Anne-Marie: I am most concerned about how we support safe, responsible gun ownership to better protects kids, victims of domestic violence and the mentally ill. Many gun owners seem to think gun control advocates want to take everyone’s guns away. I certainly do not. I’m interested in finding ways to make communities safer given the presence of so many guns.

Chris: The big push right now politically, both statewide and federally, is for universal background checks. While 90 percent of adults in the U.S. support them, where people disagree is the implementation: Currently, in most states, the only way to legally buy a firearm without a background check is through a private sale. The proposed federal law, which some states have already implemented, would require both buyer and seller to go to a Federal Firearms License (F.F.L.) dealer to complete the sale, including background checks, which would cost a small fee. The fee is the reason the current bill being pushed by House Democrats had opposition from gun owners.

I would like the background check database to be open to the public. Buyers could run their information through, get a code and bring it with a government ID to the seller. The seller would put in the code and see either a pass or a fail. It’s simple, inexpensive and convenient and makes this new F.F.L. plan seem purposefully onerous.

Anne-Marie: The system you describe sounds great to me. I don’t see a reason to make people go to a dealer. Would the buyer or seller’s activity in the system be recorded? I’m not saying that it should be, as I can see a constitutional negative in creating a government-accessible record.

Chris: The system can be set up essentially as it is now, where the only record kept is that a background check happened — no record of the gun sale, type of gun or serial number.

Anne-Marie: I do believe that most gun owners are responsible people. But in general, owning a gun for “protection” is a mixed bag. It’s dangerous and, in many cases, foolish. I hear what you’re saying about individual rights, though I think that the first phrase about a “well ordered militia” is often ignored by the right and a case could be made that it calls into question whether or not the amendment supports individual gun ownership separately from participation in a formal (recognized?) defensive body. Doesn’t society have a responsibility to children, or is that simply a part of the parents’ rights?

Chris: I am 100 percent in favor of helpful things that aren’t laws. When you buy a gun it comes with a large warning booklet that includes safe storage and how to keep them away from children. There are resources, too. But if people want government to do something, I think tax breaks on storage safes and locks would help. We could have negligence laws for parents who leave guns accessible to children, but they must have the right to due process.

Anne-Marie: There are laws that punish parents when they are found to be negligent. Sadly, it’s often the death or injury of a child which brings them to the attention of authorities. But you’re correct that the legal reality is that rights of adults in their own home will always supersede the rights of their children. Individual freedom means that society mostly stays out of the home, and while in general a good thing, it assumes a carefulness, maturity and attentiveness that not all parents live up to. A tax break on safes and locks is a great idea, though I admit I’ve always wondered how a gun locked away can be effective as a self-protection tool.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.