Reply #101: More corrections to your post...

[SteveM]

"The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated" militia. So it allows for some regulation."

Actually, there is more to the Second, as you know. "Well-regulated" meant that when the militia was called to assemble that citizens were to PROVIDE THEIR OWN ARMS suitable for use in combat. It is not a bottomless well from which regulation can be ladled up on demand.

"The question is, what regulation will reduce violence cause by guns. The shooter used a gun last Saturday, lest you forget. He couldn't done it without that gun."

You may wish to read the Center for Disease Control's executive summary of gun-intervention strategies and the research supporting them. They found insufficient evidence that any of the strategies offered had any effect of the problems purported to be solved or ameliorated. You needn't be high & mighty about "forgetfulness," but lest YOU forget, Cho at Virginia Tech killed far more people with a similar semi-automatic pistol using rather conventional magazines -- he just carried more short ones. So a far worse mass murder WAS IN FACT carried out "without that gun."

"Guns is one area (and perhaps religion) that brings out the paranoid in members of all parties."

I don't know what you mean by this.

"So, you don't see any problems with gun massacres in public?"

Did anyone imply there was no problem with "...gun massacres in public?" Frankly, I see a problem with massacres using ANY weapon, public or private. Please try to explain what you mean by this question.

"No, think about the question, read it: do you think reducing gun violence in public, whether the killing of individuals or mass shootings, should be reduced?"

Sure. And in fact, the murder rates in this country have fallen for some years. You didn't forget that, did you? This fall may be because LEOs are more effectively tracking repeat thug-felons, and getting them back behind bars. As far as the spectacular mass killings, I don't think you or anyone else has a real, workable solution to reducing these, except for the "unglamorous" and expensive stuff like better mental health treatment and education. Do you really think this jerk-wad could not get hold of a weapon to shoot others for his own glorification? Do you really think that?

Here is a possible action which may help in reducing high-profile mass shootings, esp. of politicians and other notables: encourage some of the "official" entourage to carry concealed weapons. This may not stop an assassination try, but it may reduce the carnage. Bloomberg, Sen. Feinstein, and others have their armed guards.