You nailed it! How do you protect yourself from a person with no criminal record and seemingly a good person in the community UNTIL he goes crazy? Impossible to figure. It would help to have an armed security person at all schools in the country to try and deter a sicko but in reality he would most likely be the first one taken out and the spree would continue?? I know it is wrong but I will bet a lot of people are thinking they should be carrying a gun for their own safety. If the principal or other staff were packing a concealed gun this would not have been as severe but yeah that solution is not the answer either, just saying though
- flyerdude17

So the solution is to do nothing? I don't get that attitude.

-stop handing out mind altering narcotics (ie anti depressants) to every Tom, Dick and Harry that is having a bad day or got dumped by their girlfriend.


I absolutely agree there should be stricter laws on owning assault weapons - but the inability for people to deal with their own emotions without the assistance of some type of anti depressant has to be factored in on this. The most normal people misdiagnosed with some form of anti depressant can become a drastically different person in the matter of no time. Champix was a huge hit to help people quit smoking, imagine, anti depressants to help you quit smoking!! That's absurd! I have a friend who is a normal fun loving family man, that took Champix to help him quit and within weeks was having dreams of harming his children and wife...normal folks, on mind altering medication when it's not needed, will not think like themselves.

I'm not providing any excuses here for this pathetic excuse of a human, but I'd be very interested to see what type of meds he may have been on, and whether it was truly necessary to be on them.

Just my opinion, and surprised it hasn't been brought up yet
- jakrabbit

Anti-depresents and anti-pyschotic type medications are not considered "narcotics", but I get your point and I believe you do bring up a vaild issue. Society in general. Pharmaceutical companies are largely to blame for the pill popping society we live in. I don't know if it had anything to do with Fridays tragedy, but it's a good point nonetheless. I mean it's seems like it's a miracle if you don't know at least one individual on a personal level that isn't on some sort of anti-depressent or mood altering medication due to mental health issues. People get stressed out they get a pill, people can't sleep they get a pill, people sleep to much, they get a pill. People can't cope (for whatever the reason) they get a pill etc... etc...

If you're required to or opt to take prescription mood, personality or demeanor altering meds, probably shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

Anti-depresents and anti-pyschotic type medications are not considered "narcotics", but I get your point and I believe you do bring up a vaild issue. Society in general. Pharmaceutical companies are largely to blame for the pill popping society we live in. I don't know if it had anything to do with Fridays tragedy, but it's a good point nonetheless. I mean it's seems like it's a miracle if you don't know at least one individual on a personal level that isn't on some sort of anti-depressent or mood altering medication due to mental health issues. People get stressed out they get a pill, people can't sleep they get a pill, people sleep to much, they get a pill. People can't cope (for whatever the reason) they get a pill etc... etc...

If you're required to or opt to take prescription mood, personality or demeanor altering meds, probably shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
- MnGump

That is a very slippery slope to tread on. Not saying I agree or disagree, but rather it opens a can of worms. What happens when people who could use the help decide to forgo it in order to maintain their right to own a firearm? Or what about the other uses for anti-depressants(they have been shown to help those with IBD for example)--should somebody with inflammatory bowel disease be denied the right to own a gun because they take a particular medication?

So your local cop friends are a better barometer than the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police?

Or the rank and file, who consulted the registry up to 11,000 times a day?
- Atomic Wedgie

The Police Chiefs got donations fromt he Canadian Firearm Centre, which is why they were "in support" of the registy. It was used 11,000 times a day only because everytime someones drivers license was ran at a traffic stop, it would check the registry.

Why are you still arguing about the registy? The piece of shiit is gone and has been proven a millions times that criminals dont follow the law and no piece of paper is going to stop people from getting killed.

That is a very slippery slope to tread on. Not saying I agree or disagree, but rather it opens a can of worms. What happens when people who could use the help decide to forgo it in order to maintain their right to own a firearm? Or what about the other uses for anti-depressants(they have been shown to help those with IBD for example)--should somebody with inflammatory bowel disease be denied the right to own a gun because they take a particular medication?
- Rawdog9755

Slippery yes, but out of line? Not really sure. I probably shouldn't be trying to expound on a topic I know little about. However, I don't necessarily believe that it takes more than street smarts and common sense to consider that any sort of mind altering or personality altering meds might be at the very least considered in the restrictions on gun ownership.

I've read alot of media and heard stories about how some of these types of meds change people and create aggressive and often times suicidal type behavior. But then again, I have no links or 100% concrete evidence that any of that is true in other than a small percentage of the population.

Was just a thought, but with that said I don't want to live next door to anyone on anti-psychotic meds that owns guns.

Its not nitpicking when there are real differences. This isnt the same as some grammar nazi telling somebody they used their instead of they're. As i stated earlier, banning assault rifles is not the same as banning automatics. There are nuances to the discussion people should be aware of.
- Rawdog9755

When you're discussing gun rights with non gun enthusiasts. Or people that don't have specific knowledge of guns, it's nitpicking. I want both Assault Rifles and Automatic Rifles banned.

I will tell you all, the .223 cal is a miltary round designed to wound, not kill. In battle, if you wound someone, it takes 2 of their men to remove him, clearing th feild of 3 men. If you kill someone, you only take out 1 guy. The .223 is a small fast bullet, disigned to have an active kill range of 600 yards. It is not designed to hunt, anything but it is good for gophers or other varmits.
- bixll

Is that the round that was used in Newtown?

