In this article by the Washington Post, the author, Leah Libresco, researches if gun control is really the answer to the United States’ problem of gun violence. She researched instead of what interventions could be made to lessen the death due to guns.
First, she researched Britain’s and Australia’s gun control and concluded that they did not do much to lessen mass shootings or other gun related-crimes in that country. A case of mass shootings in Australia was rare due to the buyback program which is progress she states. However, both had an arguable effect on gun-related crimes or death when gun restrictions were put into place.
She then studied firearms and their attachments and found no gun owner actually walks into a store and buys an “assault weapon”. If the United States banned attachments, people who are hobbyist can easily recreate these attachments at home making it meaningless. As well as fewer magazine capacities, a skilled shooter could still reload fast.
She finally researched the statistics of gun deaths, she found that two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year were suicide, then was homicides due to gang violence or other street violence, and finally domestic violence. The author wanted to work towards the progress of not banning but working towards helping these selected groups to get help. She wants suicidal men to get help and women to be prioritized by police if they are being violated and finally having gang members be disarmed since there are algorithms that could identify some gang members.
I saw this as a different approach to help America in their battle with gun violence. People usually state that we should just ban guns altogether but would that actually help? With all these guns scattered around the nation, how can the banning of guns reduce the number of guns traversing around the States? 
Guns N Crimes 