Interesting to see the diverse amount of thoughts on this subject, everyone one of them which is primarily driven by events of the day as opposed to serious, in-depth thought on the subject overall.
It's always emotions which will control a majority of the collective and individual thought process on this.
In point of fact, nothing has changed since the founders ratified the constitution with the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights. It's merely to be preceived as changed due to the speed with which ammunition can be delivered, but the gravity of the situation in the modern world is no more or less significant in it's purest form of violence with firearms then it was 240 years ago.
Mental health not withstanding, guns in point of fact, do not kill people, people kill people with guns.
Now, the arguement could be successfully made that guns with a lesser ability to deliver large amounts of ammunition should not be put in the general publics hands, but then, that would go against the very fabric of why the 2nd amendment was penned and put in the document which is the rule of law. Many have tried to twist it's meaning into something form fitting, but in the end, it's very exsistence is in a direct response to form militia's and handle dangers at home.
I'd like to believe a majority of gun owners are responsible, and they are, I am one. I own a hand gun and some rifle's and shotguns, yet you don't see 99.9% of the legal gun owners committing these crimes, afterall, the individual in this latest incident was not the gun owner and had no right to have those weapons in his possession, yet killed his mother and took the weapons.
Assault rifles have no business in the public's hands, on the other hand, the citizens have every right to these weapons in defense of their homes and themselves, primarily from our own governing bodies, local, state and federal level. Many arguements can be made on this end as well, Ruby Ridge comes to mind.
When is the line drawn, and at what area? Tough call, I can't say mass murders wouldn't happen without guns, I can say that if the ammo situation was decreased, it's possible lives could have been saved.
I do not believe this country has the fortitude to do what is right. In my opinion, handguns and assault rifles should not be legal to possess by John Q Public. Since that opinion will never carry the day in this country I'm in favor of very restrictive ownership rules. I would require the following minimally:
1. Annual recertification requirements. Just like your car needs to be inspected, the owner needs to produce the weapon annually for inspection. Failure to do so will result in forfeiture of said weapon.
2. Requirement to report a lost gun within 12 hours of when owner first recognizes the gun is missing. (not sure what actual requirement is today)
3. 30 day waiting period for the purchase of any gun. That will allow sufficient cooling down period. Surely a gun owner can wait 30 days.
4. A 100 dollar tax on every gun purchase to be used as a victim of gun violence fund.
5. A 25 cent tax on every bullet sold for same purpose as number four and fund number one.
6. Requirement to purchase gun locker or provide proof of gun locker before any gun can be sold.
7. Revoke each and every concealed gun permit, where ever issued excluding law enforcement agencies.
8. Capacity limit the number of firearms any individual citizen may own.
9. Increase the guns for cash incentive programs. Turn in any gun and get cash from number four and five above.
10. Create a consistent set of rules and laws across all 50 states with uniform penalties.
I throw these out for discussion. Have at it...
I do not believe our Congress and President will do something "meaningful". I hope they will. My fear is this story will fade to black next week as the press remembers that cliff thing...