i think on some level you don't even need a bill past. just random accidents could be prevented by people Not keeping guns loaded Not keeping them in the open and Not keeping the bullets in the same place as the gun. part of this is on the owners of the guns and personal responsibility. while not addressing most mass shootings it could still save lives in many homes. there was a story a few months ago about a woman who was driving when she was shot in the back. her toddler managed to get a hold of her Loaded gun that she left in the back seat With the safety Off. while she wasn't fatally shot and recovered she didn't learn anything from the near death of herself. and likely child

I actually read an article that the definition of a "well-organized militia" needs to be updated and only allow those participating in a state militia (that is under the authority of the states, not the federal government) to bear arms as a possible suggestion. That also includes the members of the militias to keep in contact with each other as well. The country of Israel is actually very strict and makes the minimum age for gun ownership 24 if you did your compulsory service in their military and 27 if you didn't.

The other main problem is that the current gun laws are NOT being correctly enforced either due to negligence or due to the power of lobbying bodies to block the enforcement of existing rules.

They really need to be stricter gun laws, but some people don't seem to understand the point of having them. There are some crazy people out there who will commit a crime the involve a lot of lives. As always they don't want to.

Actually, he bought his guns about a week before the shooting. He was not on any watch list at that time. He was on the FBI's watch list for several months a couple years ago, but they removed him from that list. The guy probably should have still been on the watch list, but he wasn't at the time.

On the other hand, if military-style assault weapons were not legal, the guy might not have been able to get that gun. He likely would have gone in with just the hand gun, and the death toll would have been much lower.

The core of the problem is the hate, rather than the guns. Guns are simply tools that haters chose to use, because they are easily available, and effective. I think that banning assault weapons would lessen the damage that a hater could do in a given amount of time, but bad things will always happen as long as there are people who hate enough. They might resort to using knives if they can't find a more effective weapon, but the last thing we need is to give hateful people access to anything that can kill many people really fast.

If no guns ever existed, but people still hated, there would still be killings. They might use knives, rocks, poison, bombs or box-cutters and planes. Controlling guns helps by making it harder to kill for some people, but it won't eliminate the problem.

If hate did not exist, but guns were available to all, there would be no killings at all. There might be an occasional accident, like a hunter mistaking someone for an animal, or one going off that the owner thought wasn't loaded, but no intentional killings.

Unfortunately, hate does exist. Hate is all too often taught as a way of life. Kids often grow up surrounded by it. We are in a society that often glorifies violence while demonizing sex. Prejudiced parents usually teach their hatred to their kids. We have a significant number of people who are close to worshiping a presidential candidate who preaches separation and hatred based on fear. That's the sort of thing that ultimately fuels violence.

We really need to come together and choose to not spread hate about anyone. It doesn't mater what someone's race, religion, nationality, gender or sexual identity is. If people stopped hating others based on differences in these things, it would go a long way toward eliminating mass killings and even individual killings.

We need to strive to make friends of our enemies, instead of making enemies of our friends. We should be reaching out to people, including those they call lone wolves. If we don't, someone with a hateful agenda might get to them first. We need to care enough to love people that we don't even know. If we can do that, then guns won't really matter much.

I agree with you on this one. It's a lot like what the Amazing Atheist said a few days back when he was predicting the left and right's reaction to the shooting. You know that they're going to argue points that the other will never compromise on, until they forget what they were originally talking about and move on. The far left will say "all guns need banned because these shooting happen, and the far right will say that Islam in its entirety are to blame for the whole thing. Neither of them will agree because neither is 100% wrong, but nor are either correct.

As much as I hate to point the finger, Islam has the most potential to create extremists that do things like this. It's a big problem. We can't tell them to stop subscribing to their religion, because it's against the constitution. But at the same time, Islam creates all kinds of extremists that hate the west, and want to destroy it one mass shooting or car bombing at a time.

Not all Muslims are hateful, but there's no doubt that Islam has a great potential to spread this hate that you're talking about. It's sad, really; when a bunch of fuckwits mess things up for everyone else by acting like a fool or a total madman.

I agree with the constitution, especially on the freedom of religion thing. Like all freedoms, some people choose to abuse them. Lawyers can get rich on slander and libel cases because some people abuse their freedom of speech. People routinely get shot because someone abuses their freedom to bear arms. Some groups use religious scriptures, usually out of context, to justify killing and other crimes.

