I try to tune things out that are just there to provoke.
The motive of this guy isn't interesting. He's a terrorist.  We don't care what terrorists want, especially dead ones. Doesn't matter if he was racist or Presbyterian or both.
Instead, let's figure out where he got the gun. Are there "red flag" laws in Indiana?  If not, would they have helped? If yes, why didn't they work?

If he was targeting people of a specific race or religion, he's not a "terrorist" in the traditional sense.  

Drug laws don't keep drugs off the street.  What makes you think gun laws will prove any more successful?

active shooter -->  thoughts and prayers --> denial --> nothing changes

rinse and repeat

Active shooter ---> Cost of freedom. End of message.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

active shooter -->  thoughts and prayers --> denial --> nothing changes

rinse and repeat

The denial comes from those in government and the medical community who refuse to address the root problem which is mental illness. That's not the issue 100% of the time but enough that it needs to be addressed.

---

active shooter -->  thoughts and prayers --> denial --> nothing changes

rinse and repeat

The denial comes from those in government and the medical community who refuse to address the root problem which is mental illness. That's not the issue 100% of the time but enough that it needs to be addressed.

As others have said, most people will suffer some sort of mental illness during their lives.  How do you regulate gun ownership?  Would you be happy with your guns being confiscated while you are being treated for depression?

It's far more logical to remove guns that cause mass casualties / fatalities.  Yes, criminals will still get their guns, but it will stop those who cause these mass shootings - the mentally il from being able to get them

---

The denial comes from those in government and the medical community who refuse to address the root problem which is mental illness. That's not the issue 100% of the time but enough that it needs to be addressed.

As others have said, most people will suffer some sort of mental illness during their lives.  How do you regulate gun ownership?  Would you be happy with your guns being confiscated while you are being treated for depression?

It's far more logical to remove guns that cause mass casualties / fatalities.  Yes, criminals will still get their guns, but it will stop those who cause these mass shootings - the mentally il from being able to get them

Your "logic" will create mass casualties.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The denial comes from those in government and the medical community who refuse to address the root problem which is mental illness. That's not the issue 100% of the time but enough that it needs to be addressed.

As others have said, most people will suffer some sort of mental illness during their lives.  How do you regulate gun ownership?  Would you be happy with your guns being confiscated while you are being treated for depression?

It's far more logical to remove guns that cause mass casualties / fatalities.  Yes, criminals will still get their guns, but it will stop those who cause these mass shootings - the mentally il from being able to get them

Define "mass". A skilled user can do this with a handgun or even a knife.

---

As others have said, most people will suffer some sort of mental illness during their lives.  How do you regulate gun ownership?  Would you be happy with your guns being confiscated while you are being treated for depression?

It's far more logical to remove guns that cause mass casualties / fatalities.  Yes, criminals will still get their guns, but it will stop those who cause these mass shootings - the mentally il from being able to get them

Define "mass". A skilled user can do this with a handgun or even a knife.

Not a knife.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Define "mass". A skilled user can do this with a handgun or even a knife.

Not a knife.

You haven't defined "mass".

---

As others have said, most people will suffer some sort of mental illness during their lives.  How do you regulate gun ownership?  Would you be happy with your guns being confiscated while you are being treated for depression?

It's far more logical to remove guns that cause mass casualties / fatalities.  Yes, criminals will still get their guns, but it will stop those who cause these mass shootings - the mentally il from being able to get them

Define "mass". A skilled user can do this with a handgun or even a knife.

Sometimes handguns can are used to kill a bunch of people, including I think one of the most recent shootings lately (I believe the one with the family owned business out west). But I do agree with captivating that it could really benefit people if we limit access to guns that are often used to commit mass casualties. Like assault rifles that are often used in these shootings. 

