My "Fudd" proposal on the issue pertaining to firearms: The only fair compromise I can see. You likely won't agree no matter where you fall...

[t-8900]

I was debating on whether or not to actually post this but screw it I have to speak my mind on it. I will be posting MyTakes in the future on WHY most gun control fails. People often say "we forget" shortly after a mass shooting, ESPECIALLY gun owners. Ironically enough I conceal carry and I remember all of the big headliners. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Elliot Rodger, Dillian Ruth, there's honestly too many to list. I dont think ARs and AKs should be banned altogether BUT I do think you need a different grade drivers license and a grade 2 gun license with a federal and state locale qualification to obtain, as well as finger printing, AND you need to allow Law Enforcement to come physically see the gun safe you will be storing it in, finger printing, a mental health screening (with lawyers present) as well as a waiting period of 6 months. Yes I said 6 months.

In the meantime if you need a gun for protection a handgun is already your best bet for personal defense. If you are worried about bears you can obtain a 10mm carbine or shotgun loaded with slugs. 10 rounds is often not enough and at the same time 30 rounds are often too many. I propose a compromise. No one can obtain magazines exceeding 15 rounds. This allows citizens the ability to lawfully buy and possess handguns with normal/standard capacity magazines. To get larger magazines one must obtain a separate license with a one time fee of $1,000 on a 10 year basis, which can go to funding socialized healthcare facilities that care for and the crime prevention of the mentally ill. And NO we should not grandfather in any magazines over 15 rounds.

If someone wants those larger magazines or an AR they need to allow the police to come in ONE TIME unannounced in that 6 month waiting period to check high and low for magazines and AR and AK platform rifles. I used to be firmly left and firmly right at different points in my life. What we need is to preserve freedom AND provide for our people. Socialized healthcare now, it's a must! It's a duty to stop things like this! PERIOD! I AM an avid supporter of the second Amendment! I own 26 firearms myself but I keep all but my carry piece and bedstand piece under lock and key at all times. I also have no children, but if I did I would keep those locked away too.

ALL GUN SALES MUST BE DONE THROUGH A FFL, NO EXCEPTIONS! No private sales without records. Idgaf what you think about this, it's ALWAYS sat wrong with me. It's very easy for a guy who wants to make a quick buck to get rid of guns ASAP to ANYONE who will buy them, or the accessories. NO! Those serial numbers transfer under a federalized system, period. We can't let nuts get their hands on something they will NEVER respect. You can sell to someone and have no idea who they are. Hell they might just shoot you dead and take your gun if you aren't careful. But they could take it, turn around, and rob a store with it or commit far worse crimes. NO MORE PRIVATE SALES!

Training MUST become a priority for ALL gun owners. It's time to give the testing and qualification course universally in this country. HOW do we do it? We set up a training course and a written exam that you MUST pass to obtain your first firearm. You will NOT have to pay for this course like in the past. It's unfair people have to PAY for a right. This should be covered by tax payer money. No ands, ifs, or buts. The reason for this is so the poor and middle class can still have their fighting chance in the rougher neighborhoods and not be victims like back in my old neighborhood. Every social class deserves the ability to defend themselves, period.

Go ahead and trash me if you must. There is no perfect fix! Here are the shortcomings of this and ANY proposals:

1) Criminals will still ignore it

2) It won't be easy to enforce

3) mag limits dont work, FACT. But I'll throw a bone to make people FEEL safer

4) The very uber conservatives and libertarians will see me as a "fudd" or someone who doesn't stand up for gun rights and or advocates for more gov control. But face it, too many goddamn people today are stupid with everything from their cell phones, cars, alcohol, drugs, and yes, guns. I've defended the 2nd Amendment at virtually every turn in my whole adult life starting back to when I was 19! I attended rallies, donated money, helped educate people, trained new shooters, Don't say I don't care about 2A....

