The president said, "...We have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them. Period. Enough is enough." "
source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-details-about-colorado-planned-parenthood-shooting-suspect-robert-lewis-dear/
Enough of what? Enough BS? What we really need is an analysis of possible solutions that is objective. But that would be common sense which almost all of the entire gun debate lacks.
Here are two articles attempting to do some of what is missing:
"For
now, the
bottom line is this: large-capacity magazines do not lead to higher
casualty counts in mass shootings. It
is the desire of the perpetrator to shoot a lot of people leads to
higher casualty counts. The
choice of a large-capacity magazine may reflect that desire, but it
does not seem to facilitate its realization. Lacking large-capacity
magazines, the shooters could realize their evil intentions with
other widely available means."
"In
the end, my point concerning violence broadly and gun violence in
particular is the need for specificity over generality. Although we
need to have some definition of violence to create a horizon for our
disciplined study of the phenomenon, I do believe that fundamentally
there is no such thing as gun violence in general. There are specific
acts of violence involving guns with specific phenomenologies,
etiologies, and outcomes."
Both
of the quotes are from David Yamane who is a sociologist.
The
big gorilla in the room is time. Society can give someone permission
to get a gun (said to upset the gun people) but how do people know
some time in the future the person will not do something bad
with it. It could
be years. Be watchful for news stories saying the guy in
Colorado Springs bought all of this guns legally. If this is true
what does it mean about common sense gun regulations?