I appreciate your response. As a gun owner and someone with a lot of experience using them in both private and professional capacities, I have my own views on the subject. I will use those views to address some of your points below.
High capacity mags: I wouldn't have an issue with banning them, but I think it's just highly ineffective. Most pistol mags won't have more than 15 rounds, but the size of the magazine tends to be dependent on the gun and caliber of the bullet. It's quite common to see 15-round mags with Glocks or pistols chambered for 9mm. For a 1911, a .45 caliber pistol, typically, you will see 6-8 rounds in those mags. I haven't seen any data to suggest that larger capacity handguns are used more often or more effectively than say, a 1911. Since long-guns make up 3% of the murder rate when a firearm is used, limiting their magazine capacity probably wouldn't have much of an effect. For what it's worth, I went through a course where I had to change out one 30-round mag for another and effectively put a shot on target in under 2 seconds. So changing mags is not inherently difficult. Finally, at the end of the day, it's a box with a spring. Manufacturing them with 3D printers isn't difficult, and controlling the production of these is unlikely to occur. I guess that what I am saying is that I think implementing this is a lot of work to produce virtually no meaningful gain, so maybe we can use our time and effort in a better way in order to reduce violence.
CC licenses: This is a really hard one to address because it varies so much by state. When I got my Texas one, I had to go through a 8-hour class, show competency on a pistol, undergo a background check, give them my fingerprints, and apply. It was a pretty lengthy process that took about 2 months (although there was a backlog at the time). When I was in Pennsylvania, I had to go down to the courthouse, stand in line, fill out some paperwork, and that was it. I was done in about 20 minutes. I think training is great, and I am all for having high standards. Despite feeling this way, I haven't seen a clear linkage between states that have really high standards and low crime rates where a gun is a factor versus states that have lower standards and higher gun crimes.
Waiting periods: Some states don't have waiting periods. I have never waited for a gun in my life (other than the 10-20 minutes it takes to do a background check while I am at the counter). I just don't see how they'll be helpful, and I haven't seen any data to support that they are. If you have some good data, please share it with me.
Databases: This has a bunch of second and third-order effects. To have an accurate database, you would need all existing gun owners to self-report. You would also need to end all person-to-person sales, any gifts, etc. And to what end? Please elaborate why you think this might be good or helpful, as I'd like to hear your point of view. As it seems now, this is a lot like the High Capacity Mags thing: A lot of work for negligible yield.
Income inequality: I think that this gets at something very real. While I don't think that people are totally motivated out of desperation, I think changing things up in places that have high amounts of crime where a gun is used would be helpful. Most cities in America are seeing reduced levels of violent crime in general, so this is good! Something is obviously working, although the pace is a little slow for most people's temperaments most of the time. Some still have a long way to go in reducing this crime, but the only one where things are really bad is Chicago. They also have a lot of issues with drugs and insufficient policing (expressed in numbers of LEOs and/or their effectiveness relative to other departments), at least in the South Side of Chicago (where virtually all the crime occurs). I think cleaning up the area is probably the best solution, although that's going to be a slow process. If we use a Relief, Recovery, Reform model, I think we need to immediately clamp down on the crime and lock up the bad guys/those who want to be criminals (let's face it, some people consciously choose to be violent criminals because they think it will make them rich, they think it's romantic because they've seen too many movies or something, or don't want to be proficient at things that are productive to society), whereas others enter into criminality because of its availability or because they don't see other options as meaningful chances to build a future. Once you can get a little bit of order, you need to rebuild some of the property to raise the property values of those neighborhoods so that people want to live there, and work to raise levels of education and bring in businesses that will create avenues for those educated people to enter into. It's going to be a little bit stick and a little bit carrot.
I hope that this maybe helps move the dialogue along.
