General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Terry McAuliffe, on his "F" rating from the NRA [View all]AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Because the shooting highlighted not just that the reporting wasn't done in that case, but compared to some other states, it was utterly neglected.
One could address a large part of this by changing the nature of the reporting requirements. Currently, the system is carrot/no carrot. There are funding incentives for states to meet the reporting requirements, that's all.
There's no carrot/stick. The stick doesn't exist. There is no punishment beyond some public outrage when the media feels like highlighting this shortcoming.
The balance should be stick/carrot. You don't meet these requirements, you lose XYZ funding at the state level. Explain THAT to your constituents.
The vast majority of mass shooters have both mental health issues that could well trip purchasing prohibition statues, AND purchased their firearms legally. (Per the other infographic that is being discussed in GD/Gun subforum.) One could specifically target that issue without impinging on the type of firearms available, or the number owned by individuals.
Same for registration, which I believe is workable. That would spike straw purchases utterly, and it would allow the police a shopping list to go collect when someone trips a firearm prohibition flag via restraining order, or mental health evaluation/adjudication.
Registration really is something we should be working on. Give/take. Open the NFA registry, and extend it down to all firearms, 30$ fee per firearm, one-time registration. Not so hard. Fund it with an excise tax, like the 11% wildlife habitat restoration excise tax already on long guns/ammo.