Going back to the mental illness discussion, I do think it's important to get people help, if possible. But I also believe that there are people that are going to want to kill no matter how much help you give them and that there are people that are truly evil and want to kill. (Regardless whether they suffer from mental illness or not). I care more about making it harder for people including people like this to possibly have access to weapons to kill people, than I care about whatever is driving them to kill/their motives. There is way too many shootings with the motives being all over the place. Trying to figure out the motives/reasoning is not really helping people and it isn't preventing a lot more of these tragedies from happening. Sometimes figuring out a motive helps in certain cases, but it's not really helping in the case of mass shootings. Some of these people can not/will not change no matter what you try and do for them.

---

Again, this narrative is driven largely by the media that profits from these kinds of issues. I did the math years ago, but if I recall, your odds of dying from a mass shooting, is .00000057%. That doesn't justify taking everyone's guns away. Sorry. I know mass shootings are sensational, but the reality is they really are not a threat to the American citizenry as a whole. People just can't wrap their brains around 350,000,000 people, so when one event makes headlines and dominates the news cycle for weeks, people mistakenly inflate the risk of the event happening to them. The bottom line is that it's just not a serious threat, but people will foolishly give up a freedom for their safety, even if it's based on a false narrative. Just for reference, that number is pretty close to Canada's deaths from mass shootings (I want to say it was .00000038%), and they have massive gun regulation.

If we include gun crime, your odds of dying from a gun in this country is .00003%. That's still incredibly rare. I know this is going to offend progressive sensibilities, but if you take out gang on gang violence, that number drops significantly. The best way to improve that number is more policing, so it appears we're in a bit of a pickle, especially since the people who tell progressives how to think are trying to defund that. Btw, while we're on the topic, murder rates are going up for the first time in decades. I believe it went up by 6k in 2020. The "defund the police" movement is responsible for more deaths than every mass shooting in the last 20 years, but I'm sure progressives believe that number would just disappear with no guns in the picture.

There are no studies that look how many lives are saved by owning guns, but I would guess it offsets the risk all by itself. There is an estimation that Americans use their guns 1.2 million times a year to stop a crime. That's over 3k crimes a day stopped by legal carry. Think about that for a second. Keep in mind that most times a gun is drawn, it is not fired.

All this and we haven't even had to mention that it gives the government pause, which is a sufficient reason in it's own right.

The argument against gun ownership is weak. It relies on comparing the US to countries with different crime rates, policing and judicial strategies, poverty levels, and homogeneity. They literally don't have an apples to apples comparison, but this is true for most of their ideas. All narrative, no substance.

---

The denial comes from those in government and the medical community who refuse to address the root problem which is mental illness. That's not the issue 100% of the time but enough that it needs to be addressed.

As others have said, most people will suffer some sort of mental illness during their lives.  How do you regulate gun ownership?  Would you be happy with your guns being confiscated while you are being treated for depression?

It's far more logical to remove guns that cause mass casualties / fatalities.  Yes, criminals will still get their guns, but it will stop those who cause these mass shootings - the mentally il from being able to get them

And how do you propose to do this when there are over 17 million semi-automatic rifles currently on the street? There's enough out there that even if you stop manufacturers from making them, someone who wants to commit a mass shooting will almost certainly be able to get their hands on one. You can't propose something asinine like Beto O'Rourke did when he said he was going to go door to door and confiscate them. Talk about problems! That would cause extreme casualties to the people confiscating guns and the people who refuse to give them up. Confiscating property from innocent people who did nothing wrong is akin to stealing. I and a lot of people like me, don't allow people to steal from us. I will defend my property to the death. Not that I'm admitting to owning such a weapon, but property in general. Mandatory confiscations would lead to more bloodshed than any mass shootings would ever cause. People aren't just going to voluntarily turn in firearms that they legally bought with their hard earned money. It's just not happening. 

As far as the mental health aspect. It needs to be addressed responsibly. Those with depression aren't going to go out and start killing people. That's not how depression works. Depression is almost always directed at hatred of oneself. The only real danger people with depression are is to themselves. There is always another underlying issue to accompany depression when these people snap. Those accompanying issues are the ailments that need to be addressed. There needs to a tier list of psychological issues with the highest ones meeting the standard of those who would be unable to own weapons. As far as what those would be, that should be left to the medical professionals. I'm certainly no doctor, but if you have a history of violence, have been on record stating you want to commit mass killings or have said you hear voices that make you do things, these are certainly 3 areas where most people would agree, that you shouldn't own weapons of any kind. 

