Eric Harris and Columbine was 1999 . Before that there was We have a clear point of delineation because these type of massacres were rare to nonexistent before 1998. You could take Eric Harris interchangeably with They are the same person sending out the same signals to be ignored .

And why were they rare?

Btw, check out this site, and scroll down to the mass killings before 1998.

http://timelines.latimes.com/deadlie...ting-rampages/

Seems to be one commonality in all those shootings....

Both quit counseling and taking prescribed meds. Soooooo, what can be done about compliance or lack of it for the mentally ill? One of my uncles was bipolar and took lithium which worked great. Then new meds came on the market. His VA psychiatrists, trying to be modern and progressive, prescribed this one and that one. Nothing seemed to work as well as lithium. There's more to this story. Part 2 another day. Btw, mental illinesses are hell.

I guess you are are saying this is the result of allowing the mentally ill to remain in the community, they should all be institutionalised before they harm anyone, build more looney bins before building more prisons or simply remove the distinctions

Nope. Try again.

ADDED: "Looney bins" aren't the answer. Compliance is the answer but how will that happen? (P.S. it won't -- I've counseled enough people to know that.) GUNS are the problem. Australia solved the problem with how they dealt with guns. And no, I don't agree our Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns ... or assault weapons ... or cannons.

Hey I'm with you and it only took one looney for Australia to get the message, but then we didn't have a cashed up gun lobby to buy off the politicians, we also have a solution for the illegal immigrant problem, however, the wimps would never adopt that one either. You have a looney President who thinks gun violence is a mental health problem, and the strange part is, he is not paid to think that way, apparently, Compliance isn't the answer, the Constitution is the problem, it allows the offenders to hide behind it. Its wording is purposely vague because the founders knew they wouldn't be the ones to sort out the problems, but they had to good sense not to write it in stone, the current generation appears to think it is written in stone

The Founding Fathers had muskets that shot a round or two a minute. They had no idea about the capabilities of muskets in 2018.

AR-15s won't work well against the government's airplanes, bombs, and tanks no matter how many citizens own them.

Women have mental illnesses too, but 98% of the mass shootings are committed by men and easy access to killing machines. Thus, these killings aren't really about mental illness, are they....

Guns are certainly a major part of the problem. Going deeper, the NRA is the chief proponent of not touching the gun problem by citing the Second Amendment and, more importantly, financially supporting the endemic corruption in Congress by donating huge amounts to the re-election campaigns of Congressmen.

In order to cut off the corrupt NRA power, Citizens United must be repealed. Allowing unlimited amounts of cash to be funneled to Congressmen who vote for the NRA position is bizarre and is based solely on the false proposition that a corporation is a "person". "Persons" have free speech so, the argument goes, donating money is a form of free speech. Ergo, corporations can sway Congress to their pocketbook's content.

This idiotic Supreme Court decision went against 100 years of common sense. Its real purpose was solely to put the wealthy as the chief driving force in the nation.

How does one guy have more than 20 contacts with the local law, and not be arrested, no reports or warnings? I bet the incidence reports would shed some light on the biggest most obvious flaw in the law. As well as the source for his money to purchase a military weapon of mass destruction and plenty of ammo to complete his mission. Am I the only one who thinks it odd that soldiers, and cops go through training, and certification before being issued a weapon, but citizens do not?

How come that good guy with a gun is never around when you need him?

And had the h.s. teachers been armed ("the good guys with guns"), how many more students -- and teachers -- would have been shot and killed in the ensuing chaos?

so if he had used a Remington750 semi-automatic hunting rifle it would not have been a "

military weapon of mass destruction "?

How come that good guy with a gun is never around when you need him?

schools are "gun free zones " .Even security guards in schools here are unarmed . Only the roughest schools have cops permanently assigned to them

When President Reagan was shot, he was surrounded by "good guys with guns." Same when JFK was shot. And Robert Kennedy.

MLK Jr. was shot and killed with a Remington 760.

That was a pump action gun; nobody's definition of a "military weapon of mass destruction ".

I didn't say it was, but it did the job very well, didn't it.

Wonder what those hard core second amendment guys have done at their kids school to prevent a tragedy like the Florida, shootings? What have they done after any shooting?

We can argue semantics all we want my friends, but what's a reasonable solution? Mine would be a total ban of any firearm until a thorough background check could be done, and documentation on qualifications, have been presented, and verified.

If its good enough for the military, its good enough for citizens.

In addition a national registry of ALL firearms no exceptions. Updated continually. If you are so paranoid of your own government confiscating your gun then you are too loony to have one. In addition, a call for A disturbance can result in your gun being taken on the spot, until it is verified you are no risk to anyone, and you must be willing to submit to a search and seizure for illegal firearms, if a cop is called for a disturbance. You are responsible for the safe storage of ALL fire arms you own, and a failure to do so will result in forfeiture of such fire arms until you demonstrate you have secured your firearm in your home.

That should be a GOOD FIRST STEP.

Why firearms in the first place? I've never owned one, needed one, wished I had one (except when I was angry at someone).

national registry like we used to track guns in Mexico ?

Naw. Melt them all down. Issue potato peelers to everyone.

There are many reasons for gun ownership . Hunting ;target practice ,collection ,self protection ,and a safeguard against a tyrannical government are but a few I can think of off the top of my head . The right to own guns is a Constitutional guarantee that No one is going to change . So we can debate which regulations are "reasonable" (yes the Constitution does specify "regulated "),and enact laws based on the desires of 'we the people' .But the idea of gun bans (which is what the left really wants ;they just won't say it ) is off the table .

hmmmmm...herr Donald finally posted something on Twitter that is worth asking :