You want some common-sense gun control? Here you go.

[happyslug]

50. Ballistics tests are a waste of time

I am assuming when you use the term "Ballistic Tests" you are referring to actual pictures of bullets fired from a gun NOT how that bullet travels through the air.

Ballistics test work, if you mean the markings on bullets after they have been fired, are only good if you get two rounds fire close enough to each other so you can get a match. The problem such ballistics is the result of wear and tear on the barrel, shooting more rounds or even cleaning the bore can change ballistics. Remember most barrels are worn down after firing 20,000 to 25,000 rounds. In a modern Assault rifle that can be done in normal combat in about 3-4 months. In such conditions the ballistics can change by the hour simply by the mere volume of shooting.

While, Civilian weapons are fired less often then military weapons, firing just a few rounds would change ballistics so much that that the one on record would be useless within a week of its bring fired and recorded.

It is for this reason ballistics are used only in actual shootings where the weapon can be tracked down. In most such cases, it is HARD to fire the weapon so that its ballistics are changed, but merely cleaning the barrel may be enough to make the ballistic test just show it is the type of gun that COULD have been fired, not that it was fired.

Funding mental health treatment from the sales of firearms will effect every US agency involved with the environment. Present US law taxes firearms 15% for Federal Conservation efforts. To add a tax for Mental Health care would reduce sales of firearms and thus reduce the money for these agencies. The reason the 15% tax rate has not changed since the early 1900s is that if you increase it to much more, you will get more people finding ways around the tax. This is a problem with any sales or use tax, it is more a nuisance then a tax to avoid up to about 10%, above that level you start to see massive evasion of such taxes. Given the restrictions on who can sell a firearm, the 15% tax rate is low enough NOT to encourage evasion, but if you raise it to much higher, you are asking for evasion. Such evasion will encourage illegal gun sales which does NOT help the people with Mental Health or the limited funds for Federal Conservation efforts.

The same with mental health reports, doctors will just sign what ever is needed if and when they are paid. If you hold the Doctor Liable for such reports, then they will NOT do such reports, but then force people into the illegal arms market (remember prohibition and today's war of Drugs? Remember ow successful they have been given no legal substitution is possible?). Legal Substitution, i,e, Restricted but legal Alcohol sales drove most moonshiners out of business, but if no legal sales are possible for most people, then illegal business boomed. Thus, by requiring a doctor's report and punishing the doctor if it is wrong is just driving people into the illegal arms market, something we do NOT need to expand.

We already regulate the sale of firearms, the problem is what happens if both parents die and the Children inherit the weapons? This comes up in Bars quite often, the law is clear, for example take a the one year heir, such a baby will own the bar due to his parent's death, but can not enter it for the baby is under 21. In many ways the same for firearms among family members, People transfer weapons among family members all the time, just like Automobile ownership (through off road vehicles would be a better comparison, for the State hold no title for such vehicles unlike automobiles that operate on the highways). The problem is how do you handle such situations without TAKING the property of the Child? The answer is something like the law is now, private transfer is permitted if among family members, unless it is illegal for the person who inherits the item to inherit the item, then such person has to dispose of it in a commercially reason matter (i.e. sell it or give it away, but not touch it if we have a felon that inherits a firearm)

Now in the most recent mass killing it is clear the large capacity magazine was an essential part of the reason for so many dead (Just like the easy access to explosives was the key to the even larger death toll in the 1927 Bath School house massacre, where 58 people died). These magazines permitted constant fire from the rifle. The shooter seems to have been well trained in how to operate the weapon. Ar-15 actions, while reliable, are noted for jamming. You have to be trained on what to do to unjam it quickly (Most just "jams" can be fixed within seconds). In the Aurora Movie Shooting, that shooter seems NOT have been trained on what to do if the weapon jammed. Thus he ended up throwing away his AR-15 Type rifle when it jammed and reverting to his less effective pistols.

