Tuesday, June 3, 2014 1:15:41 PM
@DFWBrysco: As @OldOllie mentions, the key here is "due process". Gun Grabbers use this excuse to grab guns, not prevent crimes. In some of their proposed "laws" if your cousin seeks treatment for depression? YOUR GUNS are taken away! Because he "might have access" to them. Is that a "good idea"? Nope! And what constitutes the difference between "mental problems" and "mental illness"? a HUGE % of people seek help for depression & such, the % of killers is NOT disproportionate to the average population! But severely mentally ill people should indeed not have guns, AFTER due process. If they cannot be in-voluntarily committed? You cannot take their guns away. Seeking help for depression is WAY more important than the "risk" of mass killing by that person. Allowing untreated mental problems to spiral out of control is MORE dangerous!
Tuesday, June 3, 2014 8:02:26 AM
More than half of the mass killers of the last 30 years possessed assault weapons or high- capacity magazines, according to Mother Jones. High-capacity magazines allow a gun to fire without the need to reload, maximizing damage, increasing body count and minimizing risk to the shooter
LOL what a crock of cherry picked s**t!! An "assault weapon" needs select fire these don't have that. As for a "high capacity mag" the military and such calls those standard issue tell me how you don`t need to reload those again? ROFL! Mass shootings account for a small number of murders check out what does and the status of the legality of their weapons and you`ll see the truth. BTW did you know crime has been going down for 20 years now? The "assault weapon" ban had no effect what so ever on it.
Monday, June 2, 2014 10:35:20 PM
What the article doesn't mention is that all but one of those multiple-victim public shootings took place in a gun-free zone. (The lone exception was the Gabby Giffords shooting which took place outdoors in a parking lot.)
While the numbers are difficult to calculate, it has been estimated that you are about 100 times more likely to be involved in a multiple-victim public shooting in a gun-free zone.
BTW, I`m all for denying guns to the mentally incompetent, but only AFTER they have been adjudicated as such by due process.
Monday, June 2, 2014 6:49:57 PM
Pro- or anti- gun argument, this did make a compelling viewpoint - that is that most mass shootings were performed with legally acquired weapons.
Further analysis showed that the majority of the incidents were with people that had mental issues.
So - does this beg the argument that if logical, sane gun control in the form of background checks (including mental stability) were required on gun purchases, that perhaps some of the legally acquired weapons would not have fallen in the handles of the mentally challenged people, therefore lowering the incidence of mass shootings?