Dear Nicole,
Thanks again for the opportunity.  With this short notice, I’m going to outline in broad strokes some of my thoughts.  These are not necessarily concrete proposals, but what I feel are some useful guidelines that could direct our thinking around gun violence and gun control in the US.

 1) International context and numbers, numbers, numbers:
The debate needs to move from the US alone as an isolated environment to a broader global context.  When the number of gun killings (and suicides) in the US, calculated in proportion to the population, is compared to what happens in other so-called civilized countries, you immediately understand that the problem is indeed about guns and ‘gun culture’.  Arguably youth in Europe or Israel are exposed to similar content in the media, but the number of gun murders on an annual basis is dozens per country.  In the US – thousands (e.g. over 10,000 in 2008).
The argument that there are special security issues in the US or that guns are the answer to mass shooting or other attacks is weak – Israel for example has a low rate of gun crimes, with serious security threats and very tough gun regulations.  Civilians have difficult time to acquire a gun: they go through rigorous applications, medical and mental checks, proof of need, go through training etc.  (I personally owned a gun in Israel for a few years and only because I served as an officer in the IDF.  I still needed to go through this process.  Additionally, there were regulations that required me to repeat my training under supervision, renew my license and more).

What the White House should do?
–       Work with the numbers and bring them to public attention.  Define a clear target that is proportional and aligned with the global standard (for example: reduce gun crimes to xxx over the next 5 years).
–       Wide research on what works and what doesn’t in Europe, Israel and other countries.
–       Based on facts and real data, put forward recommendations of measures to adapt / implement in the US.

 2) It’s not about freedom, it’s about regulations:
Nick Kristof does a much better job than me, but I like his op-eds and arguments that we need to regulate guns just like we regulate anything else: “… American schoolchildren are protected by building codes that govern stairways and windows. School buses must meet safety standards, and the bus drivers have to pass tests. Cafeteria food is regulated for safety. The only things we seem lax about are the things most likely to kill.  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has five pages of regulations about ladders, while federal authorities shrug at serious curbs on firearms. Ladders kill around 300 Americans a year, and guns 30,000…”
What the White House should do?
–       Adapt this simple argument.
–       Focus on regulations that have most impact.  Assault rifles or enhanced magazines are a no-brainer, but there is a long list of items that could make a huge difference.

3) New guns are only part of the problem:
Regulating new purchases would be an intense and uphill political battle, but what about the 270 million guns that are already out there?  Some countries, like the UK in 1997, passed laws about surrendering guns – More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were “compulsorily surrendered” by February 1998. Using “records of firearms held on firearms certificates,” police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales.  Just thinking of a similar situation in the US makes you cringe.  However, some experiments around the world included rewarding civilians who give back their guns.  Gamification anyone?
What the White House should do?
–       Address the major problem of 270,000 guns in a country of 300,000 people.
–       Explore innovative ways to encourage owners to give back their guns, especially in cases of multiple firearms owned by the same person or family.

 4) We’re not totally clean – media has impact:
And now let’s focus on video games.  Yes, we keep hearing that no direct correlation has been proven between violent video games and acts of violence.  However, as Co-President of Games for Change it’s hard for me to argue that games have no impact or ability to train, teach, and even change behavior.  If this power can be utilized for positive outcomes, it must also have negative consequences.  Fortunately, there are rating systems for movies, video games and other media.  So instead of saying that we are clean, I would argue – let’s review our systems, make sure they are working, and more importantly – make sure that the regulations are followed.
My suspicion, especially when I watch an R-rated movie in a multiplex cinema and hear children cry in the back is that in many places the rating system is simply ignored.
What the White House should do?
–       Review media rating systems.
–       Enforce implementation and execution of rating systems.

Biden Games Gun Control guns playsourcing Videogame Violence violence