Nothing that is done will totally end mass killings though. If someone wants to kill a lot of people and they can't get a hold of a semi-automatic weapon, all they have to do is go online and learn how to build a bomb. These things are way too easy to find on the internet. They shouldn't be, but they are. Bad people will just go from one means of committing murder to another. It's a vicious cycle that will never end. There will always be evil in the world and there is no way to stop it, no matter what kind of regulations and rules are put into place.

---

Just find out if he supports the "defund the police" movement. That will tell you everything about how much he cares about stopping criminal violence.

---

Touching base a little on some points that were just made, I do understand there will always be violence including gun violence to some degree, I do think that the mass shootings are way too frequent and way out of control. Look at how many we've had the past couple of months, the one in Colorado, the massage parlor, the Fed Ex building, some others ones. It's too much. I know this a large country, but this is ridiculous even for a country of our size. Other countries have larger populations than us, and aren't dealing with this type of gun violence, it's sickening.

I feel like some people really aren't going to understand the multitude of how bad this problem is until they or a loved one is faced with something like this. I think it's more likely to happen to people than they realize. I'm going to give an example of how a workplace of mine was threatened by gun violence recently.

Last March, I was laid off from my previous job, and I ended up getting a job with the federal government. A few months ago, my previous job wanted me to come back. I didn't go back full time as the government job was better, but I agreed to work a few days out of the month with my old job. I agreed to do that up until this Summer, as the spring time is the busiest part of the year for that job and I felt like I could get some nice savings between the start of the year and then. I enjoyed my previous job and I've been saving and investing more and and felt I could put the extra money to good use.

I recently found out that a co-worker from my last job was threatening people in our department. We had a bunch of newer people start work this year. There are a lot of people, (including those who had been laid off) that never came back. Some of the newer people were clashing with each other. Including some that are incredibly bossy and have overstepped their bounds at times. Some of them were clashing with a younger co-worker, a young woman probably in her 20's. This young woman was having a hard time adjusting at this job and kept making a lot of mistakes with clients and co-workers. She ended up clashing heavily with some of the bossier newbies. Things got so out of control that the young woman threatened to jump one of them in the parking lot. I was even questioned by one of them about whether I knew about that threat. And I told them I barely interacted with the woman, and the couple of times, I did it was friendly. Which is true (and I even offered to help her when I first met her.)

Things got worse when some of my co-workers there said that the young woman had threatened to bring a gun to work and shoot people. I questioned one of them about this and my bosses ended up calling the police to the office. They told the cops about that threat, and gave them some information about that including what type of vehicle she was driving. Needless to say she's not working there anymore. But I thought that was a very alarming situation. I was working there the day the cops were called and I had a conversation with some of my co-workers about the things they could do in the event she did show up with a gun.

I talked with them about what be the nearest exit to run out of in the event that she showed up trying to shoot people. We talked about being aware, and paying attention and trying to act quickly in case she did show up. We have two different departments in that office space, the one we're in has some pretty giant windows, I sit at one of the desks that is closest to the window. It's possible to see her if she showed up, but even if you saw her, you'd only have so much time to act. The parking lot isn't very far from the entrance and she could get inside the building quickly. Even faster than people could make it out to the closest exit. 

Some of my co-workers were saying if she showed up, they would try and go out the windows. But I'm not sure how easily those windows open, they are huge, and I've never tried to open one. There are other other things I've thought about and didn't mention, like how if they saw her early enough they could put one of long desks against the door and try and keep her out. (In the event they couldn't make it to an exit fast enough).

That department has mostly women in it and the attire is business casual. So you have a lot of people in there in heels and flats, instead of tennis shoes. How fast could most people run in those types of shoes?

