So let's consider that the context isn't a real-time conversation or a date. 

1. I brought up the point to Svennoj that legal-issues aside enforcement is a real problem logistically, and there are also concerns because enforcement of new criminal laws almost always leads to more racial inequality in the U.S and we are currently in a period where we desperately need wide-scale decriminalization. 

2. Chrkeller uncharitably quoted my response with a quib about hunting deer with semi-automatic weapons, as if the concerns I brought up were as trivially inconsiderate as an NRA talking point.  

3. After a few back and forth quibs, Chrkeller brought up policy proposals that they thought were "common-sense" or "logical" without addressing the concerns about enforcement I previously brought up. 

4. At this point, given that I already brought up a few problems with enforcement, the whole point of my contribution in this particular discussion was enforcement, and there was no good faith effort or understanding that this is the problem I have, do I just ask a few of these questions waiting for more quibs or to emphasize that enforcement isn't some trivial matter but something quite complicated with various different implications to people of different backgrounds and relations with law-enforcement do I form a barrage of questions? Of course, given the history of there being no good faith within the discussion I am going to choose the latter. It wasn't to overwhelm, but to instigate in a way that emphasizes that there are dozens of questions that need to be answered when constructing legislation that will strongly affect people's lives. Partly I was interested in Chrkeller's responses, as I am with anybody who supports criminalization of certain forms of otherwise non-violent activity, but I didn't have high hopes and given that I never did receive answers to even the general question implied in the barrage -- how can we enforce any strong gun control laws equitably?, and for which I asked elsewhere I wasn't wrong in my assumption. 

1. Right, laws shouldn't affect people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds differently, but we aren't talking about some ideal implementation of the law or even the intent of the law, which might on paper seem perfectly egalitarian. We are talking about the actual implementation of the law -- how the law is actually enforced in the actual real-world institutions that exist. The American political and legal institutions are unique enough that they have been able to preserve white-supremacist effects even if on the surface they are liberal (read: racially-egalitarian or color-blind) in content.

While not being shot is indeed a primary concern everyone has in the U.S, there are other concerns that people in marginalized spaces (and even those who aren't) have for their well-being. The likelihood of being shot in a mass shooting (or otherwise), even in the U.S, is still quite a bit lower than the likelihood of seeing yourself or a relative discriminated against by law-enforcement on the pretense that you have a weapon, or being a victim of a non-lethal but organized crime, or being impoverished because the community you grow up in is seen as "crime-ridden" or many other less-than-lethal but still undesirable positions to be in. It is a lot like being more concerned about being in a car accident than a plane crash. A plane crash is almost certainly worse than being in a car accident, but you are far more likely to be in a car accident so your more primary concern is to make sure you are safely driving or riding in a car. 

2. I actually see it as the inverse. Poverty, misogyny, racism, and various other social maladies are the motivations for almost every shooting, but also the sources of other problems. Solving these problems solves not only shootings but also other strong problems in American society. If you don't have severe poverty, people don't turn to organized crime to survive. If you don't have widespread misogyny, especially in the form Incels express it, radical misogynists don't exist to kill people out of their self-loathing and anger. If you don't have widespread white-supremacy, white supremacists don't exist to kill people out of their fear and anger. These are the sources of the issue. Without them, people wouldn't be motivated to engage in the violence in the first place. 

Stop selling higher powered, high mag capacity semi automated guns.

Raise the age to purchase guns to 21 years old.

Ban second hand sales of guns.  

Common sense. Start there.  But I'll wager a guess, the response for the other side is going to be "no because reasons."  

It's time serious action is taken, we need more than "ThOuGhTs AnD pRaYeRs" because we all know thoughts and prayers don't do shit.

I realize that I never suggested what my "preferred gun policy" is. 

I think a tiered licensing system along these lines is probably ideal: 

Class #1: Any rim-fire weapon and ammunition| no license required, can't conceal carry 

Class #2: Ability to purchase center-fire weapons and ammunition | shall issue license upon completion of state-subsidized course, comes with nationwide concealed or open carry permit

Class #3: Automatic weapons, other Title II weapons, and other military small-arms | participation in gun club or state-militia with references, thorough background check, regular mental health checks subsidized at the state's expense. 

People who own a weapon in a class that they don't have a license for are given the opportunity to meet the requirements, retroactively, as an alternative to fines or jail-time in so much as they didn't commit a violent crime. 

Former felons get to own guns and get their voting rights back automatically upon completion of their sentence, unless there is reason to think they are at a high risk of recidivism. 

Nevertheless, I think solving the social maladies that we find in the U.S is a more comprehensive and thorough solution that has many more tertiary benefits. 

Bipoc people?

Black, Indigenous and other people of color.

People who have ancestors that were colonized by settlers from Europe and are below whites in the American racial caste system, a system that people pretend has been deconstructed but actually hasn't been. 

I would personally ban Class #3, but otherwise I think that seems to be a pretty solid plan in regards to firearm legality, however I think it misses a lot of other avenues where we should be attempting to combat this crisis. Namely, universal background checks and restrictions on who can own guns. So, I would add the following:

-Every time a firearm changes possession, a background check must be conducted. No exceptions.

-Raise the age required to purchase a firearm to 21.

-Ban individuals with a history of substance abuse or non-felony domestic violence charges from firearm ownership for a period of time (Research would be necessary to determine how long this period should be). Additionally, violent felons should never get their firearm owning rights returned to them.

-All firearms must have a unique serial number.

I would also support a firearm registry in order to both improve enforcement and to help solve crimes, but this seems like more of a long term goal than a short term one. 

Additionally, we should seek to more holistically address crime by seeking to improve access to housing, improve schooling, improve wages, etc, but while I believe this is extremely important, I do think it is a bit of a different discussion. 

If you are talking about license to bear firearms. Yes it's no longer a right, or at least a highly infringed right

Also... The more armed guards the more shootings?

Christ… O.O