Oh, I see what you mean.

As with anything else, it's about balance. I'd never advocate totally doing away with gun laws altogether, nor would I be in favor of the opposite extreme.

I'm definitely in favor of some restrictions that don't currently exist, or only exist in watered down forms: the so-called universal background checks, good communication between mental health authorities and the background check database, and continued restrictions for domestic abusers and those subject to a protective order (and most states do some form of all of these). I would be in favor of things like limits on how many weapons you can buy within a certain period, as well (my state used to have one of those until it was repealed). I also believe we should do more to compile data, both on criminal uses and on how often guns are used in self-defense. The latter especially is, I expect, under-reported as part of the national conversation (just look at the defensive gun usage subreddit, which also shows misuse). More data is rarely a negative.

The big thing I would add is more training requirements, while simultaneously breaking the NRA's monopoly on firearms training. To get a concealed carry permit in Virginia, for example, requires laughably little training, for example, and that needs to change. But it needs to be handled like any other professional certification or a driver's license: certain standards are established, and then whoever wants to set up a training facility may do so. Hopefully enough competition can keep costs down, since I don't want to totally price low-income people out of this (although shooting is already an incredibly expensive hobby, so I'm not sure how much worse this would really be). I'd also like to remove the distinction between owning a handgun and doing the things you have to do to get a concealed-carry. I think if you're going to buy one, you should have to meet the requirements (training and background) to get a CCW.

I believe this will have a couple effects. First, it'll hopefully remove a lot of the anxiety on the part of non-gun owners. People aren't nervous about cops having guns, even though plenty of cops do not keep up with their skills and are terrible shots. (And this is referring to non-shootout situations, not when they're facing someone else with a gun.) Regardless, if people know that those of us who are armed have taken the time to learn it, it does more to reinforce the idea of the "responsible gun owner." The other thing is, hopefully, a cultural change: if it's something we take seriously, my hope is that this may actually help stop crime. Good old fashion cultural pressure on people to not abuse gun ownership can, I think, make a difference. Don't get me wrong, it's not going to magically halve the homicide or suicide rate, but I think it can make a difference, maybe even a bigger one than we'd expect, while also helping to see being a gun owner as a responsibility in addition to a right. Finally, just look at the crime rates among CCW-holders, which tend to be much lower than elsewhere. (It's hard to find good data on this, but see here and here).

I wouldn't be in favor of registration, despite the driver's license analogy, both because I don't think it does much as a crime deterrent and because I'm worried about people trying to dox gun owners (something that has happened before).