GMTom wrote:a shotgun was used, a hunting gun! Maybe those in Europe or Japan, places that are much more crowded than we are don't see the problem of eliminating all guns? Take deer for example, in a local town where I live they have a terrible deer problem, no natural enemies and no hunting (it's a suburb) means they grow out of control, they eat everyones gardens, they run into hundreds of cars causing lots of car damage plus the occasional loss of human life. Luckily in this particular suburb, they allow special bow hunting permits to cull the heard every year or three. But in rural areas you simply can not keep the deer population under control through bow hunting alone, same with pheasant, turkey, etc. We NEED to allow hunting with guns and this situation being a shotgun, nothing that is being suggested does anything to stop this mad man.

and the claim that being armed yourself is no answer because a guard was shot, REALLY? You want to go there? That whole having everyone armed solution is weak at best but you are only helping them with this statement. Yes we had one armed man killed, the only armed man who was easy to sneak up on and surprise, then bingo ...nothing but helpless sheep to fire upon after that one was gone. If the others were armed would the death toll be as high as it was? That is a pretty certain NO not to mention, would this coward have done the shooting if he knew all others were armed? I bet he would not have done so then either.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:The link for me did not work. I would have looked if I could.

Google is your friend.

I agree that background checks need to be STRICTLY enforced. I am all for that. I am not for the restriction of any firearm for any person not prohibited by their actions (Prior criminal, Mental issues, minor, et al.)

To strictly enforce them means national federal registry really.

And for undiagnosed mental problems, or people who don't get convicted but have a history of arrest...?

Do you think the existing laws are tough enough, bbauska?

GMTom wrote:but the president is now using this as another example of why we need further gun controls yet shotguns are not part of any gun control any has been speaking of. So you want us to keep shotguns but use this as an example for greater control, which one is it?

Ray Jay wrote:I'm under the impression that this happened in a gun restricted zones (except the security guard) which is similar to the Ft. Hood shooting. I'm generally in favor of gun control -- those things scare me to death -- but this particular fact pattern points to the danger of gun restricted zones.

Both cases also argue for much better background checks.