Bath School disaster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Aurora Movie shooting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

Thus, part of the reason for the mass death was the shooter had the training on how to use his weapon. That was a bigger factor then the large capacity Magazine. The problem is it is hard to prevent such training if someone wants to do it. This occurred in 1997 At Penn State, a student took a 7mm Mauser Bolt Action rifle and opened fire, killing 1, wounding three. What worked against that shooter is she decided to fire from an open location, so people had places to run to AND someone could charge her from a position she could NOT see. That was NOT the case in the School, the hallways contained any attack to two directions and while the Principal and the School Nurse did attack (which is what you do in such situations). In effect the Penn State Shooter had the weapon to do a mass killing but her choice of position permitted her capture AND permitted most of her potential victims to run for cover. People tend to forget, that 5 round magazine 7mm Mauser is an ideal weapon for mass murder, it has enough fire power to keep most attackers at bay and enough fire power to do what this shooter did with his AR-15.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzel_Union_Building_shooting

As to recording rounds purchased, you have a problem, it is that the US reloads it ammunition and US Ammunition is noted for being re-loadable, all you need is powder and primers (and generally a sizing tool to make sure the expended shell is sized back down to size). I first ran across this unpleasant "fact" during the Vietnam War. During that War, the US wanted to aid certain guerrillas in Laos, but did NOT want to give them any ammunition that could be traced back to the US. The problem was the US wanted to produce the Ammunition but the US and Canada are the only country, as a general rule, that use British designed Boxer primers, due to the fact they are one piece and thus easy to be removed for the Shell to be reloaded. The rest of the work uses Brendan Primers, designed by an American during the Civil War and permitted easier mass production but harder to reload. Due to this problem the US had to look for a country that uses Boxer primers and mark the ammunition as coming from that country. The US went as far away as it could, to Canada.

I bring this up, for reloading is done in the US and is extensive. More and more of it is on the net. Thus restricting who has access to such ammunition is a waste of time.

Sorry, you proposal will not work for the above reasons, a better set of social improvements would be as follows:

1. Increase spending on Mental Health Care, including a two way system. System "A" is a voluntary system where people can agree to get Mental Health care at no cost AND they can keep their weapons. I mention the later requirement for I have run across a couple of people, who were in need of mental health care but would NOT apply for it, for they MAY lose their weapons. Sorry, we want them to seek care, more then we want to take their weapons away.

The alternative system, what I call System "B" is that anyone can report anyone else as a danger to themselves and others (this is the law today, so no change is needed as to reporting, through that people can make such a report should be advertised on TV and other media), taken to a place of mental care and checked out. If the person opts for system A no problems, if he refuses to permit care then the intake specialist should do a quick analysis and either commit him or not. If committed held for three days and then the patient's case is reviewed by a Judge. If the Judge, based on the report of the Psychiatrists keeps the person in the Mental Care Hospital such enforced care should be grounds to deny access to any weapons in any house the patient may live in.

2. Increase spending for Mental Health Care, including housing for such people in a structured housing situation (i.e. they MUST be in at certain times, they must do certain things and if they do not they go into more restrictive housing). Increase spending on people who visits and support families with such people in their households. This will NOT be cheap, unless you understand it is the best way to catch such shooters before they actually kill anyone. You have to spend money to prevent losses as occurred in Connecticut but so far, as a society we have been reluctant to pay for such treatment.

3. In High School, where Schizophrenia tends to develop in males (Schizophrenia tends to develop in females in ten years later) AND other problems start to occur, students should be reported by their teachers (and parents or anyone else) and evaluated by Psychologists to see if they have any long term problems. I do not mean normal teen age hang ups. i.e, Fights in Middle School, sexual language etc (teachers know what I mean) but something more. Such Children should be reported AND seen by an outside Psychologists to determine if anything is wrong. If, in the opinion of the Psychologists there is no real problem, nothing more, but if the Psychologists determined something is up, then a referral to a Psychiatrist is on order.

The reason for the above is Psychologists do a better job of evaluating patients as such patients are today, while Psychiatrists, being Medical Doctors, are better on giving treatment.

