Shots fired at High School in Florida, numerous fatalities.

The insistence on banning the AR-15 is dumbfounding in any number of ways and very misguided. The AR-15 is less one set weapon and more of a platform of varying components (technically Colt owns the official AR-15). The ignorance of those who wish to regulate guns is astounding. Guns are the only topic I know of where someone can know damn near fucking zero about a topic but be taken seriously debating it - its disgusting. Just to be clear THE AR-15 IS NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE THE AR-15 IS NOT A WEAPON OF WAR THE AR-15 IS NOT FULLY AUTOMATIC THE AR-15 IS NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON (I felt the need to point this out in part due to Fatalis' post about a page or two back where you can buy assault rifles in her state - I mean you probably can but its obscenely heavily regulated the purchase of legitimate (automatic) assault rifle) All of the above are commonly said about the weapons these school shooters use and it is completely and utterly factually incorrect. The education and facts are out there and are *easily* accessible to anybody with an internet connection or hell even a library or local gun store. There is NO excuse to be this ignorant on guns especially if one wants to debate the merits of legislation and regulation. I can't take anybody seriously if they show a disgusting and inexcusable lack of knowledge. At first having the CDC or some other groups banned from studying such things sound ridiculous but of the studies I've read into it is clear there is an anti-gun bias and that those studying gun violence don't actually know what they're talking about. They know murder rates in many statistical formats but they don't know guns. This would be like studying the impact of abortions on the female body but having zero knowledge of a woman's reproductive organs (where they are on the body or how they function). (I'll admit Xueli's remark kind of spurred this on but this is not directed at her/you in particular - mentioned perspective but the perspective of one "side" if you will is uneducated as hell and it is overwhelmingly obvious in nanoseconds)

Fox queen / megi (or however else you identify?) you are correct about culture differences as well and its one thing that pisses off pro gun (typically conservative Americans who are prone to conserve the culture and mindset and values of our founding fathers) people is that people try to compare America to Europe and to us that has near no merit. Also while the topic of mental health is on the forefront (as it should be) - we can all generally agree that mentally unstable or potentially violent people shouldn't have access to guns. However actually solving that problem is VERY complicated and has A SHIT TON of room for error and abuse. To some people just the desire to own a gun is a prima fascae case of insanity. Any regulations on mental health (assuming they didn't violate any civil liberties or HIPPA laws) would have to be crafted VERY carefully and specifically and have a process of appeal. Its one thing to say "we should stop crazies from having these high powered rifles" its another thing to actually make it happen without creating an even bigger problem and opening ourselves up to a new world of abuses.

We could require psychological assessments of people before they're allowed to purchase a fire arm. You wouldn't allow someone with known psychological issues to join the armed forces, why allow them to purchase a firearm if they can be known to be a risk?

People talk about not banning all weapons just certain ones that meet some criteria. That sounds good on paper but .... like .... what criteria? who decides this criteria? who decides if this criteria even has merit? A lot of people will reference that we don't NEED (usually inserting terminology that is inaccurate, loaded or otherwise misleading) something or another and my response to that is to say - who are you to tell me what I need?! Sure maybe for one or two guys burglarizing my home do I need a 30 round magazine in an AR-15 (style) rifle - maybe not but don't make that choice for me (or limit my ability to make that choice). Just because you don't need or feel the need for one of those rifles do NOT make that choice or limit my ability to make that choice. In 1992 Korean shopkeepers kept looters and rioters at bay during the riots in LA stemming from police brutality trials that had an unpopular outcome (and thank goodness we solved the whole "police on black people violence" issue in our country since then and is no longer an issue /sarc). When people say things like "high capacity magazine" who is to say what size magazine is "high capacity" ... limiting a magazine to 10 rounds for "standard" sounds very arbitrary to me... like why 10... why not 5... 15 ... 20? The problem with half of the gun debate is that people who are ignorant, fearful, and don't feel the need themselves to be armed with guns or at least only limiting to "small arms" want to call it a day and limit the choices of others based on that ignorant closed minded perspective. These are people who view guns simply as weapons of war, killing machines instead of tools or protectors. These people don't know why someone would want to own upwards of 5 guns. I personally as of this writing own three handguns/pistols. Why three? They serve different purposes and do different things well. Just to enlighten I'll explain... My three owned weapons Smith and Wesson Victory-22: My first gun chambered in .22LR (long rifle) which is a very cheap cartridge to shoot for target practice which makes it great intro into the gun world and is quite the money saver. (Capacity - 10 round magazine) Smith and Wesson 686 (revolver): This six inch barreled revolver is my current powerhouse chambered in .357 Magnum. This is my favorite gun for target shooting as I just love shooting the .357 rounds. Also this is my "home defense" gun - even if I miss the muzzle flash and noise will scare any intruder shitless. (Capacity - 7 round cylinder - NOT MAGAZINE OR CLIP) Sig Sauer M1911 (tac ops model): This is my carry weapon for when I conceal and carry where allowed in public. I do emphasize conceal so its not like I'm brazenly displaying it and whatnot. Chambered in .45 auto/acp provides excellent stopping power and is more easily concealed for me than my other two which have longer barrels. (Capacity - 8 round magazine) (In a magazine fed weapon it is possible to have 1 more round of capacity by chambering a round and then reloading the magazine with one more round) This covers just three handguns - add in a shotgun, AR, hunting style or sniper rifle (assuming one of each) and that is six guns right there which would all have their unique strengths and purposes. With this simple analysis and thought process it drives me nuts people who insist that you don't need more than one weapon ... or don't need this or that... because it is overwhelmingly likely that they can't even begin to figure out why I didn't stop at my first gun other than being some mind controlled drone of the NRA or just plain crazy.

