Strict regulations on carry? Like what? That sounds like restrictions that penalize law-abiding citizens.
Uh, yes. Regulations are going to affect people across the board.
Also, look at your own standard -- you wanted to know what could be done that would not deprive citizens of the right to own or carry firearms. You did not say that you wanted regulations that would not prevent anyone from taking a firearm anywhere they want, any way that they want.
Magazine limits? That penalizes the solitary victim being attacked by more than one assailant. Like a woman in a parking lot or her home by 3 assailants.
News flash! A single person attacked by 3 people is not likely to mount a successful defense. Having 17 bullets instead of 10 is not likely to turn the tide, especially if the defender can't hit the side of a barn with a sawed-off shotgun while in a high-stress situation.
What we do know is that mass shooters often favor high-capacity magazines, and that the need to reload (or switch weapons) does tend to slow them down. Given that there may not be much else we can do about mass shooters, I don't see a problem with this one.
Even the police...in many publicly posted videos...miss under real life stress conditions. Why would you remove any possible advantage I could have against more than one attacker by limiting me to..what?....10 bullets? Do you know that, unlike in the movies or TV, one bullet rarely STOPS an attacker?
So, let me get this straight.
You accept that armed civilians are basically unable to defend themselves (or at least, at a severe disadvantage), because most of the time they're going to miss, and one bullet hit is insufficient. You do understand this undercuts the validity of the self-defense argument in the first place, yes?
Is the only way to ensure your safety to carry a Tommy Gun with a 100-round drum mag, and fire indiscriminately at your suspected attackers?
And of course, you do know that violent crime rates are down significantly since 1992? That a large percentage of homicides are not these kinds of "Stranger Danger" situations at all, rather the killer is known to the victim?
I don't see a substantial "real life foundation" to the scenarios you're positing here.
So sorry, that is all mostly fail or mostly stuff that sounds good but doesnt have a 'real life' foundation under it for HOW it would be implemented. Keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill? Pretty much everyone agrees with that. But HOW would it be done?
We already have a process by which someone who poses a potential danger to self or others can be evaluated. It wouldn't be difficult at all to include provisions in that type of process by which access to firearms can be temporarily restricted, even if the person does not need to be committed to a mental health facility. We can also add provisions by which police can refer someone for evaluation.
Also, if we had a national database, individuals can be temporarily barred from purchasing firearms until they were determined to no longer be a danger.
Will it achieve 100% accuracy? Of course not, but nothing does. Laws against homicide do not reduce homicides to 0; laws against drinking while intoxicated will not completely eliminate DUI's; laws against car theft don't stop every car thief. None of us want to live in the type of police state that would get close to that level of compliance. That's an irrational standard, and one that we do not apply to other regulations.
Last but not least: Many other nations
do use these kinds of laws, and
do see lower gun ownership rates, lower homicide rates and fewer mass shootings than the US. Go figure.