Just from skimming this article one significant problem is that they don't include non-negligent manslaughter. It's legalese for "you meant to kill him, but we don't want to spend a long ass time in court so if you plead we'll reduce the charge so the word 'murder' isn't in it". It also states "This isn’t to say that gang fights over drug turf are less important, but the causes and solutions for them are dramatically different than for the mass public shootings that we hear about on the news." That's eminently debatable. The quick and dirty solution would be a national firearms registry and 100% background checks all the time. I don't support a registry, but 100% background checks for transfers goes a long way toward keeping weapons out of hands that shouldn't have them. More so if you have a meaningful penalty for non compliance. I mean seriously, if you get caught selling a machine designed to kill people to a person who shouldn't have it, why should you expect any mercy from the law? There are a lot of other issues with this article, including but not limited to, the difference between suicide and attempted suicide when a gun is present ("spontaneity", no time to reconsider), the apparent disconnect in the reasoning which correlates gun violence with both gangs AND the total number of gun laws (remember folks: correlation IS NOT causation), the definition of a mass shooting based on the marksmanship of the criminal (yeah he SHOT 12 people, but since nobody DIED it's not a mass shooting), #16 en toto is self contradictory, etc... I've already written an article on this so I won't go on any further, but if you care to read it here's the link.
Wow- a ton of information. We've got to stop looking at all issues from an emotional position because it doesn't work. Good post!