Thanks for the comments on the previous post.
That most of the media and political attention goes to the occasional mass shootings, while the daily toll of smaller scale incidents that account for the vast majority of firearm injuries and deaths is mostly ignored should not be surprising. It's front page news, sometimes for days, when an airliner goes down and a hundred people or more die, but the daily toll of motor vehicle deaths and injuries, which is a couple of orders of magnitude greater over time, is scarcely news at all. This is in part because of the sheer scale of the mass catastrophe events, and also precisely because of their relative rarity. People tend not to notice events that happen regularly and predictably.
However, another factor in the case of firearm violence is that it does disproportionately affect Black men, and that may explain some of the disproportionate focus on some of these incidents which have mostly affected white victims. The reasons for that are well understood by sociologists but are apparently difficult to explain to much of the public. It's a very important problem and I do mean to write about it, but the solutions are beyond the scope of this post so I will put that in the parking lot.
I would like to take the analogy with cars a lot farther. First, we don't talk about car control, we talk about traffic safety. And I think it will help if we talk about firearm safety, rather than gun control. We don't want to control guns, we want to affect what people do with them and reduce the toll of injuries and death. I don't think it's at all realistic to talk about banning handguns because a) regardless of what I think about the 2d Amendment the SC isn't going to go along with it in the lifetime of most of us and b) it isn't politically feasible even in states with the most support for firearm regulation.
But we don't ban cars either. Well, there are moves to create car free zones in cities, and there is far less motor vehicle traffic in Basel or Amsterdam than there is in U.S. cities -- almost none, actually. So people could drive less and fewer people can need to own cars. Those are worthy objectives. But we do, more importantly, make driving and car ownership privileges subject to requirements of proven competence and standards of behavior. There is no reason why you shouldn't need a license to own, store or transport a firearm, that you can only get after you undergo training and pass an exam; that there can't be legal requirements for how you store weapons and where and when you can take them; that they be registered and that you carry insurance; and that the privileges of ownership can be taken away, or denied if you don't qualify in the first place. I understand that all of this only pertains to operation of motor vehicles on public roads, so it's not a perfect analogy, but it seems close enough.
In fact so-called "red flag" laws that allow for firearms to be confiscated under some circumstances do show evidence for effectiveness in reducing injuries and deaths.
And while semi-automatic rifles are not usually the weapon of choice for day-to-day murder, they are the weapon of choice for mass murder and furthermore, there is no legitimate reason I can think of for civilians to own them. They aren't hunting or sporting weapons. Their only purpose, the purpose for which they are designed, is to kill Homo sapiens. The only reason a guy wants to walk into Walmart with a rifle across his back is because he's afraid his dick is too small, and there are more constructive approaches to that problem. I see no reason not to treat them the way we do fully automatic weapons: they must be stored at licensed gun ranges and can't leave the premises except under specific authorization for transportation. If you want to get your rocks off going to the range and shooting at a paper cutout of Michael Bloomberg, okay.
There is more we could do. Pediatricians can advise parents about the risks of firearm ownership and safe storage. Every time we read about kid getting a hold of Daddy's gun and killing his friend or his little sister is one time too many. Physicians should have a mechanism for getting guns away from people who are depressed or suicidal, and people with a legitimate fear of domestic violence should also have recourse. Yes, this should be subject to court review. There can be requirements that weapons have mechanisms so that only their (licensed) owners can fire them. (Yes, you can give your fob to somebody else but at least it can't happen without your knowledge.)
There are probably additional measures that people can think of. I'm not saying that many or any of these are realistic political possibilities, but I do think they deserve a calm and reasoned discussion.