Anyone who has a record of violence should not be able to purchase a firearm. Usually violence that gets reported is due to anger issues, which untreated tend to get worse as time goes on, escalating until they are a danger to everyone who may trigger them. 

For example, Susan gets a new boyfriend who at first is just slightly insulting when she does something he doesn't like, calling her stupid. They move in together and he starts yelling his insults. She's pregnant, he starts hitting her. Kid's born, she's locked in and one day he's got her up against the wall by her throat and she's losing her vision. The only outcomes to this is she gets out, she's locked in hell or the most common outcome, she's dead. 

If its bad enough to be on record, then its bad enough that its safe to assume it will escalate. 

If someone's wardrobe is nothing but shirts that proclaim, "I like shooting up *Insert building here*", or "Gunning down children gives me such a thrill!" they should not be allowed to own or touch a gun. 

Any individual who does not have a fully formed pre-frontal cortex should not be able to purchase a gun until it is properly formed with written approval of a psychiatrist. 

As a Brit I'll never truly understand the whole "it's my right as an American......." to own a gun. I don't think you'll ever be able to create a rule that breaks it. My honest answer is I don’t think anyone other than trained law enforcement/army should have access to guns.

The common trope I see is

“Well X would have been worse if Citizen Joe didn’t have a gun to stop it…”

But to me the root of that is if X never had gun, Citizen Joe wouldn’t have needed a gun to stop it.

So, I’d personally outlaw guns entirely, which I know would never happen.

The other truth is anybody can snap at any time and do something violent. Easy access to guns just increases the ability to do more damage if it happens. With that in mind the logical route is more checks and balances to reduce the risk of the ‘wrong’ people buying a gun.

Violence has been mentioned, but I’d go one further: anyone who’s convicted of a crime and gone to jail should not be allowed to purchase a gun; in the UK in certain fields, you need a DBD check before you’re allowed to do certain jobs (Teaching, Childminding etc). It picks up any type of criminal record from caution through to a prison sentence. This stops people with a criminal record of working with vulnerable people. I’d argue everyone is vulnerable versus a gun.

TLDR: Enhanced background check on anybody purchasing a gun. If you have a criminal record, you’re automatically barred from purchasing one.

If you are a person who makes a living making coffins for children and live near several schools and your money struggles have been very very public for the last few years, you should probably not have access to guns without several doctor notes and character references. 

And maybe also expand your business to full size coffins to help out with the money issues. 

Anyone who has been on an involuntary psychiatric hold in the past 5 years, is unable to purchase additional firearms, unless they have a doctor with a prexisting patient relationship sign off on it.

I can't own a gun in the state of California for another 5 months because of a law similar to this. When I moved back to my home state, North Carolina, I was able to purchase one. I think something like this at the federal level would be great but as it is now it's a little ineffective.

When people can just move to a less restrictive state to purchase a gun; it's not solving the problem, it's moving the problem.

Before anyone say I'm virtue signaling... I was totally unaware of the California restriction when I purchased my handgun in NC. 

I think most of us can agree that this issue is one that does not have a simple solution. One of the most common proposed solutions that I hear in the United States is that we need to arm school teachers to act as a front line defense.

To provide a bit of context, I have worked in school systems for the last 7 years and gun control is a hot topic due to the influx of school shootings over the last two decades. Additionally, I am a lawful / legal firearm owner who has a concealed carry permit and have been known to have a more right leaning viewpoint.

Personally, I do not believe that we should arm teachers. I hear this proposal a lot in my personal life as well as in the media. I have worked with teachers for years, and in turn I have worked with many students as well. I do not think that arming school teachers even with adequate training would increase the safety and security of the children. My view on this is cemented by the lack of classroom control I see in the average classroom. Just the other day, a student found a nail gun where I work and stapled another students arm. Where was the teacher? Well, the teacher as many know has upwards of 30 students to watch over at all times. Students will go through teachers personal affects as well as through any piece of school property. Due to an oversized classroom population in most classrooms I have had the privilege of being involved in, I do not believe teachers or school faculty would be able to properly pay enough attention to meet the requirements it would take to keep a firearm secure.

In summary, teachers are overworked and overwhelmed as it is. In my opinion, no matter the funding / training they would not be capable of stopping the firearm from potentially becoming the next weapon in a mass shooting.

For me it should be about minimising risk.  You can't stop someone getting hold of an illegal firearm and using it just like you can't stop someone who wants to from getting hold of drugs and overdosing.  Someone who really wants to will find a way of getting hold of a gun and use it.

There isn't a simple way of doing this but I do believe that first and foremost the person wanting the firearm should be subject to a very deep look into their personal history - everything from criminal record, medical history, hell, even school records.  This should be then used to assess the risk of that person misusing a firearm based on the persons profile. 