It's unfortunate that I had to have those types of conversations with them, but that is the reality we are dealing with in this country on a daily basis. I'm glad they called the cops regarding my co-worker, but I also wonder/have concerns about her possibly trying to retaliate at some point especially since she is no longer working at the company. People have got to be careful, look out for each other and try and prevent as much harm as possible regarding threatening situations.

---

First they create a label to deny civil rights.

Then they apply the label to their political opponents.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Touching base a little on some points that were just made, I do understand there will always be violence including gun violence to some degree, I do think that the mass shootings are way too frequent and way out of control. Look at how many we've had the past couple of months, the one in Colorado, the massage parlor, the Fed Ex building, some others ones. It's too much. I know this a large country, but this is ridiculous even for a country of our size. Other countries have larger populations than us, and aren't dealing with this type of gun violence, it's sickening.

I feel like some people really aren't going to understand the multitude of how bad this problem is until they or a loved one is faced with something like this. I think it's more likely to happen to people than they realize. I'm going to give an example of how a workplace of mine was threatened by gun violence recently.

Last March, I was laid off from my previous job, and I ended up getting a job with the federal government. A few months ago, my previous job wanted me to come back. I didn't go back full time as the government job was better, but I agreed to work a few days out of the month with my old job. I agreed to do that up until this Summer, as the spring time is the busiest part of the year for that job and I felt like I could get some nice savings between the start of the year and then. I enjoyed my previous job and I've been saving and investing more and and felt I could put the extra money to good use.

I recently found out that a co-worker from my last job was threatening people in our department. We had a bunch of newer people start work this year. There are a lot of people, (including those who had been laid off) that never came back. Some of the newer people were clashing with each other. Including some that are incredibly bossy and have overstepped their bounds at times. Some of them were clashing with a younger co-worker, a young woman probably in her 20's. This young woman was having a hard time adjusting at this job and kept making a lot of mistakes with clients and co-workers. She ended up clashing heavily with some of the bossier newbies. Things got so out of control that the young woman threatened to jump one of them in the parking lot. I was even questioned by one of them about whether I knew about that threat. And I told them I barely interacted with the woman, and the couple of times, I did it was friendly. Which is true (and I even offered to help her when I first met her.)

Things got worse when some of my co-workers there said that the young woman had threatened to bring a gun to work and shoot people. I questioned one of them about this and my bosses ended up calling the police to the office. They told the cops about that threat, and gave them some information about that including what type of vehicle she was driving. Needless to say she's not working there anymore. But I thought that was a very alarming situation. I was working there the day the cops were called and I had a conversation with some of my co-workers about the things they could do in the event she did show up with a gun.

I talked with them about what be the nearest exit to run out of in the event that she showed up trying to shoot people. We talked about being aware, and paying attention and trying to act quickly in case she did show up. We have two different departments in that office space, the one we're in has some pretty giant windows, I sit at one of the desks that is closest to the window. It's possible to see her if she showed up, but even if you saw her, you'd only have so much time to act. The parking lot isn't very far from the entrance and she could get inside the building quickly. Even faster than people could make it out to the closest exit. 

Some of my co-workers were saying if she showed up, they would try and go out the windows. But I'm not sure how easily those windows open, they are huge, and I've never tried to open one. There are other other things I've thought about and didn't mention, like how if they saw her early enough they could put one of long desks against the door and try and keep her out. (In the event they couldn't make it to an exit fast enough).

That department has mostly women in it and the attire is business casual. So you have a lot of people in there in heels and flats, instead of tennis shoes. How fast could most people run in those types of shoes?

It's unfortunate that I had to have those types of conversations with them, but that is the reality we are dealing with in this country on a daily basis. I'm glad they called the cops regarding my co-worker, but I also wonder/have concerns about her possibly trying to retaliate at some point especially since she is no longer working at the company. People have got to be careful, look out for each other and try and prevent as much harm as possible regarding threatening situations.

Most of what you typed is sensationalism. Your fear of the situation might be real. It might even be warranted. I'm not saying don't be vigilant, but the numbers don't lie: Your odds of being involved in a mass shooting are virtually 0%. Making policy based on fear when your odds of being involved in this type of situation is 1 in 200,000 is insane. Furthermore, how much do you think you can really improve it? Canada, with all it's gun laws barely moves the needle compared to us, and they are the nation that is most similar (but with gun laws).

