On number 2 and 3, Constitutionally, I think both would pass. You’ve had the background check in place, and most everyone has no problem with the functionality. Personally, if you applied 2 and 3 to the past 300 mass shootings...I don’t think they would have mattered much. In the case of Texas former Army guy where he should have been on a list to prevent him buying a gun....that’s the fault of Army not placing him on the list. In this case, regulations already exist....they just needed to be exercised.
But then we come to the age idea. If you decide that people can’t be mature at 18 to buy a guy...where exactly does this idea go? For example....could you borrow dad’s gun and go hunting? Could you borrow your brother’s gun and go hunting? If you are that untrustworthy, why should I allow you to buy alcohol or cigarettes? Why should I allow you to vote? Why should the financial community allow you credit cards? This opens up a broader question.
But here’s this odd thing, from the past 1,000 mass shootings (4 or more)...how many were committed with juveniles, 18 or younger, with a gun? I suspect when you get to this number....it’ll be less than a hundred.
In the end, these three ideas will have little to no effect, and it might even open up the whole discussion of maturity on voting. I personally wouldn’t have a problem in making the age of maturity across the whole nation...21.
“In the case of Texas former Army guy where he should have been on a list to prevent him buying a gun.”
A small niggle here for accuracy - the guy was discharged from the Air Force which failed to file the proper report that would have barred his purchase. Otherwise - great comment!!