Three legislations to prevent mass shootings???

Question

1...Each gun buyer to produce a mental-health certificate
before a purchase can be approved.
2...Owner negligent in safe custody of arms whether at home
or outdoors to be heavily fined or jailed
3...No person shall own more than one rifle or hand-gun

So far there seems to be an absolutely free and convenient way to get hold of any weapon by anyone, sane or insane to create havoc in public. The media reports freely, copy-cats desiring for action and fame, are ever-ready to re-enact the incidents or even to set some kind of record-breaking. Our attitude and culture need some waking up, really so as to prevent any more loss of innocent lives.
Concerned opinions and comments most appreciated.

UPDATE
=======
A critical point to consider---If more public mass shootings continue around the country, will the tourism industry and business investment by foreign companies be seriously affected?Will locals be deterred to frequent shopping malls and other crowded places? Will economic growth suffer drastically?

Answer 1

Priority legislation's must be for:

1. Effective gun control;
2. Only law enforcers be allowed to carry guns in public places.
3. Permit to carry guns be strictly issued only to qualified persons.

Answer 2

1. Each gun buyer already has to show identification and be run on a background check and most states have a waiting period. So, this is rather moot.

2. Right, because you have never had anything like your home broken into while you were at work and everything stolen. Or a car stolen.. are you negligent for the people a criminal runs over with your stolen car?

3. Because with one rifle, shotgun, or hand gun a criminal cannot do a shooting spree? um get a grip.

Hope I do not sound to hostile, but your ideas posted here are meaningless. Want to reduce such incidents? Improve education, allow 'citizens' to arm themselves with proper training. Get rid of 'no firearm zones that attract criminal types'

Answer 3

To make a nation less moral
pass more laws

1) Sorry, Why shouldn't a person have a mental health cert to buy, say a car? Automobile accidents especially those involving alcohol and drugs kill more people than mass murderers every year.

2) So... criminal charges are not enough? You want to add another civil damages law to the mix? How does one determine "safe custody" Like I lock mine up and my kid (the one just out of the bin with a competency judgement) steals the key while I'm at work I'm negligable because ...?

3) So I either hunt elk with a shotgun, or pheasant with a high powered rifle. And I can only enter shooting tournaments in .38 or .45 but not both? And God forbid I'm both a hunter and serious competitor.

We liberals do not hate guns, just people who think more laws will make our nation more moral.

Answer 4

All men & Women that serve in the military that become teachers have been trained in gun safety and how to handle guns. Arm the Teachers and the school would not become a target rich inviroment, but a school again.

I live in a state that will let you carry a gun with a lic. and finger prints on file and a FBI background check. You can't carry in a bank, bar, tavern or school or Fed. or State building. so where is the problem going to be then, in the parking lot?

I own a business, and under the law can have a gun in my business to protect my self and my employee's under the law, with no training needed. No that is scary to me!

It should be your lic. to carry you carry it anywhere with you you go. If Iam stopped by a cop and he runs my plate it shows him I carry a gun and to concerder me armed & dangerous. This info. could follow you where ever you go and their for they would know how has a gun and how doesn't, but a metal detector does that now doesn't it?

Answer 5

A few of the weaknesses I see in your proposal.

1. Mental health is not something that can be objectively or absolutely determined.
2. How does this have anything to do with the problem?
3. I find it difficult to believe that a person who would use weapons to indiscriminately kill people would balk at breaking a law against owning more than one weapon.

Answer 6

''1...Each gun buyer to produce a mental-health certificate
before a purchase can be approved.
2...Owner negligent in safe custody of arms whether at home
or outdoors to be heavily fined or jailed
3...No person shall own more than one rifle or hand-gun''

1. Approved by whom ? At what cost? no.

2. As determined by whom? no.
3. Hell,no.

restrictions only affect law-abiding people - criminals don't care.

Tourism ? I don't give a rat's rectum for them.

Answer 7

i'll go with number 1 and 2 but not number 3. hunters will not go with this..nor will gun collectors/pro shooters or police officers for that matter. right to bear arms...NRA would go crazy as well.

but then of course there will always be the fact that there are already way too many guns on the street and we can do nothing about that except police finding them little by little. (and ATF)

but even if #1 is passed...who's to say their children with mental issues will not get a hold of those weapons and go on a shooting rampage?

sadly there is no way to fix this..there will always be gun violence

Answer 8

Those would be in violation of the 2nd amendment, except #2. #1 is a joke because it would be cost prohibitive and a major hassle.

#3 is pointless as well. There are millions of people out there who safely own more than 1 firearm.

Answer 9

I would not support 3.

1 and 2 are fine. #1 is already the case in some parts of California (I know the LA sheriff requires a doctor's signature before issuing a concealed carry permit). #2 is just common sense. If you have a gun, take care of it. If you leave it lying around, you're responsible.

Answer 10

Counter proposal: each healthy male shall be train in use of automatic rifle some where between age of 18 to 21 -about 3 months training in basics thenanother 3 months initial duty assignment. from age 22 to 35 militia duty shall be take assigned automatic rifle home and be ready for annual reserve duty. 10% of militia at 30 day intervals with no emergency shall carry rifle with them at their normal working job. Pistol may be carried if qualified and regular militia assignment authorizes instead of rifle- as driver, depot duty. At females voluntary training females between age 22-35 may after training also do militia duty rifle transport and use, may also after training carry pistol. As part of emergencymilitia duty if militia member encounters civil crime or danger to public militia member shall be authorized to use lethal force to restore order- militia member will then be considered to have done a active duty act and be paid full active pay per day . at age 35 militia member will be considered as civil defense duty to age 65- Civil defense member can purchase former duty rifle or pistol at cost for rest of life and bequeth. Civil Defense members member at there descretion can carry pistol and reserve rifle for annual muster and firing test. civil defense member who acts in militia manner for civil protection is to be paid as active duty rate of militia. How about this for law? Think of some women and about 10% young men carrying auto rifles or pistol as a normal procedure- and maybe another 10% carrying pistol because they feel like it. Note the high pay comes in with the use of lethal force to promote public safety. Would you expect a high crime rate? Ask the Swiss or Israelis who work and train under this type of required armed public duty. Any criticism should note crime rate in gripers area compared to Swiss.