Speaking of similar, there are only 2 countries larger than ours, and, aside from the fact that they probably aren't reporting their numbers accurately, you also run into the problem that they aren't remotely culturally or politically similar to us. Now, that's not to say we are better, but it is putting the onus on you to prove that guns alone are the issue. I think China probably does have a lower murder rate, but they also have a draconian civil code. Do you really think we'd be better off with China's policies in the US? BLM wouldn't even exist. If you added the US's liberalism with regards to the law and individual freedom, that number would rise dramatically in a decade or two. India, on the other hand, is probably not equipped for accurate reporting. Even if we assumed their numbers were accurate, you have to account for the role Hinduism plays in reducing murders. India is a very religious society. The US is significantly more secular. Are you willing to have our political officials inject more traditional, religious values into our laws to curb the violence?

Apples to apples. 

We are basing too much of our policy on overreactions. Americans have stopped being rational.

---

As others have said, most people will suffer some sort of mental illness during their lives.  How do you regulate gun ownership?  Would you be happy with your guns being confiscated while you are being treated for depression?

It's far more logical to remove guns that cause mass casualties / fatalities.  Yes, criminals will still get their guns, but it will stop those who cause these mass shootings - the mentally il from being able to get them

And how do you propose to do this when there are over 17 million semi-automatic rifles currently on the street? There's enough out there that even if you stop manufacturers from making them, someone who wants to commit a mass shooting will almost certainly be able to get their hands on one. You can't propose something asinine like Beto O'Rourke did when he said he was going to go door to door and confiscate them. Talk about problems! That would cause extreme casualties to the people confiscating guns and the people who refuse to give them up. Confiscating property from innocent people who did nothing wrong is akin to stealing. I and a lot of people like me, don't allow people to steal from us. I will defend my property to the death. Not that I'm admitting to owning such a weapon, but property in general. Mandatory confiscations would lead to more bloodshed than any mass shootings would ever cause. People aren't just going to voluntarily turn in firearms that they legally bought with their hard earned money. It's just not happening. 

As far as the mental health aspect. It needs to be addressed responsibly. Those with depression aren't going to go out and start killing people. That's not how depression works. Depression is almost always directed at hatred of oneself. The only real danger people with depression are is to themselves. There is always another underlying issue to accompany depression when these people snap. Those accompanying issues are the ailments that need to be addressed. There needs to a tier list of psychological issues with the highest ones meeting the standard of those who would be unable to own weapons. As far as what those would be, that should be left to the medical professionals. I'm certainly no doctor, but if you have a history of violence, have been on record stating you want to commit mass killings or have said you hear voices that make you do things, these are certainly 3 areas where most people would agree, that you shouldn't own weapons of any kind. 

Nothing that is done will totally end mass killings though. If someone wants to kill a lot of people and they can't get a hold of a semi-automatic weapon, all they have to do is go online and learn how to build a bomb. These things are way too easy to find on the internet. They shouldn't be, but they are. Bad people will just go from one means of committing murder to another. It's a vicious cycle that will never end. There will always be evil in the world and there is no way to stop it, no matter what kind of regulations and rules are put into place.

You can play the long game here.  OK, there are 17 million semi-auto rifles.  Lets stop more from going into circulation. So stop the sale of all semi-automatic weapons from now on.  Add a federal tax to bullets.  Is it just coincidence that the States with a highest tax on cigarettes also have the lowest rate of smoking?

Implement county wide laws requiring guns to be locked and do spot checks and fine those who don't comply.  

Get imaginative rather than saying it can't be done.  This country wasn't built on can't be done.

As for confiscation, eminent domain allows land to be acquired by the Government for just compensation.  So it's not as if the Government acquiring assets legally purchased have never been done before.

