Neither are examples of responsible gun ownership and harm any meaningful discussion of gun rights and responsibilities.

BTW, I would think that guns would have had to been distributed in great quantities in Africa to prevent slavery.

Militarytracy,

Florida Supreme Court Justice Buford's concurring opinion in Watson v. Stone (1941):

I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.

Further, the available statistics demonstrate with almost crystal clarity that we did not have this type of problem with mass shootings in the past to the extent that we do now. According to Mother Jones, there have been at least 62 mass shootings -- defined by MJ as a single incident in which a lone shooter took the lives of at least four people -- across the country since 1982, and 25 of these have occurred since 2006. Seven such incidents took place in 2012 alone!

Last I heard, President Obama and Vice President Biden are not advocating for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. And speaking as someone who's long been waiting for the 2nd Amendment's sub-clause about "a well regulated Militia" to be clarified by firearms proponents, escalating gun violence is a serious problem plaguing our entire country, and one which is begging to be addressed by rational and serious adults. This is about opening a dialogue in the seach for answers.

So, if you have any proposals, we're all ears. But if you don't, and further are content to stand forthrightly in the way of any attempt by others to forge a sensible solution, then I can only act in accordance with the wisdom of the late Hawaii Gov. John Burns, who once observed, "Any goddammed fool can draw a line in the sand -- and who am I to argue with one?"

Personally, I don't think any of these measures will prevent the next mass-shooting or lessen gun violence. They do nothing to address the reason people resort to violence.

"Data from a national survey of inmates indicated that nearly 80 percent of those who had used a handgun in a crime had acquired it through a transaction with an individual who was not a licensed gun dealer." LINK

I don't understand how someone can claim that requiring background checks on all gun sales won't lesson gun violence, my question is how can it not ?  

  Even to provide meaningful compensation to persons injured by guns or to the estates of those killed would require a fundamental change from the way insurance companies do business and one that is practically impossible. Insurance policies contain exclusions for intentional acts by insureds, so only accidental discharges or negligent storage, handling or entrustment, etc. would establish liability for the insured.  If such exclusions were prohibited then the only result would be no insurance company would be willing to write such policies.

  If that is the intent, i.e., banning gun ownership through the backdoor by mandating an impossible prequisite, it's likely the de facto ban would fail on the same grounds as a law more directly banning the possession.

  It's also not hugely likely that many  people contemplating shooting someone would be vigilant about complying with the law and making sure the gun they used was covered by a paid up policy before pulling the trigger.

  I supose that in theory  government could create insurance programs  to write the required coverages and take the losses the private sector would not consider and that would provide some coverage for the victims of those meticulous abot complying with mandaory insurance laws but i still don't think it would make any dent in gun crime.