Mental health is not static: it can't be a "one and done" sort of check. It needs to be evaluated more often.
I've previously proposed a weapon tier system where higher tiers require enhanced licensing, training, background checks, and mental health screening - on a regular basis - for ownership of AR-15s and other semi-automatic or high-powered weapons.
Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine makes good sense. So does limiting the types of ammunition available for purchase: my understanding is that the Allen TX shooter had/used "varmint" rounds designed to fragment more readily than other rounds may do - which leads to more damaging wounds.
Ultimately: there is no preventing all instances of violence from occurring. There is only limiting the number that occur and how many people are harmed in X amount of time. That's still worthwhile.
I haven't heard about the ammunition used in Allen but "varmint" rounds do have a legitimate purpose. There are some types of ammunition that civilians don't have access to.
I believe that red flag laws would be part of an ongoing evaluation. Tying arrest and mental health records into licensing would also.
I do favor licensing and training to carry in public. I'm more ambivalent about for those who keep guns on private property.
I think it's needed in general: gun safety doesn't change much between private property and public, and from a basic responsibility perspective there's a need for ensuring that guns don't get into or stay in the hands of those that should not have them.
The right has two great solutions you've simply ignored David: More guns and even more "thoughts and prayers." Who ever said they were short on ideas?
Mental health is not static: it can't be a "one and done" sort of check. It needs to be evaluated more often.
I've previously proposed a weapon tier system where higher tiers require enhanced licensing, training, background checks, and mental health screening - on a regular basis - for ownership of AR-15s and other semi-automatic or high-powered weapons.
Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine makes good sense. So does limiting the types of ammunition available for purchase: my understanding is that the Allen TX shooter had/used "varmint" rounds designed to fragment more readily than other rounds may do - which leads to more damaging wounds.
Ultimately: there is no preventing all instances of violence from occurring. There is only limiting the number that occur and how many people are harmed in X amount of time. That's still worthwhile.
I haven't heard about the ammunition used in Allen but "varmint" rounds do have a legitimate purpose. There are some types of ammunition that civilians don't have access to.
I believe that red flag laws would be part of an ongoing evaluation. Tying arrest and mental health records into licensing would also.
I do favor licensing and training to carry in public. I'm more ambivalent about for those who keep guns on private property.
I think it's needed in general: gun safety doesn't change much between private property and public, and from a basic responsibility perspective there's a need for ensuring that guns don't get into or stay in the hands of those that should not have them.