The Gun Solution proposed here is one of the more measured and level-headed assessments I have come across. The proposals it puts forth make a lot of sense, but I think it is missing a few things:

1. It completely ignores non-fatal gun injuries. I cant find a source atm but I believe around 40% of non-fatal gun injuries are accidental. To me, this is an indication that SOME level of training is required. Even if it's a $20 online course. This is an incredibly moderate take but many of the 2A enthusiasts I know would be opposed to this because "shall not be infringed" has been pushed as an axiom from 2A special interest groups. Which brings me to point #2

2. The article places the burden of action on the "liberals". No matter how sane the laws, no matter how good the messaging from the American "left" it will not penetrate the right's sphere of influence. Why? Because we all exist in our own media echo chambers. Any proposal will be completely misrepresented in bad faith, no matter how much of a compromise it is.

3. In many instances the implementation of gun control has not been lefty loonies taking guns away from red-blooded conservative Americans. The laws had bipartisan support. The Mulford Act in California was motivated by Black Panthers open carrying, and was passed under Reagan's Governorship. Bush Sr. banned importation of assault weapons in an attempt to be "tough on crime" and Clinton passed gun control legislation while also passing the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which turned us into a de facto police state.

The liberal media doesn't focus on data, it never has. Their analysis is flawed and their purpose is to drive traffic and manufacture consent. But even if CNN was repeating this article's proposals word for word, it would fall on deaf ears. The reason why we can't even have a discussion in the first place is because gun ownership has been fetishized and turned into an identity for people. It is now a facet of "identity" politics.