third one would be more controversial because of what has happened in NOLA and California.

There also are some real practical issues and details that would have to be worked. Neither pols nor discussion groups are good at that, and with guns, the technical and the details matter. For example
- Do we really want to treat interfamily transfers (gifts, inheritance, loans...) the same as buying a new gun?
- The current background check system has inadequate throughput and is FFL specific. It needs to be opened up and improved.
- Federalizing the process should also be considered. It would end the patchwork of current laws. That would make it tighter in Wyoming and looser in California. Objections to that would come from all sides as well.

Criminals, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill are already banned, though it varies somewhat state to state. The real issue is reporting. I have not seen any real opposition to that other than costs.

Didn't relatives try to shield the 2 murders n GA who shot the toddler in the face?

Maybe family members aren't the best judges of the character &/or potential dangers their relatives represent? Maybe they just aren't responsible enough themsleves?

Gifting may indeed be something needing some control.

My daughters received some firearms as gifts when they were minors. They were all in my name and they used them only under supervision. When they moved out of the house I transferred them to them as adults in a manner required by law. Similarly with the Lanzas, its not clear if there were formal transfers or not, given his age, I suspect not.

Another item that would need to clarified is loaning. If I take someone out to the range and let them shoot something I own, should that require a check? I think not. Same with hunting guns while in the field. However, if they take it home with them etc, that is clearly some sort of transfer. An FOID approach would address much of this.

But there is a phenomenon in America now that is probably unprecedented. It's a polarization of ideology that seems practically impossible to bridge. Let me make a terribly extreme analogy just for a point... put Gandhi and Stalin in the same room and ask them to find middle ground. There would be no middle ground between these two ideologies; it would never happen. But if you meshed the two mechanically... what do you end up with? Probably something between George Bush and Obama. I think we have tried to find middle ground on issues of race, violence, capitalism, environment, human rights, animal rights, you name it. The problem is, it is like finding middle ground where Grand Canyons of ideology exist.

I wish us all the best in finding the solutions to gun violence and the trauma and mental illness that both precipitates it and follows it. But there is a chasm of understanding between methods that is almost impossible to mesh and therefore reaching that goal of peace probably will not happen without great losses on one side. Only one side.