This should also include some form of assessment of safety in the home as the above would not prevent the persons son/daughter from misusing said firearm.  Following this there then should be regular assessments whereby the right to hold the firearm can be revoked (much like a drivers license)

My shotgun (In England) has to be locked in a safe, a set distance away from the nearest exit, and secured by at least 4 anchor points, I need a license, and the police have been to check on the safety of how I keep it.  And this is a gun only used for sport shooting. It should be even stricter if there is a chance it could be used on a person, even if the use is lawful.

Sadly for the US is fairly easy to get a gun in many cases, with no registration in many states, and only need to licence when carrying from what i read, it makes it a challenge to know who has what and how they are using it, and what they are doing with it.

A few years back i needed what we call a firearms certificate in the UK, related to farming.   It's mainly used to cull certain creatures foxes, badgers or wounded animals as most people know foxes attack chickens, and badgers were blamed for spreading TB.   To get it, I needed photo ID, 2 references of officially recognised people e.g. doctor, priest, solicitor and had to admit i had no conditions that would affect my handling of such a weapon.   This also involved visiting my home several times and the work place where the licence was needed for. 

At the same time your going through this, can have the joys of drug and alcohol testing, your financial records looked through with a fine toothcomb.   If your married or in a relationship, expect the same for them.

The licence lasts 5 years, i then have to renew it, and prove again, I am safe and capable of handling such weapon and have to be willing allow access to where weapons are stored safely e.g. others can't get at it, is in the right place at right time and its maintained as safe for use; which can happen any time.

As well as this each time i request such a certificate, i need a full background check. a check if any problems during the last licencing period or any change in my health.   So if i shouted at my neighbours we call it, a public order breach which i guess would be a midemeanour could rule me out of getting a new licence.

This isn't a perfect system, and incidents still happen no matter what, sadly.  I think some of these measures could limit the damage but i am not sure all Americans would take it so well.    The sad truth is the argument that regular comes is, if someone wants to commit violence they will e.g. Londons teen knife crime even though we don't have the gun issues the US has.

I have been placed on an involuntary hold twice in the last 5 years (They were both voluntary to start off with, but in order to actually get me a bed at the local hospital I had to get 5150'd) and at the time they weren't going to release me back to my parents because my dad owned a shotgun.  He had to give it to a relative and there it has stayed. I cannot legally live in a house with a firearm or ammo, nor can I possess, even for a short time, any ammo or a firearm.  I also cannot go to a shooting range OR an archery range! :o 

HOWEVER, my grandad, who had dementia, was still allowed by law to keep his weapons.  Blew a hole in his bedroom wall one afternoon whilst cleaning it.  

All that to say this.  I think a gun license actually needs to be handled the same way driver's licenses.  There needs to be training, testing, both written and practical, and you should be able to have your license revoked if you mishandle your weapon.  Your license should also need to be renewed with a fee (IDK if this is a thing, so don't come at me) and a relicensing test every so often.  If you have conditions such as psychiatric disorders or dementia/alzheimer's or other memory issues you should not be allowed to own/purchase or use a gun. This includes being legally responsible for surrendering/selling a weapon upon diagnosis of any of the aforementioned.  

Competence testing needs to be mandatory and you must be able to prove you can clean a weapon, properly store it, load it and unload it and so on.  

I could conceive a reality where sane/rational people have access to firearms, but I don't really think we live in one. As some of the posters above, I'm from the UK and have enjoyed a life where most guns have been outlawed since I was a small child. It is an alien concept to me where people feel obligated to own a gun, despite the fact my Dad has had a shotgun for pretty much my entire life and I've been shooting with him on multiple occasions.

Taking that situation as an example presents a few 'easy wins', most of which have been highlighted above by Tommy and Falloutia. We have both firearms and shotgun certificates in the UK which are regulated by the local police force. The reasons for why you want/need the gun are explored, how it will be safely secured, you'll be subjected to an interview, as can the rest of your household, they will perform a background check including whether you have a criminal record and establish whether or not they feel you will be a danger to the public. You'll need two referees who are professionals and who are unrelated to you to sign off your application and, perhaps most importantly, the process takes weeks.

I think there is a possibility for anyone to snap under the right/wrong set of circumstances and the possibility for them to inflict damage is very real. Having easy access to weaponry capable of doing incredible damage very quickly appears from the outside to be the immediate problem that must be addressed. Making guns harder to obtain and then once you go have them, illegal to remove from your safe unless carrying out the specific purpose for which you obtained it, are going to remove their prevalence in 'heat of the moment' situations.

All of that being said, there is a cultural issue (or so it appears to me as an outsider) about 'the right to bear arms', which we just don't have here and that needs to change before any of the solutions (which seem obvious to the rest of the world) can even be considered. 

So in summary:

• Any high-powered/quick-firing weapon prohibited from all private ownership
• Thorough background check including criminal and medical record 
• Police interview with you
• Police interview extending to your immediate family/people you live with
• Specific reason required for owning a firearm
• Legal permission to use that firearm only extends to the purpose for which it was approved
• Two or more independent referees
• Age limited
• Secure storage 
• Regular review of licence

Anyone who wants to purchase a gun needs their facebook timeline thoroughly looked at an any questionable memes or pictures of them with their children and 500 guns have to have a signed reference from a reputable source (Like UK Passports which lol "I know this strange child professionally" absurd) and quite possibly also an IQ test if the memes are that bad. 