All schools should be outfitted with all bulletproof windows, 4-6 armed and HIGHLY trained Security forces on par with professional merc groups that help fight private wars. They should be outfitted with grade 4 body armor, radio communication, cameras, tear gas launchers, a side issued FN Five-Seven and FN P90 to pierce armor but cause less collateral damage to targets beyond the person they're engaging, a 12 gauge Mossberg 590A1 shotgun, armored Jeeps, and be proficient in close quarters fighting engagements like the Israeli security forces. You think it's "too expensive"? It's a shot in the bucket to what we spend overseas each year and every pointless war we've been in since Nam!

This has to be a group effort! Both sides need to come to the table and agree and make peace and shake hands! Most of you will hate my proposals BUT like it or not they are realistic and a compromise for both sides to live with each other in harmony over the issues of the second amendment! Those that think we need to ban all guns, there's no conversation to be had. I'll stand with the other side before I see ALL guns removed. Keep our children safe and let freedom ring!

[Wsx2wsx2ws]

OK WOW that is a big write up.
I don't have a gun. I don't plan on having a gun. I don't want a gun. But Still I find that logical thinking is important on this and its just not being looked at this way.
I have this big dog who is a Pit Bull Boxer mix. Some consider this type of dog dangerous. Should we outlaw "dangerous dogs"? There are many who feel we should.
I watched as a judge ruled against the owner because he had a dangerous dog. His point was that these dogs can do far more harm then little ones. The owner's point was that was the reason for some people having a big dog (the owner never used the term dangerous). It was for protection. And the dog did what it was supposed to do. The judge agreed and emphasized the owner holds more accountability by not being trained to handle such a dog.
If you EVER watch Cesar Millan you will know that its not the dog that is dangerous or out of control or what ever. He points out and makes it very clear it is almost always the human. We know this and we expect dog owners to have their dogs "under control" or well trained. I did. My pet was well trained and the whole neighborhood loved her. No one ever considered her dangerous.
I cannot fathom why the object of a gun is being focused on when we see clearly that its always the human that is the error. Yes guns can do more damage and the accountability is much higher. But its the out of control human who is doing the damage not the gun itself. If people believe that getting rid of guns will solve the problem, we have clear evidence this is not the case with NY and Chicago where gun laws are far tighter and gun deaths are far greater. Criminals can and will get their hands on guns illegally the same as they can and do with drugs.
I understand that people are afraid. But what really is it you are afraid of? I would wager dangerous people.
There is so much more that can be said about this. And I am very happy that people are talking and not being banned or censored. I also hope that people are trying to listen even if they are strongly emotional about it.

[Wsx2wsx2ws]

That is all completely logical. We already know that the brain is not fully developed till 24, and that drinking is limited to 21 very strictly.
Major troubles are criminals and crazies are not logical. Also almost all these shootings are from mentally ill or emotionally unstable people and this is their last stand for a suicide. We should by all means raise the age. Not so sure about the ammo because I watch many of my friends make their own. But not a stroke of a pen on gun control is going to address the cause. In the past few days the suicide and mental illness has been shown to be the reason why these happened.
If these people used cars bombs as the weapon would we pass stricter car laws? Or what do they do? put up barricades like most buildings do with this threat.
The better focus is to take serious mental illness, suicide signs, and security measures. Schools have our most precious treasures. Yet they are not protected anywhere near what even some grocery stores have.
As far as security goes, we don't need guns in class rooms. How is it most facilities have such great security but not a gun in the building? Because you cannot even get on the property before going through security. Security does not even need a gun. Stops, barricades and tasers could contain the threat. Sure some one can shoot through a fence at the schools but the amount of cover available from that distance is a game changer compared to the gun men being in the building and the classrooms. There he is also mixed with the children where its hard to take the shot and take him down.
Additionally any child/teen seen to have a troubling mental condition that is expelled can be photo IDed at the gate and not allowed in. People like this need special attention not general education. We all know how emotionally stressful school social environment can be. So separate but not abandon these people in need.

