[Lapwolf]

Now we need to define what we as a society tolerate is an acceptable price to pay for the current "guns for all, unless.." law (fill in the blank with "mentally unstable, criminal etc, etc). If that answer is less (or 0) shootings/killings, then we have established that the current law is dysfunctional and requires change. It is that simple.

If we're really serious about reducing the number of mass shootings, the answer is multi-faceted. Obviously mental stability issues must be addressed and better documented as nobody of sound mind would choose to go to a public place and open fire. In addition, we must reduce the "gun free" places as they are obvious targets (the andedotal evidence is that even crazy people with guns don't choose places where they might find opposition). For example, in schools there MUST to be faculty members that carry concealed firearms and it MUST be know that these people are always on the premise.

All states should have a reasonable process to allow the law abiding public to carry concealled weapons. How many mass shootings have happened in Florida malls? I'm not saying everyone should carry, but the more law abiding citizens that do will be the best deterent.

As for assault weapons, when picking up your newly purchased AR-15, in many states you must show or buy a trigger lock. I have no problem with 30 round clips, but anything above that is excessive (10 round clips are pain in the butt). I am loathe to restrict lawful ownership of assault weapons as I do believe the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is make sure the government knows the public can turn into a large army in short order (I forget George Washington's quote, but I remember it being quite profound). Remember your history, King George tried to disarm the colonists as he feared a revolution which is the case of most tyrannical governments, they disarm the populace before they show their true intentions.

That might be paranoid, unless you're right...