When you're discussing gun rights with non gun enthusiasts. Or people that don't have specific knowledge of guns, it's nitpicking. I want both Assault Rifles and Automatic Rifles banned.
- MJL

when discussing removal of any constitutional rights, its probably best to be informed on the topic. Its not like we are discussing legislating increased mpg for cars here. Knowledge is power and furthers the argument in your favor when you can speak to a topic in an educated manner. I own an AR yet I still agree that restrictions should be greater if not having them outright banned.

when discussing removal of any constitutional rights, its probably best to be informed on the topic. Its not like we are discussing legislating increased mpg for cars here. Knowledge is power and furthers the argument in your favor when you can speak to a topic in an educated manner. I own an AR yet I still agree that restrictions should be greater if not having them outright banned.
- Rawdog9755

I don't think that I need to know the difference between an Assault Rifle and an automatic rifle to discuss Gun control.

I don't think that I need to know the difference between an Assault Rifle and an automatic rifle to discuss Gun control.
- MJL

It helps to know and here is why. None of the shootings of recent memory have involved automatics, yet most have involved assault rifles. Automatics require a class 3 license--requires a much more rigorous background check and costs a lot of $( thousands). Assault rifles should be treated the same.

It helps to know and here is why. None of the shootings of recent memory have involved automatics, yet most have involved assault rifles. Automatics require a class 3 license--requires a much more rigorous background check and costs a lot of $( thousands). Assault rifles should be treated the same.
- Rawdog9755

I'll leave that to the experts to decide which guns need to be banned. I don't need to know that for the context of my discussions.

The only guns anyone should be allowed to have, are rifles used for hunting, and small firearms for personal protection. Every other weapon, automatic, semi automatic, assault rifles, whatever. Including all forms of high volume ammunition. Whether that is the correct term or not. Need to be banned and taken off the streets. I realize it's not that simplistic, and it's a big task. But start there.

And Senator Dianne Feinstein of CA said she will be introducing Legislation in the New Year.

I don't think that I need to know the difference between an Assault Rifle and an automatic rifle to discuss Gun control.
- MJL

Actually, you do. There's a HUGE difference. If you don't know anything about the different types of guns, then you can't sit here and say which ones should be outlawed.

Did you know that the last time they banned certain types of guns in congress, there were (on record) representatives saying that the rifle should be banned based on looks. Yes, LOOKS!!! Don't be one of those ignoramuses.

People, please don't sit there and say "get rid of the guns" and think that will take care of it. It's far deeper than that. Controlling who can't own guns (felons, mentally ill, etc) is something that needs to be looked at. Most definitely. But it doesn't end with guns. It's a societal issue. It's just simply SO much more than guns.

Actually, you do. There's a HUGE difference. If you don't know anything about the different types of guns, then you can't sit here and say which ones should be outlawed.

Did you know that the last time they banned certain types of guns in congress, there were (on record) representatives saying that the rifle should be banned based on looks. Yes, LOOKS!!! Don't be one of those ignoramuses.

People, please don't sit there and say "get rid of the guns" and think that will take care of it. It's far deeper than that. Controlling who can't own guns (felons, mentally ill, etc) is something that needs to be looked at. Most definitely. But it doesn't end with guns. It's a societal issue. It's just simply SO much more than guns.
- shoogabear

I'm not going to be one of the people deciding which guns to ban. That is what the experts are for! How hard is that to understand? LOL

Secondly, nobody is saying or thinks that simply getting rid of the guns is going to solve everything. Or it is the only thing that needs to be done.

But banning the appropriate weapons is a start.

I'm not going to be one of the people deciding which guns to ban. That is what the experts are for! How hard is that to understand? LOL

Secondly, nobody is saying or thinks that simply getting rid of the guns is going to solve everything. Or it is the only thing that needs to be done.

But banning the appropriate weapons is a start.
- MJL

In your previous post you said what guns should be banned. Don't throw out your beliefs and hide behind the "I'm not making that call" card. Also, if you're describing yourself as a non-expert, don't make statements like that. You're proving to everyone that you have beliefs based on something you know nothing about. Thinking vs Feeling.

Read the posts, and not only on this thread. There are PLENTY of people saying to get rid of guns... and that's their only offering, so... yeah.

Wish you were here
Brain Damage
Comfortably Numb
Run Like Hell
- Aetherial

Be Careful with that Axe Eugene

In your previous post you said what guns should be banned. Don't throw out your beliefs and hide behind the "I'm not making that call" card. Also, if you're describing yourself as a non-expert, don't make statements like that. You're proving to everyone that you have beliefs based on something you know nothing about. Thinking vs Feeling.

Read the posts, and not only on this thread. There are PLENTY of people saying to get rid of guns... and that's their only offering, so... yeah.
- shoogabear

You're inaccurate. I do not know enough about guns to state which specific guns need to be banned. Nor do I need to know that. I did not name one specific gun that needs to be banned. I know what type of guns I think should be banned. But that is just using a general description from a layman's point of view.
You're proving how stupid you sound. As if you have to be a gun expert and know the technical names and terms of guns to get involved in the gun control conversation, and believe that something needs to be done about the guns in this Country. Especially based on the recent events that happened in Newtown. As if you can't grasp that which guns that specifically need to be banned needs to be left to the gun experts and the politicians that will be writing the Legislation. I know what I believe in and why I believe it. And I really don't care what you think about that.

In your previous post you said what guns should be banned. Don't throw out your beliefs and hide behind the "I'm not making that call" card. Also, if you're describing yourself as a non-expert, don't make statements like that. You're proving to everyone that you have beliefs based on something you know nothing about. Thinking vs Feeling.

Read the posts, and not only on this thread. There are PLENTY of people saying to get rid of guns... and that's their only offering, so... yeah.
- shoogabear

Ban ALL guns. You don't need them.