[OlderAndWiser]

The question that I pose in response to all gun control proposals is this: If this proposal had been adopted 20 years ago, how many of the school shootings and other mass shootings would have been prevented?

This is NOT a statement posing as a question; it is a genuine question. It seems to me that many of these school shooters obtained guns from their parents or illegally and that restrictions on their ability to possess firearms would not have deterred the crimes at all. If "gun control" proposals won't actuallt stop the crimes being committed, then we are just infringing on the rights of innocent citizens without any offsetting benefit.

[t-8900]

I would say it's very possible it would. The way in which to do it would be for parents, having been forced to adopt such harsh requirements would more likely be on top of their own kids. Hiding the codes/keys to the safe would help immensely as it would be too hard to break opened for the kid. Having a strong mental healthcare system established 20 years ago would have more than likely helped psychologists discover a pattern among younger people. Keeping the windows of schools bullet proof, having a small swat-like security force on each campus, and metal detectors would have stopped a lot too. I would argue in the same way you rarely ever see a shooting in a courthouse. All that security!

[OlderAndWiser]

So all you need is the same type of security at schools. And security is expensive, so future schools should be built larger and in more central locations to improve the economy and feasibility of the security measures.

[t-8900]

no, not necessarily. Simply install the security devices at the entrances and exits, replace regular windows with bullet proof glass, if budget is an issue cut back on spending like the dumb sh*t in Ukraine that just happened. All tax revenue should go to OUR country and ONLY our country.

[OlderAndWiser]

It is much easier to adopt security measures in this country than it is to adopt gun control.

[t-8900]

won't argue there. But these people want to try to take it all away. I want a solution to be made to stop that from ever becoming a reality.

[kd5zes]

Criminals ignore laws - that's why they're ... CRIMINALS!
The people who obey laws are not those that need be worried about.

[Wsx2wsx2ws]

OlderAndWiser - If "gun control" proposals won't actuallt stop the crimes being committed, then we are just infringing on the rights of innocent citizens without any offsetting benefit.
t-8900 - I would say it's very possible it would.

The thing is Chicago and New York already have done this and their gun deaths are sky high. So this logic has been tried and failed. So now we want to apply it all over the country?
Again I am not a gun owner nor do I want to be. I do not believe the solution people are demanding is a solution but a tipping toward civil war. I am not joking this is real. Here is why.

I wonder how many have actually read the Declaration of Independence.
We are currently seeing the first and second amendment being trashed.
There is a reason for freedom of speech, freedom of press, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This leads to the reason for the right to bare arms. As stated in the DoI
"deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
This is why I say that his lack of logic will lead to civil war.

[Flower7]

Wouldn’t a trained mass shooter be even more dangerous than an untrained one?

[Lionman95]

Yes I think his idea is rather to put obstacles in the way of a possible shooter to get to weapons besides the financial price.

[Flower7]

Yeah but they might take the class and then be a professional at hitting their target instead of an amateur. That’s not good.

[Lionman95]

Yes true, but I think that taking classes isn´t the only method but also reduce the ways of getting certain typ of weapons to especially younger people.

[Wsx2wsx2ws]

I am curious, What law does a mass shooter consider important?

[Lionman95]

@Wsx2wsx2ws Why should a shooter consider a law as important? I just see it as some kind of a coincident that nearly all shooters are 21 and it at least seems like they all got their weapons legally.
So the idea is to make harder for them to get their weapons legally by raising the age that young people could buy weapons to make it harder for them. Because more security technique in itself won't solve the problem hence the school had already increased their video camera since the Santa Fe shooting in 2018.

[Wsx2wsx2ws]

So since mass shooters have no regard for life or law what will passing laws against guns do?