All of the above has to be paid by the State or Federal Government, the local school will NOT be able to come up with the funds and neither will the families (and it has to be funded based on need of students NOT a formula as used in Pennsylvania where money for special need children are allocated by total students NOT total students with special education needs). Without funds any program is doomed and taxing firearms will NOT bring in the money needed.

I bring up the above for most shooters are NOT people without a history, but people with a history, including untreated mental health care.

4. All School rooms should have more then one exit, the alternative some exit OTHER then into the hallway the other entrance is in. Had these Children been able to get outside, the loss would have been much lower (as was the case in Penn State). I know this is expensive, but it also permits quicker evacuation of schools in such situations. I know schools will hate them, giving kids alternative ways to leave is some teachers nightmare but the classic solution is a door to the outside that can NOT be use to enter the School room. Such one way doors have been around for over 100 years, easy retrofit to any school with one floor, more expensive in a two or more room school. If done right could make the school look nice, have a "porch" on each floor with steps leading downward (The ugly alternative would be old fashion fire escapes with a door on the bottom floor to prevent people from using them to enter the school).

I am sorry, like fire, such nut cases should be included in the design of any new school. Getting the Children away from the School is the best way to reduce such losses and if you have more then one way to exit each school class room it would be hard for one gun man to kill to many. I know the idea would be no one get killed but we can NOT even guarantee that is case of a fire in school. Remember Napoleon's famous Maxim, to defend everywhere is to defend no where, the same with class rooms, the best defense is to get the children out and dispersed. Do not try to stop such a shooter, it is a waste of time and resources, the solution is to minimize harm if one should break in and that can best be done by dispersion as what happened in Penn State.

95 % of all crimes (including School Shootings) are done with pistols and I have no objection to restrictions on who should have access to pistols. On the other hand restrictions on Rifles and Shotguns are not just cost effective, knives and "Blunt instruments" kill more people then Rifles and Shotguns. In fact more people in most states (there are some exceptions) were killed by Hands, fists and other parts of the body then by Rifles AND Shotguns (West Virginia, Texas, Tennessee. South Carolina, Ohio, North Carolina, Montana, Missouri, Mississippi, Minnesota Michigan, illinois and Indiana are the exceptions with more people killed by Rifles and Shotguns then by Hands and feet):

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats

Murder by Weapons by state:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

In fact this shooting is going to screw Connecticut's numbers:
In 2011 the numbers for Connecticut were
54 were murdered by Pistols,
1 by a Rifle.
1 by a Shotgun
38 weapon unreported, but probably a pistol.
18 by knives,
10 by other weapons (generally a "blunt instruments" but maybe explosives) and
6 by fists, hand or feet.

There is a old saying in the law "Tough Cases make bad law" and that is true of tragedies like this one, something has to be done, but lets not pass an ineffective law just because we can (in many ways the 1968 Gun Control Law was passed in such a situation and reason it is considered bad law is that it was rushed into passage due to the various assassinations of the 1960s, a better law could have been made if both sides had taken more time and did it right). The assault weapons ban was a similar bad law, making a weapon illegal based on various aspects for the writers of the law could NOT agree on how to define an "Assault Weapon" without making various other rifles illegal. This was a "wall" they could not get around and thus a bad law was written (With its provision to expire in ten years, which it did),

A better law would be all cities of a certain size must have a free range where people must register to shoot (or if a private range, connected to a central computer to report who is at the range). People, to use the range must report what weapon they are firing. The reason the range would be free is to encourage people to go to the range and self report they shooting. Patterns of firing could then be seen and if certain pattern is found, that shooter would be investigated behind his or her back (check with his neighbors, friends etc check any criminal or psychiatric history). Some one who comes for years and fired 1000 or more rounds, don't worry about him he just likes to shoot. Someone who comes in one week, shoots 1000 rounds, then does not come back, he should be checked out, to many round in to short a time period to be a shooter. It is reports like that that are needed, not if someone purchased an AR-15. The real test if how often is it fired. To much over a very short time period, something is up. After a quick check it may just be a group of friend who got together to due some firing, it may also be someone planning some sort of massive attack. A check on who did the shooting can quickly determine which is which (and often can be done by looking at who else was present or not present.