I'm Canadian, so also an outsider to American law.

Personally, I think if someone can get their license for their gun, even without sight, they should be allowed to own one. The process to get the training to handle a gun safely without sight, though, may be very difficult.

One big factor (especially in the US) is the types of guns (and ammo) that are available to get. I can see why someone would want a hunting rifle, or a handgun (for hunting, protection, etc). It's a bit more of a concern when someone wants to use assault rifles with armour piercing bullets, incendiary or explosive rounds. :S

My coworkers and I have had some clients try out archery and axe throwing before. Both can be dangerous if done improperly (there is a crapton of waivers you have to sign, regardless of sight), but they can be done safely if you are careful. Same idea with guns, it's just the range is much greater.

I fear you’re trivialising what is a very complex issue. You’ve also conflated two issues together: firearms control; and incidents of mass shootings (specifically school shootings).

You could completely outlaw firearms in the US and I doubt it would impact the rate of firearms related violent crime or death. Even over the medium term, the impact of a total ban would be extremely limited at best. The reason is that firearms are already in distribution and you've mainly got to rely on people voluntarily turning them in when such a ban is implemented. Sure you can send police around to confiscate the things, but the man power required is just too overwhelming. Firearms might also not be completely traceable, or people can lie to conceal and maintain their possession.

The other issue is that it pushes firearms underground. The result is that you create an uncontrollable element. Regulation really is a much more effective tool to deal with the situation.

In my opinion. the two big things that can key this that can help mitigate crime involving firearms and mass shootings in the United States are requirements to properly secure firearms, and attitudinal changes. The thing that always gets me is the number of toddlers that die or who kill their parents with firearms. This situation comes about because loaded firearms are kept within easy reach in the United States. The most successful aspect of Australian legislation is requiring firearms to be secured when not in use in a double locked safe affixed to the building. In addition, firearms cannot be stored loaded, and ammunition must be kept in a separate safe to your firearms (again double locked). On top of these requirements, only the owner of the firearms is legally allowed to access them.

Obviously the US context is different and I’m certain supporters would point to their right to self defence. This element dovetails nicely into my second point regarding attitudal change. Simply put, an attitude that condems harming fellow citizens, or turning to firearms as a first resort in self defence scenarios needs to be encouraged. Such a change is likely to benefit American law enforcement too, both in terms of keeping them safer, and making law enforcement officers seek other means to resolve conflict rather than turning to firearms. Achieving such a change would require a mix of legislation (placing more stringent tests around self defence and use of reasonable force) and education. Again, speaking from the Australian context, self-defence is not an accepted reason for the possession of a firearm. The law also requires flight be preferenced over fight, but in the instance one is pressed to defend themselves with force, that force must be proportionate to the threat and should someone cause injury, or worse death, in the course of defending themselves, the incident will be examined very closely and seriously and it is very likely to progress to the courts to determine whether the person defending themselves was reasonable in their use of force. The key thing here is that you only have the right to harm another in the most exceptional of circumstances.

Regarding the other issue you’ve raised of incidents of mass shooting, particularly in school contexts, while removing easy access to firearms is likely to reduce if not eliminate them (experiences in Australia and New Zealand support this hypothesis), such responses are reactive, not preventative. Again you also have the issue that you could achieve your desired ends (constraining access to firearms to those that commit mass shootings) in a far easier manner than outright bans, namely more stringent regulations enforcing secure storage.

What I mean by reactive is that you aren’t actually addressing the root cause of mass shootings, simply the means by which they are perpetrated. Without easy access to firearms what would replace these incidents? Quite likely what you see in the UK: mass stabbings and vehicular attacks. I’d also expect the suicide element of mass shootings to remain unchanged. I’d encourage you to have a listen to Anatomy of a Highschool Shooting by Ill Bill (incidently a song that a French student, who went on to commit a mass shooting in France earlier this year, or late last, was obsessed with). It’s a very confronting song, but his core thesis is that sustained harassment and disrespect, combined with the apathy and absence of concern from authority figures (the teachers), led to the Columbine shooting. His question to us, the listener, is given Eric Harris’ and Dylan Klebold’s perspectives on their experiences and treatment, is it really surprising the event took place?

So you can constrain access to firearms, but that isn’t going to do anything to address the issues that lead to mass shootings. Rather, what is actually required to prevent such incidents is greater investment in mental health, peer support in schools and workplaces, and greater steps to prevent citizens becoming isolated or ostrasised and connect people with their community. That’s not to say I’m not of the opinion that improved firearms legislation and regulation isn’t part of the response, it is, but it isn’t a panacea to these issues and needs to form part of a wider policy response.

At the end of the day it needs to be accepted that violent crime will occur. Public policy should mitigate its prevelance to the greatest extent possible while mainting the liberty of its citizens, also to the greatest extent possible. It’s a difficult balancing act to be sure, but it can be achieved short of completely banning firearms – and for a lot less money than this would cost to boot. Whatever controls that might be implemented however, the fact is that America has a very strong firearms culture and a constitution that endorses the possession of firearms. That isn’t something that can be surmounted overnight. Change will need to be incremental and take place within that context.

Edit: Two things I thought of afterwards that I wanted to add:

I’m not here to preach that Australian legislation is superior. It’s far from perfect. It’s merely what I know (I’ve read the Firearms Act and regulations for my state more than once) and I’m providing it as an example of how the issue is managed in other countries (specifically here). The idea being to provide food for thought on possible options for the United States, and a case study that US policy makers can take learnings from.

Another issue with total bans on firearms that I did not touch on is primary production. Firearms are a very important tool for primary producers to protect both stock and crops from wildlife. This aspect is probably even more important here in Australia than the United States because of the impact of introduced species. Firearms form part of a comprenhensive program, which includes baiting, trapping, and biological controls, to manage feral specifics such as rabbits, foxes, deer, goats, boar, buffalo, wild dogs, feral cats, and cane toads. In addition to their threat to agricultural production, feral animals cause an immeasurable amount of damage to Australia’s unique ecosystems. Any controls need to recognise this importance and support primary producers and conservationists alike.

It amuses me how shocked my parents and family are every time a shooting is reported. There are shootings everyday; this is the world I've grown up in. Honestly I'm surprised when a shooting isn't mentioned.