Perhaps if you are willing to watch this and really listen it might show what would really have happen if this woman did not have training or a gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwaJYf9NiVg

[Lionman95]

@Wsx2wsx2ws don't get me wrong I'm not against weapons in general. I just argue that buying a weapon should require a sense for responsibility and maturity.
Like you to be 21 to able to vote but you are to be a device that allows you to judge about life and death when you're 18. I just consider the first less harmful than the last one.
If you want to have weapons to feel more secure, you'll can buy as many as you like. But there will always be situations where it isn't easy to shoot down a person. If there is a such person go for it.
I just see the problem of a scenario where a shooter with supposedly 200/300 bullets. Do you wanna keeps a rifle in every classroom? I think it's way harder to shoot down somebody without also putting down students in danger.

[Wsx2wsx2ws]

@Lionman95 That is all completely logical. We already know that the brain is not fully developed till 24, and that drinking is limited to 21 very strictly.
Major troubles are criminals and crazies are not logical. Also almost all these shootings are from mentally ill or emotionally unstable people and this is their last stand for a suicide. We should by all means raise the age. Not so sure about the ammo because I watch many of my friends make their own. But not a stroke of a pen on gun control is going to address the cause. In the past few days the suicide and mental illness has been shown to be the reason why these happened.
If these people used cars bombs as the weapon would we pass stricter car laws? Or what do they do? put up barricades like most buildings do with this threat.
The better focus is to take serious mental illness, suicide signs, and security measures. Schools have our most precious treasures. Yet they are not protected anywhere near what even some grocery stores have.
As far as security goes, we don't need guns in class rooms. How is it most facilities have such great security but not a gun in the building? Because you cannot even get on the property before going through security. Security does not even need a gun. Stops, barricades and tasers could contain the threat. Sure some one can shoot through a fence at the schools but the amount of cover available from that distance is a game changer compared to the gun men being in the building and the classrooms. There he is also mixed with the children where its hard to take the shot and take him down.
Additionally any child/teen seen to have a troubling mental condition that is expelled can be photo IDed at the gate and not allowed in. People like this need special attention not general education. We all know how emotionally stressful school social environment can be. So separate but not abandon these people in need.

[Lliam]

Nice MyTake, t-8900. You put a lot of work into it. But I respectfully disagree.

The problems are with society, not guns. But nobody wants to tackle any of the causes of violence. All they want to talk about is "gun" violence.

For years, the annual firearm homicide rate hovered around 15-16,000. After the covid pandemic fear campaign and "emergency measures" the rate went up to 20,000 or more. I wonder if there is any correlation.

The FBI says that 80% of firearm related homicides are gang related. So if we take the current number of around 20,000, that means that 4,000 of those homicides were not gang related. Out of a population of 316,000,000 citizens, over 80,000,000 are legal owners of firearms.

Does anyone have an idea for getting rid of gang violence?
How can we prevent non-gang related armed robberies, burglaries, or rapes?
And how can we stop or prevent the occasional person from snapping and going on a murder rampage?

4,000 non-gang related deaths doesn't even rate on the list of overall causes of death. To put it in perspective, over 40,000 die each year from accidental falls. Accidental poisonings take the same number. Deaths from motor vehicles also claim 40,000 or so lives. Each is responsible for 10x more annual deaths than guns in the hands of non-gang members. But nobody acts like those are worthy of horror and outrage.

All long guns (rifles and shotguns) combined are used in 5 or 6% or all firearm related homicides. Those type of scary-looking semiautomatic rifles that they call "military-style assault weapons" are a subset of that and maybe account for 2.5%-3% of all gun related homicides. We're talking maybe 500 annual deaths. So why is it imperative to only try to ban those? Because they are a canard, not the goal.

The so called "assault weapons" that everyone has been programmed to fear are semiautomatic rifles. Semiautomatic rifles and pistols have been common for well over 100 years. The definition of semiautomatic is, it fires one shot per trigger pull and the gun rechambers automatically as opposed to being cocked manually.

