> - Begin with the limiting the strength of the NRA. They've become amazingly capable
> of radicalizing fearful citizens. They control the voting powers of numerous legislators
> (both left and right). And perhaps most importantly, have stifled study after study
> trying to understand why these events happen in America exclusively. There aren't
> many reports to study. If your pissed that nobody (including yourself) is offering
> any solutions, it's mostly because we still don't really understand the problem.
> Thanks largely to the NRA.
I agree the NRA is powerful, and sometimes overreaching. I don't know how you limit their strength though. I think it's a slippery slope when you try and control special interest groups. Should we limit the power of the ACLU and other similar groups? If we do it to one, we can do it to all and that may defeat the purpose of those groups existing. Although, back to your point, I'm not entirely familiar with the NRA and what they do, but from what I've seen they seem to want little to no new gun control measures, and I don't agree with that.
> - Keep "high risk" individuals from purchasing weapons. These would probably
> include violent/domestic violence criminals, people with certain physical (blindness)
> and mental disorders, and heavy drug and alcohol users.
I can agree with this, although this is semi already in place. People with these kinds of criminal records are likely already unable to buy a firearm. As for the other examples, I agree there to, but only to an extent. Mental instability is obviously the driving factor behind all of these mass shootings. No matter what political affiliation you have or what groups you follow, you're not going to do something like this unless there's something wrong with your brain. So I think this is an area that a lot of attention should be paid. I think you would have to be extremely careful in how you would implement any new policies though. One example, do you limit someone who takes medication for depression? I used to take anxiety medication, which can also be used to treat depression. Would I be on the list as someone who can't purchase a firearm? I've never battled depression, but based on that medication, it could have been viewed that way. Overall I agree with you on your overall point though, and like I said, mental wellness, to me, is an important area to hit.
> - Limiting the number of firearms and amounts of ammunition each citizen can own.
> This may sound controversial, I just don't understand why. I don't have an exact
> number in mind, but I think 5 guns and 500 rounds sounds reasonable. If you need
> more than that to protect yourself and your family, then I'd suggest you stop being
> an butt-hole and creating so many enemies. Any private citizen who "needs" more can't
> have good intentions. I'm also admittedly not 100% sure how to enforce this fully.
I don't agree with this one at all. I won't go into any details other than I totally disagree with it. Just my opinion.
> - Examine the current weaponry available, and come to a conclusion over which weapons
> are "overkill". Certain weapons simply aren't for mass consumption. I don't know
> which weapons these would be. I'd leave that to folks smarter than I of the situation.
> Military grade weapons would be a start. Ban the manufacturing and sale of these
> selected weapons and/or ammunition.
Again this is largely already done. You can't buy fully automatic weapons without miles of red tape. If you're thinking of banning semi automatic weapons too, then you're basically talking about limiting people to bolt action rifles and revolvers since just about all handguns are semiautomatic. I can't get behind that. I CAN get behind banning things like bumpfire stocks and other devices that are used to make a semiautomatic gun operate similar to an automatic one. To me, those devices aren't necessary.
> - Encourage and incentivize safety technology. I need to open my damn iPhone with
> a thumb scan. This should be capable on future gun manufacturing. I'm also sure there
> are other safety technologies that I'm not aware of.
I don't understand this one so no comment.
> - More responsible and more stringent training and licensing policies. Laws ensuring
> that the purchaser knows, and is aware of local/federal gun laws, knows how to safely
> load, shoot, and store firearms.
This is good in theory and I can get behind it. The onus is currently on the buyer to know the law and operate safely. It would be nice to have an outline of the laws/readily available safety training though. I don't this this would do anything to help gun violence at all, but would probably help with accidental injuries.
> - Do a better job on both a local and federal level of regulating gun dealers.
Local and federal level gun dealers are already heavily regulated and are forced to keep extremely detailed records and for a pretty long time. If you screw things up, you can easily lose your license. I don't think it's the gun dealers who are failing in these cases. I don't know for certain but it doesn't seem like this people are illegally purchasing guns from gun dealers.
> - Chris Rock rule. All bullets cost $5000 a piece. Anybody that gets shot must deserve
> it at that price. No more innocent bystanders. (A little levity hiding in a solid
> There's just a few. As a safe and registered gun owner with much more insight, I'd
> love to hear your suggestions, or thoughts on mine. Gotta get back to work.
I appreciate your insight. I think you can see we're not worlds apart on some of our thoughts.
As for my suggestions, there's one glaring failure that comes to mind. There is no background check currently required when buying a rifle from another private citizen. I've said this before, but I'll say it again. I bought an AK47 in a gas station parking lot one time. No paperwork was legally required. To me, that concept is insane. The law states "if you suspect this person cannot own a firearm, you can't sell it to them" or something like that. How does some stranger know what I'm up to? Any time any firearm changes ownership, a background check should be required.
Speaking of background checks, I don't know what they're currently checking for, but I wouldn't be opposed to a more stringent check. Even if it meant I'd have to wait to purchase a gun, I'd be okay with that. Currently I can walk in and be done in 15 minutes. I don't know if the system is just that good, or if they're not checking enough stuff about me.
Those are two things off the top of my head that may contribute. Although, in my opinion, NOTHING short of banning all guns would stop these things, which obviously isn't possible. That's not to say we shouldn't try, but I think we all know if someone wants to do harm like this, they're going to figure out a way to do it. People screaming for gun control, thinking some new laws are going to fix anything, are ignorant of reality. If a person has no criminal record or history of mental illness decides they're going to do something like this, there isn't much going to stop them.