The trends don't look too good for those who want to build a sizable coalition of voters for future legislative battles over guns. Maybe the old tactics of the NRA emphasizing responsible gun ownership and professionalism were better than the "in your face" style today.
There are certainly many legitimate purposes for firearms in our society, to include recreational shooting, home defense, collectors, etc. But just because something is legitimate doesn't make it wise.
If the physician determines that the patient is, in fact, a health risk if there's a gun around, how do you determine the degree of gun access without infringing on his right to own a gun whether he's a risk for gun violence or not?
I believe that in the interest of the greater good would be federal legislation mandating anyone with certain psychiatric diagnoses (Paranoid Schizophrenia, certain types of dementia, and other psychotic disorders) be entered into a federal database, prohibiting them from gun ownership.
Unfortunately, we are once again being reactive instead of proactive, and while these new gun laws and edicts may silence some of the critics of our supposedly "too lenient" gun laws, it really does nothing at all to curtail the sale or use of illegal firearms.
Now, I'm not opposed to guns or to gun ownership. I've shot various kinds of guns in various contexts over the years. However, the notion that a person should own a gun because someone might try to victimize them is an argument that doesn't resonate with me.