However, you can't set such high standards that only rich white guys wind up being able to maintain their training status or be able to afford guns and bullets. The Oregon proposal certainly has the whiff of this with training on a scale of police and taxes on bullets and guns to support not only the training, but mental health resources. The old Chris Rock routine of the $1,000 bullet. However, if you want to push for police like training levels (by the way, some police units have lousy gun qualification standards) then you are entering the well regulated militia arena and the State should pony up money to support this well regulated militia training.

Having a gun is a serious responsibility, especially if someone is a CC, and the better trained and safer and more aware of the legal standing of gun usage the better it is for gun owners and the general public.