Well, that is simply not true. For one, Obama did pass a law regarding background checks for a person's mental health status, which Trump rescinded some time ago. Not to mention all the other regulations there are on gun ownership in many states. But I think the biggest onus at this time is on the instructors who instruct folks on firearm safety and licensing. They are the second-line of defense (behind background checks) on determining who can and cannot get licensed to own/carry firearms. They have the discretion to say yes or no when issuing their training certificates. Why would an instructor approve one over the other? Maybe that other person exhibits behavior that the instructor finds "suspicious." Safety-wise, that other person may be just really bad at following the three (or 4, it should be four) cardinal rules of safe firearm handling. I think the states are complicit in this problem regarding the whole issue, because as per instructor/safety guidelines, each state has the ability to determine whether or not LIVE-FIRE training is required for the issuance of the certificate. I think this is very bad. Live-fire training should be required for ANY sort of licensure/certification. That is something that drives me NUTS about MA, supposedly one of the most regulated states on guns and CCW. There is no live-fire requirement at the state level for licensure. (Well, there wasn't 8 years ago, the last time was in that scene). As an instructor, you can witness how a person handles the firearm, and discern their behavior when they are using live ammo. It can be analogized in a way, I think, with trading... Like how a person handles an airsoft-gun (sim) vs. live ammo (real money). "Thorny" is like the least effective word ever to describe this issue facing us, as a country, in this day and age, but it is the only word I can think of at this time to describe it.
California has twice the amount of mass shootings as any other state and they have the most gun laws and restrictions in the nation, so it seems the regulations are having the opposite effect. Still...mass shootings are not a huge problem in the grand scheme of things. Don't get me wrong...I don't like guns. I don't own one and I wish they never were invented....but that genie is already out of the bottle. Restricting the rights of the law abiding citizens doesn't stop the criminals from getting guns. I think if any one of us wanted to buy a gun illegally, we could all figure out pretty quick where to go...we don't need a gun shop.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Per capita California has one of the lowest rates of gun deaths in the country. Alabama, which has very little in the way of guns laws, has 3 times the rate of gun deaths. The point is gun safety laws work. What does not work is states having different gun laws. This allows for guns purchased in other states to enter states with responsible gun laws to be subjected to gun violence. Second, why would you be against your own instincts and common sense? Your instincts tell you guns are dangerous to the point you wish they never existed but youre ho hum on them being out of control. That makes no sense. I’m guessing you watch Fox News because there is no way a logical person would go against their own better judgment unless they were influenced by some outside source. Who is asking to restrict anyone’s rights? Even the most right wing people on this board, except one, agree there should be universal background checks on all gun sales. It’s the NRA and Fox News stopping this and it’s not a restriction if you should not even have a gun in the first place. And yes this will decrease gun violence. Guns are constantly being purchased legally and sold to criminals illegally. When gang bangers and criminals shoot someone or shoot at someone they have to “toss” the gun and get a new one. It’s a whole economy. This is why the NRA fights against it. They are not a gun rights advocacy group, THE NRA IS A GUN SALES ADVOCACY GROUP. Stopping the flow of guns will make an incredible difference.
We can have 10,000 gun laws on the books but, what use is it if you do not enforce it? Criminals, terrorists, crazies under our gun laws should not have guns! This fits the profile of most of the mass shooters. I am sure, if police, FBI, DOJ looked hard enough, there are numerous laws stating the criminals, terrorists, crazies should not have guns, legal or illegal for that matter! So, what really is happening? We have people in law enforcement including, police chiefs, mayors, governors, FBI supervisors, judges refusing to enforce US laws because they have ulterior political motives which they deem more important than merely, doing their jobs! Now, if they really just did their jobs, a lot of the shootings could be avoided. I am not delusional to suggest it will totally, eliminate all the shootings. However, it will reduce the number of shootings compared to what we are having now! Of course, those advocating for more gun control laws would not be able to cite mass shootings as justification as there would be less mass shootings.
Could you provide evidence that one of these mass shootings could have been prevented by your "universal" background checks. Surely you are not trying to mislead people into believing that gangbangers in the dem ghettos will suddenly start submitting to background checks. I am reasonably sure you are aware that something like 90% of "mass" shootings, defined as four or more casualties, were committed by gang bangers and the like, not disaffected incels. As is typical of dem proposals, these additional gun regulations are mainly designed to punish and burden your political opponents. They seek to make criminals of law-abiding responsible gun owners, who are overwhelmingly republicans, while doing nothing to address actual gun violence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state Gun death rates & gun homicide rates are two very different things. California is our country's 8th lowest in gun death rate, but they're ranked 38th lowest in gun homicide rate. Alabama is ranked 49th lowest in gun death rate, but they're ranked 29th lowest in gun homicide rate. So California has a higher gun homicide rate per capita than Alabama despite the fact that they have much stricter gun laws. The primary reason Alabama has a higher gun death rate is because they're a poor state, and they have a higher suicide rate.
This is nonsense. There is evidence all across the globe that responsible gun laws reduce mass shootings and gun deaths.