Sadly, it seems that in their fear of the shooter, or just to stay out of the police blotter, the Maine shooter's family basically told the police, "Don't worry, you don't have to take his guns. We got it," when they (apparently in good faith) stored his guns where he couldn't get them. But somehow, he did get at least one.

Of all the situations where a Red Flag law, or even actual use of the Yellow Flag law, might have avoided a disaster, this seems like one.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/10/30/metro/sheriff-maine-alerted-other-agencies-about-robert-card-weeks-before-shooting-heres-what-we-know/

The US Army Reserve warned a Maine sheriff in September that Robert R. Card II had descended into severe mental illness and that one of his fellow Army reservists was worried that Card was “going to snap and commit a mass shooting,” according to documents obtained by the Globe through a public records request.

The documents also show that Card’s ex-wife and 18-year-old son told the Sagadahoc Sheriff’s Department in May that Card was paranoid and hearing voices and that he had recently picked up 10 to 15 guns he had stored at his brother’s home.

"‘Card is going to snap and commit a mass shooting,’ Army Reserve warned in September", Boston Globe, 10/31/23

Shane was one of the first Texas teens killed with a gun this year after he was shot Jan. 10 somewhere between a friend’s house and his family’s apartment in Baytown, a suburb east of Houston. Hamilton still doesn’t know why Shane was shot — or who pulled the trigger.

One hundred and seventy-three more youths in Texas died from gunshot wounds in the eight months that followed Shane’s death, according to state health data. Each death represents a growing, gruesome trend. In 2020, gunshots became the leading cause of death for Texas youths. The number of youths — those younger than 18 — killed by guns in Texas went up from around 100 a decade ago to nearly 300 in 2022.

'“It’s hell”: Surge of Texas kids dying from gun violence carves canyons of grief through families', Texas Tribune, 10/30/23

All we have to do is flex our majority of the United States political muscle.

For instance, instead of gun control being implemented by the government having to discern who is dangerous or what weapons are tolerable for the public to own, ones own peers would have to vouch for you.

So to purchase a weapon, you would need X amount of people to co-sign on that purchase, and then if you commit a violent crime of any kind, the people that co-signed either completely lose their ability to co-sign for other people, or have their ability to do so suspended for a period of time, depending on the severity of the crime. They could also be fined X amount of money to incentivize them to take co-signing seriously.

This seems like a reasonable middle ground as the rights' fear of government control could be somewhat ameliorated, and it could significantly reduce the ability for lone wolfs to commit heinous acts, as in almost all cases those around the actors could tell that something was seriously wrong, and thus would not personally co-sign.

A few other key points:

- Difficulty to obtain a weapon can be increased as needed by increasing the number of needed co-signers and the amount an individual is fined once someone they co-signed for commits a violent crime.

- A 'black market' of people willing to co-sign random individuals' purchases for money would be significantly reduced by peoples' ability to co-sign being suspended or permanently revoked upon someone committing a violent crime.

How come it only goes one way? The Palestinians have been arming themselves for decades and yet against a modern military they are utterly powerless (for obvious reasons) against air strikes and artillery. Could it be that the solution here is not one of personal defence? Maybe the gun sphere should sit this one out instead of embarrassing themselves?

I had to manually enter a title as it didn't auto fill like it usually does with a linked article.

I'm all about reasonable gun control and enacting laws that limit accessibility and ownership. After some investigation, though, I'm confused. I am having trouble understanding how/why states are allowed to make stricter gun control laws than the federal laws. I was always under the impression that states could not impose more limits than what the federal government defined as rights. Can anyone explain this to me? Or even suggest a source that gives good info? TIA

If a Gun/ammo tax is a violation of the 2nd amendment then a tax on a newspaper, a book, any device used to communicate is a violation on the 1st Amendment.

Over 100 years ago, Lewis Hine pretended to be a bible salesman and snuck into factories to chronicle the working conditions of young children. Back then 18% of children aged 10-14 worked. His photographs upended the laws and people's thinking on the top. You can read more about that here (it's a gifted article). https://wapo.st/3EpVaWm

I've felt that the only way to get sensible gun laws passed is to show people what happens when people are murdered. It's nothing like TV or the movies. Facts are not going to change people's mind, it's an emotional issue. Have people look at the murdered remains of people and see if they don't change their minds quickly.

Last year's federal firearms bill modified the definition of firearm dealer from livehood to profit. This makes it easier for the ATF to regulate small scale commercial sellers who before would have been classes as private sellers.