---

And how do you propose to do this when there are over 17 million semi-automatic rifles currently on the street? There's enough out there that even if you stop manufacturers from making them, someone who wants to commit a mass shooting will almost certainly be able to get their hands on one. You can't propose something asinine like Beto O'Rourke did when he said he was going to go door to door and confiscate them. Talk about problems! That would cause extreme casualties to the people confiscating guns and the people who refuse to give them up. Confiscating property from innocent people who did nothing wrong is akin to stealing. I and a lot of people like me, don't allow people to steal from us. I will defend my property to the death. Not that I'm admitting to owning such a weapon, but property in general. Mandatory confiscations would lead to more bloodshed than any mass shootings would ever cause. People aren't just going to voluntarily turn in firearms that they legally bought with their hard earned money. It's just not happening. 

As far as the mental health aspect. It needs to be addressed responsibly. Those with depression aren't going to go out and start killing people. That's not how depression works. Depression is almost always directed at hatred of oneself. The only real danger people with depression are is to themselves. There is always another underlying issue to accompany depression when these people snap. Those accompanying issues are the ailments that need to be addressed. There needs to a tier list of psychological issues with the highest ones meeting the standard of those who would be unable to own weapons. As far as what those would be, that should be left to the medical professionals. I'm certainly no doctor, but if you have a history of violence, have been on record stating you want to commit mass killings or have said you hear voices that make you do things, these are certainly 3 areas where most people would agree, that you shouldn't own weapons of any kind. 

Nothing that is done will totally end mass killings though. If someone wants to kill a lot of people and they can't get a hold of a semi-automatic weapon, all they have to do is go online and learn how to build a bomb. These things are way too easy to find on the internet. They shouldn't be, but they are. Bad people will just go from one means of committing murder to another. It's a vicious cycle that will never end. There will always be evil in the world and there is no way to stop it, no matter what kind of regulations and rules are put into place.

You can play the long game here.  OK, there are 17 million semi-auto rifles.  Lets stop more from going into circulation. So stop the sale of all semi-automatic weapons from now on.  Add a federal tax to bullets.  Is it just coincidence that the States with a highest tax on cigarettes also have the lowest rate of smoking?

Implement county wide laws requiring guns to be locked and do spot checks and fine those who don't comply.  

Get imaginative rather than saying it can't be done.  This country wasn't built on can't be done.

As for confiscation, eminent domain allows land to be acquired by the Government for just compensation.  So it's not as if the Government acquiring assets legally purchased have never been done befowre.

No.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

And how do you propose to do this when there are over 17 million semi-automatic rifles currently on the street? There's enough out there that even if you stop manufacturers from making them, someone who wants to commit a mass shooting will almost certainly be able to get their hands on one. You can't propose something asinine like Beto O'Rourke did when he said he was going to go door to door and confiscate them. Talk about problems! That would cause extreme casualties to the people confiscating guns and the people who refuse to give them up. Confiscating property from innocent people who did nothing wrong is akin to stealing. I and a lot of people like me, don't allow people to steal from us. I will defend my property to the death. Not that I'm admitting to owning such a weapon, but property in general. Mandatory confiscations would lead to more bloodshed than any mass shootings would ever cause. People aren't just going to voluntarily turn in firearms that they legally bought with their hard earned money. It's just not happening. 

As far as the mental health aspect. It needs to be addressed responsibly. Those with depression aren't going to go out and start killing people. That's not how depression works. Depression is almost always directed at hatred of oneself. The only real danger people with depression are is to themselves. There is always another underlying issue to accompany depression when these people snap. Those accompanying issues are the ailments that need to be addressed. There needs to a tier list of psychological issues with the highest ones meeting the standard of those who would be unable to own weapons. As far as what those would be, that should be left to the medical professionals. I'm certainly no doctor, but if you have a history of violence, have been on record stating you want to commit mass killings or have said you hear voices that make you do things, these are certainly 3 areas where most people would agree, that you shouldn't own weapons of any kind. 

