It was just a few days ago that we saw a study using US LEO data which showed that assault weapon bans do nothing to reduce murder rates, while bans on weapons purchases to people with ANY sort of history of violence, including misdemeanors, has a significant effect. So you are correct.

My current preference would be:

1. A weapons licensing program requiring training and passing a test both on general use and much more heavily on safety and responsibility/ethics. Biennial refresher course for license renewal.

2. A complete ban on gun ownership for any violent crime history or history of mental health issues, or known affiliation with a group classified as a terrorist group or criminal gang, or any other well known factors which significantly increase the risk of gun related murder, allowing unlicensed persons access to your firearms, including mandatory immediate surrender of arms and amo for anyone with a gun license if any of these points should become relevant after the fact.

3. Significant funding for means of identifying other factors that could help reduce gun deaths and implementing laws that integrate such factors once they have been demonstrated, as well as education to help the public at large identify the factors that are statistically relevant to gun deaths.

Yeah, I'm sure black and brown people just won't pass the test. Shocker! Or the facility will be unavailable. Or the paperwork lost. Or it'll cost $500. Or whatever.

That's such a painfully white suggestion - to readily remove liberties so hard won, in a way that will only effect people of color.

You do know gun control has historically only effected black/brown populations right?

It doesn't have to decrease "violent crime", it's enough that it reduces violent murders (in non-crime scenarios, e.g. domestic abuse, mass shootings, etc).

> (in non-crime scenarios, e.g. domestic abuse, mass shootings, etc)

I don't understand your parenthetical assertion that domestic abuse and mass shootings are not crime. Of course, they certainly are crime.

>I don't understand your parenthetical assertion that domestic abuse and mass shootings are not crime. Of course, they certainly are crime.

My point is to separate the actions done by career criminals, (organized crime, burglars, gangs, drug dealers, the mob, etc). As opposed to a casual, accidental, one of, not intended, breaking of the law (even if they committed crime) by an ordinary person who doesn't live off of crime.

(Perhaps the distinction is more powerful in my language, but I think there's a distinction in casual conversation in English too. E.g. you'd call someone who abuses their spouse a "wife beater", or "creep", or "abuser" or several other terms, but you wouldn't say that they lead "a life of crime" (even tho domestic abuse is a crime). The same way you usually wouldn't call a mass shooter a "criminal", but a "deranged person", "psychopath", "terrorist", etc). If I say "criminal" or "outlaw" for example, does that bring in mind someone deep in crime, or a person involved in a DUI?

Anyway, my point is, in a total gun ban, you'll still have the gang/career criminal/etc people have guns and you could even have the same amount of gun crime of that type as now, but you'd have much less murders within a family, mass shootings, etc... -- as it would be way more difficult for lawful people to get their hands on guns, have them casually at home, and e.g. use them on a sudden rage against their spouse or parents or whatever.

(I'd say even the career criminal type of crimes will be less -- criminals will also have a worse and harder supply of guns).

Doesn't take much to find it. You're only a search away. You can't claim to be knowledgeable in the least on this subject if you haven't become across it, even if just to find some of its criticisms .