So the next question is school shootings. What turns someone into a pressure cooker that finally explodes? And when they do explode, how do we stop them from harming people by gun, knife, club, bomb, motor vehicle, ?

Again, there are 316 million citizens and over 80 million legal gun owners. We can count the number of school shooters and even mass murderers on our fingers. So is the reasonable solution to create a police state tracks every citizen? Treat every citizen as a potential terrorist?

Defensive gun use (DGU) prevents crime.
The most conservative credible stats on DGU are 150,000 per year. DOJ put the number at closer to 1.5 million. Other credible studies estimate it at 3 or more million.

When interviewed in prison, violent criminals said they could avoid the police, but what they feared most was the random, unassuming citizen who might be armed. Criminals hate getting shot when they are trying to rape or rob people.

So how much rape, robbery, loss of precious valuables, injury, trauma and death was prevented by DGU? And compare that to the number of firearm related homicides.
Is it wise to make it more and more difficult and expensive for average people to defend themselves?
Is there any evidence that more restrictions won't result in more violence and not less? No, there isn't. But there ARE indications that harsh restrictions don't work. The cities with the strictest gun restrictions have the highest rates of gun related homicide.

It seems like "gun free zones" are more like shooting galleries.

[Lliam]

I support 2nd amendment rights.
- I do think instant background checks are a good idea. How else can we avoid selling to criminals?
- I'm opposed to registration. What's the purpose of that? It goes along with the globalists plans to track and trace everyone 24/7 and keep every bit of data on them. I'm not ready for that dystopian nightmare.
- I think it's good that machine guns and explosives are not available to the public.
But I will never concede to banning semiautomatic firearms. It's an old technology and it only makes sense that a gun can cock itself. Gun designs have improved in recent years, and accessories have become more ergonomic and versatile. But they still fire one shot per trigger pull, just like the popular Winchester 1903 (made in 1903). Same principle.

The thing is, there are thousands of gun laws. The Gun Control propagandists act like we don't have any. They keep pushing for more and more legislation no matter how many laws are already on the books. The idea of compromising with them is absurd because they will never be satisfied.

The Gun Control Lobby's goal is not to save lives. It is to limit the general public's ability to own firearms to the greatest extent possible. The globalists who are determined to create a technocratic, totalitarian New World Order can't risk armed citizens.

[BCA6010]

The fact you're going after a tool and not the actual problems even while fully acknowledging the firearms technology and capabilities have been basically unchanged for decades before mass shootings became a relatively common occurance pretty much derails the entire thing. It's neither a good compromise, or effective at improving public safety.

There is no good solution that doesn't involve both a short term fix, which involves inspection, overhaul, and diligence from a security standpoint at the school, and a long term program to steer cultural values back on track. As it currently stands, people especially the younger you look care less and less about each other to the point that they don't even value their peers as human life. This is a trend that has been building for a while but it is reaching a catastrophic breaking point exacerbated by digital lives/social media, apathetic and absent parents and teachers, and political indoctrination that glamorizes victimhood and deviance for the sake of themselves. The public school system in the US right now is basically a sociopath factory, and all of the above has directly contributed to a skyrocketing suicide rate with kids, as well as the development of mental disorders. The go-to treatment is usually to start shoving mind-altering drugs down their throats, making them even more f*cked in the head.

Making it pointlessly harder (or impossible) for law-abiding citizens to arm themselves would result in an almost immediate spike in violent crime, and also do nothing to stop a psycho from killing people, because they'll just switch to blades, cars and bombs if they have to. All three of those and others have also gone up substantially, but often goes unreported by the media because it's not politically useful.

Our country will *never* be safe and continue to get worse if we keep ignoring root problems in favor of idiotic, counter-productive "feel-good" solutions that people foolishly believe are quick fixes.