Some religions lend themselves to radical agendas better than others. We've all heard the common reasons given by those who use Islam to justify killing. People have blown up abortion clinics, killed blacks and gays, and all sorts of other things based on a twisted interpretation of Christianity as well. It's almost as if some Christian churches don't have a New Testament in their Bibles, as they completely ignore the teaching of Christ. Islam parallels the Old Testament of the Bible in many areas, and they don't have anything comparable to the New Testament.

I still think everyone should be able to be of any religion they choose, or none at all, if they like. The constitution gives them all the same freedoms. Those freedoms end when one groups starts harming others though. Freedom of religion does not include freedom to break the law. I can't create the First Church of Kleptomania, and use it to justify stealing whatever I want from people. A religion can't be used to justify human sacrifice, rape, treason, or anything we've made laws against. It's freedom of religion, but only within the law. When individuals or groups become radical, they tend to break all sorts of laws.

I don't think religion creates extremists, so much as extremists seek out whatever they can use as a tool to justify their radical agendas. Religion is a great tool. All one needs to do is to convince followers that God is on their side. Most followers never question what they are told. They simply feel good that their actions are justified by God. If people are convinced that God wants it, they will kill. It's so easy to convince people of things that are easily proven to be false. Once convinced though, there is little that will change their mind.

Consider how many preachers have given the year day or time when the end times would start, as mention in Revelation. But, in several places in the Bible, when Christ himself is asked, he says that he doesn't know the day nor the time that will happen, and that not even the angels of Heaven know, but that only God the father knows. Even so, some preachers, almost every year, claim to have figured it out, and gain thousands of trusting followers. They follow blindly without ever checking in their own Bible to be sure. It makes me think of how many times Mr. Trump claims that Hillary wants to take away our 2nd amendment right, even though she's never said that. When challenged, no one can provide any recording or transcript where she ever said that. But, followers of anyone in power, be they preachers, or Trump, or anyone else, rarely check on the validity of what they are told. If people always checked, it would probably be impossible for radicals to gain followers.

To be honest, I think bans or eliminations are going to step on too many toes. I'm in favor of strict government licensing, and general common sense laws. Many first world nations require licensing, registration of fire arms, a reason for said fire arm, mandatory safety training and proof of safe storage facilities. Common sense law whittle away at fatalities time and again, and even Obama has cited public shootings as a "public health concern" much the same as automotive accidents.

I think this more moderate approach is much more common throughout the US, rather than the all-or-nothing attitudes form the NRA and the Far-Left, respectively.

Am I in favor of gun limitations? Absolutely! Some guns are best left to military use, and probably shouldn't be in civilian hands, even if they are (admittedly) kind of cool. You pretty much encapsulated my opinion; cumbersome hunting rifles and shotguns, and normal handguns, are perfectly OK with me. In fact, considering I'm about to move to a more urban area in the near future, I may end up getting something like that for protecting my home. You know, just to be safe.

Am I in favor of gun control? Absolutely not! At least, not in the form that everyone's talking about. Everyone's talking about making all guns illegal... even to just own one! Similar to the war on drugs, this is a very bad idea. Like drugs, the demand for guns will still remain the same even if a ban is instated. Also similar to drugs, guns are used for a specific purpose, and that purpose will never go away; guns and drugs will always have a purpose for some people. This will cause guns to become incredibly expensive, and the ones that do exist will be incredibly hard to control and track down, should someone misuse them. The way guns are sold right now is ok, even if the background checks could be a bit more thorough, and some states apparently have less strict rules about how long you have to wait before you can get your hands on the gun that you purchased. Yeah, our spot isn't perfect, but we're probably more than halfway to the solution, and all out banning guns or making the laws less strict would definitely put us back several steps... not to mention what it could do to our already sky-high incarceration rate.

My personal solution is to keep the system we have now, but tighten up regulations; make the background check a bit more comprehensive, put a 2-week waiting period on across all states, and more closely restrict anything that has no purpose outside of security or hunting/sport. That means all of those semi-automatic rifles need a special license or something with an even more rigorous background check. I mean, seriously; no one needs an AK-47 to take care of an intruder in the house, when you could scare the shit out of them when they hear you pump a shotgun, let alone what you could do by actually firing it at them in self-defense.

At the risk of getting attacked: Assault Rifles are barely legal for civilian ownership, it requires a federal license and a tax stamp for each one. None the shooting have involved actual assault rifles (by definition an automatic rifle with other features) and assault weapon is a scare phrase - the various definitions used over the years have included common pistols and hunting rifles.

What I propose is a restrictive licensing system: you want to own and carry a firearm? Cool, every two years prove you can use it safely, appropriately, and effectively under test conditions. That is, pass a practical marksmanship course, comprehensive exam on legal use and carry, and a judgmental firing course.