Even though it’s events like Vegas that get the news and get people riled up, gun control isn’t going to have any effect on something like that. Why? Well, at least of two weapons used in the shooting were bought legally from a gun store were in full accordance with state and federal law, including a full FBI background check. And they turned up nothing. This guy didn’t even have a speeding ticket from what I’ve read. So, unless ‘gun control’ means ‘total ban’ + active hunt for the hundreds of millions of guns already out there it’s not going to stop something like this.
That said, does this mean we shouldn’t have gun control anyway? I mean, these spectacular events certainly get the headlines, but it seems to me it’s the day in and day out shootings that are the real issue if there is one. And gun control might be useful for dealing with that and at least mitigating it further. Or not…that’s what the debate is.
I know that many 'dopers are worked up about this from reading in the Pit thread on this. I’m sure there will be a lot of ‘well, just get rid of all the guns…problem solved!’ type answers. To me, that’s not realistic. Pointing to what Australia did and extrapolating that to the US is, again, not realistic, though we can discuss that in here as well if someone would like to debate the point. Myself, I’d like to focus on gun control measures that would actually have a measurable impact on gun deaths AND are realistic wrt the US. There has to be a middle ground between the gun grabbers and the gun nuts who have staked out the extremes, something that is a good compromise AND would be demonstrably effective. What I’d like to hear is those sorts of solutions, solutions that actually COULD be put in place, not wishful thinking coupled with unicorn dreams and dragon tears.
I’ll start it off. Universal background checks. No new gun can be purchased or sold in the US, regardless of the venue (even privately) without going through an FBI background check and being certified by the FBI. This will put a lot more overhead on purchasing the gun, will entail an expansion of the FBI, but I think it would be useful even if it would make purchasing a gun more a pain in the ass. Next up, licensing and registration of firearms. This one is definitely going to hurt the pro-gun crowd since it brings up the worry that the government will use such a list to eventually go back and grab all the guns. However, I think such a system will be useful to really know what’s out there, and will eventually play into the universal background checking system as the database grows with registered firearms. Finally, new purchase mandatory gun safety training. If you are purchasing a new gun you will need a license that says you have participated in a 4-hour gun safety training course. Like a drivers license, there will be a test and a small fee for this license, and like a drivers license, you will need to have it renewed every X years. It will have your picture on it, and on the chip, it will have guns you have registered with the FBI as well as your current status for background checks (maybe making that system a bit more efficient).
None of these measures are going to fix the basic issue. All of them are going to make gun ownership more difficult. Some of them are going to make it difficult for poorer people to have guns (legally). They all have pros and cons, and all will be fought by one side and decried by the other as not going far enough. What others can you think of?