[PastorJohn69]

Ok... I actually see your point from a similar point of view.
I think IQ test should be a facto, mental stability, and random tests periodically.
Yes safety is a huge factor, children under certain age shouldn't need to know anything about how ti use/load them or have a clue where the keys are.
Ballistics should be on file before it leaves the factory...
I'm with you... smaller mags... yup.

Here is a point I'm gonna make...
They want our guns because revolution is in the air. That's a fact
They want to see who is dumb enough to give in
They want us disarmed for the next evolution of this shit show.
They make things happen to support their causes...
Do the homework and check the dates...
Every time they ask for sticker gun control or try to abolish 2A, there is a school shooting or some mass shooting every time. Every time.
And if you dig a little deeper... the person responsible was registered Democrat... or if they never regestered then their parents were
Fact

[Massageman]

Well, I'll along with most of it.
4-6 SWAT's and an armored jeep per school might be a bit of a stretch, though.

Your 4 shortcomings are right on, the most critical being YOUR #1- that CRIMINALS WILL FIND A WAY TO GET A GUN, NO MATTER WHAT! The political hacks can make a hundred laws- a million laws - heck, a BILLION laws for that matter. They won't work- the thugs ignore them and they know they have a near 100% chance of getting off. All they (the excessive laws and their supporters) do is tick-off the law-abiding citizens who are being stripped of their rights. I took our town's Citizens Police Academy course several years ago, before all this recent Bravo Sierra stuff. Very interesting. At least I learned that my shoulder (surgery) couldn't really manage a.38cal , more likely a 9mm for my PP. A 15+1 load is reasonable, it will at least give you 5x 3-shot (stop, heart, head) bursts plus leave you with one in.

Amen on keeping or families safe!

[bademoxy]

bigger government (=Leftism) is not the solution. As a Libertarian I present the case that big government policies CREATED this mass shooting problem.
semiauto high cap guns have been around almost a century, so WHY aren't you asking "WHAT CHANGED in the last few decades, since guns basically didn't?"
Gun bans are attacking a symptom, NOT the cause, though idiots believe that certain guns somehow take over their owner's mind to go berserk.
so what DID change? the answer is to look for a common factor in MOTIVATION rather than the means, because there's many other ways to also cause mass death.
What virtually ALL the killers had in common is the same as within our prisons : broken families and fatherlessness- an outcome of 3 generations of The Welfare state.

[goaded]

Wow. It's a funny thing that I've found myself agreeing with the most unlikely people on here over the last month or so.

I'd like to know where "3) mag limits dont work, FACT." comes from. The Gabby Giffords shooting, for example, was stopped when the shooter had to re-load. The magazine he was using was illegal until 2004.

That said, background checks, training, evaluation, and, one you didn't mention, red flag laws sounds like a reasonable compromise.

(Firearms have overtaken vehicles as the leading cause of death for under-20s.)

[goaded]

Funnily enough the only other two responses are from people who have blocked me.

As to the one who says "A majority of gun crime is committed by thugs with no dad at home. Fix that." - Sure, stop locking people up for minor drug crimes.

I didn't address the security thing; why do I get the feeling that it will entail paying people more than teachers to sit around doing nothing for years and then not risking their lives to save the kids when it's needed?

[goaded]

Have you seen the front page of The Onion, today? 20 headlines: "‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens".

Also: "America is currently wrestling with the difficult and controversial question of whether it’s worth it to make an effort to keep children alive, not to mention safe, educated, or healthy. The Onion looks at the pros and cons of just letting children die.
PRO

Raising children too easy without additional stakes
Gives bipartisan congressional leadership something to ignore together
Great fundraising material
Can convert child’s bedroom into exercise room sooner than expected
Less fodder for pedophiles
Way, way easier than trying to not let children die

CON

Waste of a good tax break
Could hurt the football program
Fewer family members to protect with guns
Might sometimes also lose a good kid
Probably bad for economy somehow
No way to watch grandchildren die someday"

[bamesjond0069]

This is just a "do something, do anything, dont you care?" Ranting. None of the gun restrictions do anything. You even admit it in your post. So why infringe peoples rights for no reason?

