[Proud90sKid]

Every time a mass shooting occurs, everyone has the same arguments and makes the same comments. But they all have major flaws.

1) Background checks to rule out "crazies". This will never be possible. Crazy is a subjective term and having actual mental health diagnosis entered in a database searchable on background checks would be a huge HIPPA privacy violation. Not to mention, as there aren't ways to identify which of these people who have a mental health condition are potentially dangerous. Most mass shootings are a persons first "real" (documentable and legally recognizeable) incidence-of-violence and most have never been involuntarily committed to a psych ward so most could pass a background check just fine. Most also appear to be carefully planned and premeditated so that the "cool off" laws in some states probably won't work well either. Most mass shooters do display some "red flags", but these red flags are not really specific to people who go on shootings. They are usually vague traits like "inability to socialize well", "loner", or "angry". Many people are bitter, antisocial, or misanthropic but because they haven't done anything wrong yet, you can't simply take their 2nd amendment rights away. Most of those people would also not commit a shooting so going by these personality differences would also be a form of discrimination.

2) Get rid of the second amendment. But there is not the supermajority of political support to do it.

3) ban specific types of weapons. Possibly a good option, but limited in scope.


So what people need to be asking is: if the second amendment prohibits the right to bear arms and you can't without massive discrimination restrict crazies from buying a gun when guns are legal for everone, what can be done? Thoughts?