Is there a solution to stopping mass shootings, without punishing the law abiding gun owner?

Maybe have all ammunition locked up in a police precinct until use.

Also id’s on all ammunition.

With 3D printing guns will be flooding the world. Gunpowder will still be able to be controlled.

The NRA is partially correct: if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have them. This is because the overwhelming majority of those presently owning them legally will either retain them or replace them if confiscated. And of course those presently holding them in defiance of regulations will remain unaffected. Outlawing guns today in the United States would be equivalent to outlawing weeds or potholes, and just about as effective in reducing playground target practice.

There are countries that have reasonable gun control; Israel and England are two. Why can’t the US assess what these countries did and adapt it to their needs?

The NRA has the solution. It prohibited attendees at their annual meeting from having firearms, firearms accessories and knives. Ammunition, laser pointers, pepper spray, toy guns, backpacks and other items also weren’t allowed and it worked. No one was killed or injured.

Are you asking this, @SQUEEKY2, from the standpoint of a Canadian citizen? I am curious, because it can be confusing here. Please be specific.

Why not punish the gun owner? They buy it, they take on responsibility for it.

There is no reason to punish law abiding gun owners. They get punished enough already and they are not the problem. Most of us don’t fully agree with the hard turn the NRA has made in recent years but they’re in survival mode and I generally hold them at least partially responsible for the toxic culture. I have not sent them a dollar in more than 20 years for that reason. When is the last time you heard of a gun owner who has gone through the process to get a carry permit do anything questionable? It’s pretty rare. Most of us who are responsible gun owners and not part of the toxic culture highly encourage people to go through that process for several reasons:
1. It filters out most of the riff raff
2. It lets law enforcement know you have been vetted and they leave you alone.
3. It takes time and effort.
4. The background checks are more thorough.
5. You get some decent safety training and education.
6. Most of us will only buy and sell firearms to or from others with a valid permit for the reasons listed above.

My state went 180 degrees the wrong way and removed permitting as a requirement. You can still get one but we’ll see more jackasses out there as a result of the dropped requirements.
In my humble opinion, the way to stop a lot of these issues is to demand all gun owners go through a permitting process if they want to buy handguns, semi-automatic rifles or semi-automatic shotguns. All the infrastructure and red tape to do this is already set up in most states. It’s costs next to nothing and it does not unreasonably infringe on people’s rights. Right now it’s just too easy for someone who is not on the “no buy” database yet to plop down cash and walk out with a firearm in like 10 minutes.

Changing one’s behavior/possessions to conform to changing laws is not punishment.

Would you like to have your car confiscated because there is a trend of people using them in murders?

@Blackwater_Park not such a great question.

Your car is licensed and the DMV knows you and has you re-register every year
—> not true with your gun

You have a driver’s license that identifies you, and you need to reregister every 5–7 years
—> not true with your gun

Your vehicle is required to be insured, and specficially against damage to others.
—> not true with your gun

Your vehicle use is subject to laws which are regulary enforced – speeding, safety equipment, etc.
—> not true with your gun. There may be laws, but they aren’t regularly enforced.

You can be arrested or detained for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated
—> not true with a gun

All in all, @Blackwater_Park , your analogy sucks.

Every answer so far is focusing on the guns. That is a dead-end street in the discussion because every thing to do with a gun negates criminally obtained weapons. Regulating the crap out of gun ownership only punishes those that own legally and continues to be a punishment for lawful gun owners. It also is racist since you are putting more and more cost in the way of gun ownership and that will impact the poor far more than the rich. And as we all know, many blacks and hispanics are poor.

Likewise discussions about red flag laws are punishing lawful gun owners. Yes, I know that in theory when you know someone that is truly out there it would be beneficial to be able to have them unarmed. But those laws will be abused. And ex-wife (or ex-husband or ex-whatever) will claim you are unstable and present a danger to yourself and others and voila! you are now being visited to have your guns confiscated. Can’t happen? That was part of what was written into the NY red flag laws. No investigation, no proof…just an accusation and the lawful gun owner was being deprived of his rights. And not even an accusation from any sort of professional.

The answer to stopping the mass shootings is to make the punishment so onerous and degrading that people stop wanting to do that particular crime to get attention. But I would clarify a few things. One in particular is the definition of “mass shooting”. No shootings are good, but if you are going to focus on a particular kind, you need to positively define it legally. Another issue I would address is that shooting is not the only way someone can kill a lot of people in a short period of time. Driving a car into a parade, for instance, or planting a bomb are perfect examples. Hell, for that matter any fentanyl overdose should be considered a mass killing and anyone caught manufacturing or smuggling these drugs should be subjected to the same penalties.

@elbanditoroso you’re getting it wrong. It’s something of value, of use to you, that would be taken away retroactively because a law was passed.

@Blackwater_Park I get what you are saying, just like a woman’s right to autonomy over her own body that was taken away by the supreme court.

No disagreement there

Humiliating punishment sounds attractive, but might be prohibited by the 8th Amendment.

Could we learn anything from Japan?

Japan had one homicide with a gun last year, and 0.26 murders per 100,000 citizens vs. 7.5 homicides per 100,000 in America.

@RedDeerGuy1 What do we do with 385 million guns ?

@Tropical_Willie I don’t know. Maybe grandfather the rules to not let any new guns.

Or we could restrict and register all ammo, and alow enthusiasts to keep their guns?

With 3D printing gun restrictions will not be possible. Only restrictions to gunpowder and/or ammunition might only work.

There about 1.2 guns for each man, woman and child in the USA.

@Tropical_Willie As I said gun restrictions will not be feasible due to 3D printing. It’s too late to remove guns, in the short term.

Something novel needs to be tried, like ammo restrictions, or universal free mental health coverage?

@RedDeerGuy1 it isn’t an either/or question. It is ALL of the above.

@elbanditoroso I don’t understand. Can you please explain?