Nothing that is done will totally end mass killings though. If someone wants to kill a lot of people and they can't get a hold of a semi-automatic weapon, all they have to do is go online and learn how to build a bomb. These things are way too easy to find on the internet. They shouldn't be, but they are. Bad people will just go from one means of committing murder to another. It's a vicious cycle that will never end. There will always be evil in the world and there is no way to stop it, no matter what kind of regulations and rules are put into place.

You can play the long game here.  OK, there are 17 million semi-auto rifles.  Lets stop more from going into circulation. So stop the sale of all semi-automatic weapons from now on.  Add a federal tax to bullets.  Is it just coincidence that the States with a highest tax on cigarettes also have the lowest rate of smoking?

Implement county wide laws requiring guns to be locked and do spot checks and fine those who don't comply.  

Get imaginative rather than saying it can't be done.  This country wasn't built on can't be done.

As for confiscation, eminent domain allows land to be acquired by the Government for just compensation.  So it's not as if the Government acquiring assets legally purchased have never been done before.

What you are describing is outright communism, but let's look at it for a sec.

Tax on bullets for semi-auto rifles.  Go ahead and add a tax.  That's part of the reason that this country was founded.  High and unreasonable taxation.

How do you do "spot checks" to see if people have guns locked?  Does that mean that the government at any time could enter my property to "inspect"?  I'll say right now that it's a huge NO for me.

I can say without a doubt that the government can try to claim my land and my property when they get it from my cold dead hands.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

And how do you propose to do this when there are over 17 million semi-automatic rifles currently on the street? There's enough out there that even if you stop manufacturers from making them, someone who wants to commit a mass shooting will almost certainly be able to get their hands on one. You can't propose something asinine like Beto O'Rourke did when he said he was going to go door to door and confiscate them. Talk about problems! That would cause extreme casualties to the people confiscating guns and the people who refuse to give them up. Confiscating property from innocent people who did nothing wrong is akin to stealing. I and a lot of people like me, don't allow people to steal from us. I will defend my property to the death. Not that I'm admitting to owning such a weapon, but property in general. Mandatory confiscations would lead to more bloodshed than any mass shootings would ever cause. People aren't just going to voluntarily turn in firearms that they legally bought with their hard earned money. It's just not happening. 

As far as the mental health aspect. It needs to be addressed responsibly. Those with depression aren't going to go out and start killing people. That's not how depression works. Depression is almost always directed at hatred of oneself. The only real danger people with depression are is to themselves. There is always another underlying issue to accompany depression when these people snap. Those accompanying issues are the ailments that need to be addressed. There needs to a tier list of psychological issues with the highest ones meeting the standard of those who would be unable to own weapons. As far as what those would be, that should be left to the medical professionals. I'm certainly no doctor, but if you have a history of violence, have been on record stating you want to commit mass killings or have said you hear voices that make you do things, these are certainly 3 areas where most people would agree, that you shouldn't own weapons of any kind. 

Nothing that is done will totally end mass killings though. If someone wants to kill a lot of people and they can't get a hold of a semi-automatic weapon, all they have to do is go online and learn how to build a bomb. These things are way too easy to find on the internet. They shouldn't be, but they are. Bad people will just go from one means of committing murder to another. It's a vicious cycle that will never end. There will always be evil in the world and there is no way to stop it, no matter what kind of regulations and rules are put into place.

You can play the long game here.  OK, there are 17 million semi-auto rifles.  Lets stop more from going into circulation. So stop the sale of all semi-automatic weapons from now on.  Add a federal tax to bullets.  Is it just coincidence that the States with a highest tax on cigarettes also have the lowest rate of smoking?

Implement county wide laws requiring guns to be locked and do spot checks and fine those who don't comply.  

Get imaginative rather than saying it can't be done.  This country wasn't built on can't be done.

As for confiscation, eminent domain allows land to be acquired by the Government for just compensation.  So it's not as if the Government acquiring assets legally purchased have never been done before.

Username checks out

---

Your beliefs become your thoughts,
Your thoughts become your words,
Your words become your actions,
Your actions become your habits,
Your habits become your values,
Your values become your destiny.

Notice how he ducks the facts? Narrative driven policy.

---

Don't we already tax bullets/ammunition?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.