The real issue is the root cause of school shootings and thats our modern liberal society. Liberal society raises weak men. Weak men are prone to mental illness. Which leads to random violent outbursts. Which gets you mass shootings. Until we are ready to go back to a time when men would be locked in an institution if they wanted to wear a dress, expect the violence to get worse.

[user0000047]

Simply put I disagree because the purpose of owning guns is not self defense, its to kill politicians and fight a war against our tyrannical government if need be. Now you can go ahead and pretend citizens would never stand a chance against the U. S. government but you'd be entirely wrong. The U. S. government has not once been able to truly defeat a dedicated guerrilla force on foreign soil. Now you might be thinking fighting guerillas on foreign soil is more difficult, you are dead wrong. American guerillas would have easy access to all of America's infrastructure that props the entire military.

The right to bear arms is a god given right, rights are not granted by the government, they are not to be restricted because again, its not granted by the government.

[Avicenna]

Mental health screening with lawyers present? Who would pay for that, who would those lawyers be representing and what about confidentiality/HIPAA? I'm sure a lot of leftists would be chomping at the bit to get paid to declare potential firearms owners mentally unfit to own them just due to their ideology.

[Avicenna]

Also, trucks would probably become the weapon of choice for mass attacks.

And being required to allow law enforcement into your home to inspect a safe is very problematic because they'd be able to cite you for things they see in your home or use them to obtain a search warrant they wouldn't otherwise be able to, or even search without a warrant because they could say they saw something in plain sight.

[Tstrbrainer]

I have a question, since I don't know much about firearms.

Hypothetically I'm a criminal who don't read penal codes before committing a crime.
I put on a bulletproof vest and helmet and with my another buddy, decided to visit your home in the middle of the night. We let ourselves in , can you successfully defend yourself with a small handgun or don't you need something bigger?

[RationalMale]

There is no compromise anymore. That's reality. If Biden manages to shove gun confiscation through things will go horribly.

[OddBeMe]

We could outfit schools like we do military bases in Iraq. But then who will pay for the therapy of the kids?

[Pudsmucker]

Bravo I like your thinking and I agree with it strongly. There's always going to be that whiner in the group.

[OldWorldOrder]

Nah, I'd rather fight a civil war.

[Andres77]

Honest effort.

[Andres77]

I've already posted twice today about how schools should be better protected than the banks.
Shortcomings #1 and #2 will sink the whole effort.

I don't know how to fix the mental illness thing.
I refuse to listen to anything democrats have to say until Chicago and Destroit and Baltimore , etc are fixed. They already have the strictest gun control measures in the country and also the highest murder rates.
Gun owners need safes, absolutely. And heavy prosecutions for non-compliance.
Licenses... could work. With graduating qualifications and documentation.
There are still kids in the country that skip school on the opening day of hunting season. They provide meat for their families. But they also have a hunter/safety course and a legitimate need and they're supervised... because most of them have a DAD!!!
A majority of gun crime is committed by thugs with no dad at home. Fix that.
When 3% of a nations population commits 49% of all violent crime... that's a big issue no one is talking about.
Criminals DGAF about any law.

Police coming to people's homes... never going to work.
ATF is one of the most corrupt and incompetent LEA in the USA. It won't work and I'll leave it at that.
Hey, driving a vehicle into a crowd has increased lately, hasn't it? Why? Because some worthless POS wanted to hurt as many people as possible and couldn't get a gun.
Gun or vehicle then isn't the most important problem. Why do people feel murderous?

Y'all wanna fix the problem by treating the symptom but none of you educated people can fix the cause so you blame the most self controlled people within the country for your problems.
Each and every state in this nation has more guns than just about any other nation on the planet, minus China.
If WE were the problem... you'd know it.