Over the last 6 years in UK, the amount of times have seen people call to kill Boris, Nigel Farage etc, jail them, tortutre them, celebrate attempts or attacks even if just with a milkshake kinda says a lot of people can't be trusted with a gun.    This often also being celebrated by the media as if to normalise or celebrate it.    Then when like we had in UK where politicians were murdered, the media is like, so sad, dunno how this could happen; before blaming the far right with the likes of the Jo Cox murder

The problem is where FB say is not against their community standards, so like twitter it becomes a toxic melting pot and with the growing levels of mental health issues, it doesn't take much to tip people over the edge especially if they lost someone in covid, green revolution losses, oil-production cuts as their gasoline prices rise,  business post brexit, etc.   At the same time the UK doesn't have the mental health staff or facilities to fix/medicate people and many will claim is nothing wrong with them, so refuse treatment anyway.    People just want something to be angry about and we know how it is easy to manipulate those staunch in their views, with lower IQs or with mental health issues.

We live in a ticking timebomb at stages of conspiracy theorists, fake online accounts and people scared in those democrats will steal their guns.   So to some already unhinged as we saw in the 2020 elections where all stood outside counts with guns. the change is going to take a lot of stages.

Even with having Gun Free Zones like in NY and other states for example around Schools, hospitals, etc; we watch how open ended some states, businesses leave this so becomes innefective and unless caught on an unlucky stop, I could be buying a gun nearby and pass through gun free areas without notice.    We watched how trump used his 98% of mass shootings are in gun free zones.   Like most statistics these been argued with links to gang crime, if people died in shootings or the types of nass shooting.    So it becomes who checks these areas for guns and how do you make gun free zones more secure?

Your other two issues then sit as criminals won't care whether they have e.g gang war and how do you secure an area do you check every car and bike within a 2-3 block area of a school? how is it really a deterrent if the only check is when you enter? as at that stage is too late.  Add to that things like the US mcdonalds security guard who spree'd, what do you do when the people protecting you, are the perps? Can we simply limit to non-lethal weapons and ammo at such stores?

The people of America are going to be the biggest problem with gun reform, and will simply change a government to reverse such decisions.   It is like your facing a not so silent revolution which you see online if people claim being censored and their first ammendment rightsl if they will lose their guns for comments.   Same if  losing guns and their second ammendment rights so it will be almost impossible to change anything thats not done over time.    The changes have to come on a person level, and i don't think it will change for a long time sadly.

You can sell non lethal weaponry promote it, non lethal ammo or take the best security precautions but sadly people have to want to buy it and though it will attract some, a person who wants to defend their home, a person who wants to do harm or someone who knows their life is on the line in their job will continue with lethal force.   Its like watching arguments between people on weather they need a hollowpoint or FMJ and sometimes they just want to see the damage a hollowpoint does when others will be, wll FMJ will cut through an animal and on to something else potentially.
 

 

To an X army guy that no longer even cares for a gun .... To me it is a multiply level issue.

First it is the lack of respect of the gun itself.

2nd is a lack of respect for other people and their rights

3rd is the lack of discipline while a kid is growing up

4th is the inability for any of us that think we can fix the problem.

5th Criminals will always have guns no matter where you live. So with that said should any of us be sitting in our homes unprotected...."Hell No"

I am for guns but also the education and the teaching of respect to others and their belongings.

An outsider here but the minimum logical step to this (at least in my mind) is for whoever wants to purchace a gun, they would at least go through a psychiatric evaluation for obvious reasons. Also, the buyer should at least have done some lessons in a shooting range or something. Another logical thing is that guns should only be sold by people that have some kind of a background in their lives. Ex military or even a "school" in a way. Selling weapons in a store where someone goes to buy his cereal or papper towels just seems wrong. 

Hello all, European here, Poland actually where we have rather strict gun laws.

The thing is, people/government is not against weapon, but they need a reason to allow you to own a gun.

If you want to own a hand gun, you need to visit a shrink, get approval from him, then you also need to join

a shooting club, have proper training in gun handling and also find a reason, like sport shooting, hunting etc.

If you do all of this (few months) you can own a gun legally, but you are still not allowed to use it in public 

or shoot someone dead on the street because he was running away from the police and you will be held accountable 

for murder or attempted murder if you suck at aiming.

I do understand why US is against giving away their weapons, war of independence and manifest of destiny, living in the middle

of desert and you do need to have protection, but at this time and age, with unstable people everywhere, I do not think

"Free for all" weapons is as important and honestly, NRA is spending millions per year just to keep this running, legal bribery, lobbying.

Weapon ownership, yes. Weapon ownership without proper training or license? No. In Poland, I can drive a BIKE, while drunk and LOSE

my vehicle driving license, why? Because I endangered others, does not matter if bike or car, license is gone. So why allow machine guns without any license?