Daggs to piggyback off of your point about how accessible AR-15's are you have to be careful with that. I could drive 10 minutes and fill out some paperwork and go through a background check and voila by dinnertime I'll have my shiny new AR to fawn over. Gun laws in America vary GREATLY. It is VERY inaccurate to say that America is guns everywhere no regulations everyone has a gun ..guns guns guns raining from the skies. People can say that there are 80 or upwards of 100 guns per 100 residents in America but that doesn't mean that everyone has a gun. Like described in my last post the people who do own guns own multiple and again they serve different purposes and have different strengths and appeal. Someone can get a very misleading impression just going "90 guns per 100 residents holy shit everyone in America has a gun" but gun owners are a minority (estimated 30% or so of Americans own guns noawadays) That means like I just said the ones who (legally) own guns do have a stockpile. Another statistic that can be very misleading are the gun death numbers. Suicides are counted which account for 2/3 of gun deaths per year. Also just the murder rate is very skewed by a select few areas country wide (the "shocker" these select areas are where guns are MOST REGULATED). The USA is by far #1 in civilian gun ownership per capita (not even close) yet does not crack top 10 in gun death per capita. The 10 countries with the most guns USA - 112.6 guns per 100 residents Serbia - 75.6 Yemen - 54.8 Switzerland - 45.7 Cyprus - 36.4 Saudi Arabia - 35 Iraq - 34.2 Uruguay - 31.8 Sweden - 31.6 Norway - 31.3 The 10 countries with the most gun-related deaths Honduras - 67.18 per 100,000 residents per year Venezuela - 59.13 Swaziland - 37.16 Guatemala - 34.1 Jamaica - 30.72 El Salvador - 26.77 Colombia - 25.94 Brazil - 21.2 Panama - 15.11 Uruguay - 11.52 If guns were the problem and it was guns that caused such violence - wouldn't those two lists at least look similar? America is gun happy guns everywhere but isn't top 10 in gun related deaths (per capita)? Isn't every fender bender cause for a shootout? (source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/mapped-the-countries-with-the-most-guns/) Back to my original point to clarify that gun laws can vary dramatically per state and even in a state (let alone the whole country). Some states or locales are very much like Europe (and yet they are the epicenters of gun violence).

The problem with doing those screenings is that people often lie. There are loads of people with mental problems in the military and I know that because I've met quite a few of them during my service. Maybe better prevention methods such as security cameras and guards. I keep seeing alot of posts about, "Well give a good guy a gun to stop the bad guys with a gun." And Daggerfella its actually really easy to get an assault rifle. My brother is a felon and he's buying two of them. xD

^I highly doubt its an actual assault rifle unless your brother is wealthy as hell and set for life. Also he would have to undergo a rigorous and drawn out process should it be an actual assault rifle. If he's a felon that should show up in the background check (hell maybe there's some felonies exempt?). Although this isn't always the case depending on what the database has. Problems with mental health screenings are also if they're going to be used to allow or deny gun ownership (a right) is that there are going to have to be very strict and specific guidelines and rules to follow (and appeal process).