Some of those in your list are required in the interest of the public. Why couldn’t we find some similar measures for gun ownership?
We can, if those measures don’t include bans.
Because bans eliminate a means for me to defend myself, and more importantly remove one of the checks and balances and separation of powers from our system of government, and provide no commesurate benefit that justifies those risks.
They also lead to more crime not less, they don’t address the problem. You never reduce crime by disarming the victims, you’ve simply created more attractive victims for the criminal.
The problem is two pronged. First, how do we keep people from wanting to do this in the first place? How do we eliminate the motive- it’s not money, it’s a desire for wanton destruction. Eliminate that, and the shootings/bombings/poisonings/gassings stop.
Second. How do we best protect the public in those cases where someone gets this idea?
I like the idea of insurance for gun owners, however, the poor in lousy neighborhoods are the ones who have the greatest need for access to weapons. I live in a pretty good neighborhood, I don’t have loaded weapons in my home. Well, unless a butcher knife on the counter is a loaded weapon. I can afford another type of insurace, or combine it with my homeowner’s (BTW, homeowner’s policies do require a declaration of firearm and there is some liability coverage) But others don’t have my advantages, I won’t be look Bloomberg and insist others make my same choices and accept my same risks. That’s tyranny. (And hyocrisy, he’s not disarming his security detail. But then, he thinks its the governments job to tell you how big a soda you can order/serve).
We do have to do a better job about the mentally ill. I don’t see a problem with banning weapons from a home with a dangerous person, even if it affects everyone there. If that person is an adult, they can live somewhere else. If a minor, than it is more important for the parent to address the mental issues than have a weapon around (basically insurance for the low-odds event of robbery/assault). US courts do this all the time. A man who worked for me had his wife pull a gun on him in their home. He disarmed her, but the court put a condition that for them to continue to live together, no firearms could be in the home.
We absolutely have to eliminate gun-free zones. This is a cosmetic, feel-good measure that has proven to be disastrous in practise. With the exception of the shooting of Rep Gifford, every public shooting in the US with more than 3 deaths since 1950 has occurred where the public couldn’t have firearms.
Police can not respond in time. Legally, it is not their job or responsibility to protect an individual or prevent crime. They enforce the laws.
Facebook and public/social media. Most of these folks post things, they are after noteriety, can we monitor for key phrases? Can we do a better job of people reporting their friends or relatives who post threateing/disturbing things?
A parent/friend/psychiatrist/teacher- anyone- should be able to swear out a statement that an individual may present a mental health threat citing a specific rational. That should lead to the person having a hearing/evaluation within 2 weeks. That hearing should result in a treatment including confinement or out-patient and access to weapons recommendation to be imposed by a court. That would include removing all firearms from their home.
I’m a big First Amendment/Free Speech supporter as well. But,
- If they truly are being influenced by violence in the media, or video games— Is it time to eliminate them? Including the serial killer horror movies? Ok, millions watch or play without doing this, just like the vast majority of folks with access to guns don’t do this. But where is the idea coming from? And an idea is far more dangerous than a weapon. Given the idea, you’ll find the tool and there are far more deadly tools than guns.
- Publicity. Is it time to stop publicizing all the info about the shooters? Do we invoke the ancient tradition of eliminating any reference to the person whatsoever. If they’re after noteriety, that eliminates it. Instead of being famous and known, their actions result in being wiped entirely from the historical record. Every photo, e-mail, letter, or trace right down to the birth certificate.
Shall issue concealed carry. In these spree shootings, the person stops when confronted by an armed opponent. Usually they kill themselves, as did the Oregon mall shooter when confronted by a CCW holder, ending the rampage. The earlier they’re confronted, the sooner the shooting stops. Allowing those law abiding US citizens the option to carry a weapon in self defense in combination with the elimination of gun-free zones distinctly reduces the incentive for the mentally ill person who wants publicity through a big body count. Note the lack of publicity in the cases which occur every day where no-one, or ‘only’ one or two people are killed when promptly confronted.
