Problem with your post... you use wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a reliable, authoritative source of verified information because anyone, even I, can post whatever misinformation we want.

Those are referenced articles, check the references.

Wikipedia is a great resource. The information is perfectly legit when its referenced to actual legit studies and government statistics. Most of whats there is backed up.

People around the world play the same video games, watch the same movies. Yet they don't have the violence. It is purely an American phenomenon. Something else is at work here.

As for the mental health aspect. Its not really a slippery slope. Mental health officials already label people who are a threat to others or themselves. Connecting that to the background check process is an obvious need. Schizophrenics and Psychotics should not be able to buy a weapon. No one is suggesting someone who has minor issues be labelled for life. In fact no one is labelled for life, unless they are totally gone. And if they get better, that label is removed. That is already done now.

I agree with you...read the last paragraph of my post. I just find it curious the "pro-gun" people, who refuse to accept ANY gun controls, are willing to give up "rights" in other areas.

Well part of the reason is simple fact - firearms are designed to kill. That is why most people own them, hunting, pest control and personal protection. So by definition they are dangerous and pose a threat - that's the reason people own them for personal protection.

So for example the NRA convinced Congress to remove firearms from oversight by the Consumer Product Safety Commission because a "safe" gun would be a gun that doesn't work.

The problem with the CDC doing research is that they are not criminologists so they come to the rather obvious conclusion that guns kill, you can't do criminology the way you do epidemiology - how do you do a blind test for example, ban guns in one jurisdiction and have them uncontrolled in another?

I agree that funding should be provided to the Dept. of Justice to do studies, this is what annoys me about these "assault weapon" ban proposals, the last ban required Dept. of Justice funded studies: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf

Which paints a very mixed picture. On the one hand they say the ban on "assault" pistols worked but the ban on assault rifles didn't and there wasn't enough information to judge what effect the magazine ban had.

A man with a weapon, is more dangerous than a man without one.

Its the same with a bad man.

Yes, its important to find out why Americans are more violently inclined. But limiting the ability of bad guys to kill, is simple common sense. And anyone denying that fact, is just looking for excuses to do nothing. Perhaps because they profit by exploiting the current system. Or because they are one of the bad guys, and know that they will be cut off from having weapons when these laws are enacted.. The one thing that is obvious, "do nothing" advocates are not looking for solutions, and dont care about preventing tragedies.

Excuse my ignorance, but what does MB stand for?

Oh...Muslim Brotherhood, right? Give me a break. I'll concede that the Muslim Brotherhood MAY be some level of threat to the average American...but probably not as great as Goldman Sachs...and unless either or both are convicted of crimes, they have their own "right" to exist.

Morejustice - Do nothing isn't the answer but neither is do the wrong thing. Gun bans don't work. Having a gun isn't the problem. Being aviolent society is. But this nation was founded on violence. British officers referred to the colonists as savages because of our violent ways. That violence earned independence. To the British, we were murderers, not combatants.

Only a small percentage of firearm owners are ever in a criminal activity. By your logic, law abiding citizens should give up their rights guaranteed by the Constitution to prevent that small percentage from having firearms. hmmmm.....

Drunk driving kills more kids than guns do. Should we have background checks on alcohol? Maybe we should only allow a person to by one drink? Maybe every car should have the breath tester? If no alcohol were available, there coudn't be drunk drivers, right?

Red cars get more speeding tickets by statistics. Do red cars speed more? Are they faster? Should we ban red cars? Is it the car or the driver that is speeding??? Likewise, is it the firm or the shooter that commits murder?

Disabling the vehicle if the driver is too drunk to drive is not a bad idea. Red cars? Drive one at your own risk.

Gun ownership is primitive

Hmmm...by the same token, why couldn't technology be developed that would "recognize" a specfic gun owner and render the gun inoperable to anyone else, without the owner's permission. Then, come down hard on owners who allow their guns to be used in the commission of crimes, fail to report stolen weapons, etc.

With 3-D printing, all you need are the spec's to create any mechanical part on your own printer, including those that make up a gun.

Technology just tends to have a way of defeating government control over time - unless you want to create and live in a police state. That wouldn't be my preference!

Hmmm...don't disagree. How much importance will capital accumulation lose with the invention of the Replicator?

It's potentially huge, though something like auto production would still require large amounts of capital, engineering, etc. But smaller items can be made in small production runs near to where they will be used or sold, rather than in some factory on the other side of the planet.

Interesting...I am afraid that like Generals, most of us tend to "fight the last war" and plan for the past.

They already tested that and the gun fell apart immediately

So whats your problem. Santa, Toothfairy, Easter bunny, boogiemen...We adults do stupied-er things for kids and for each other for a common good. Give those souls a purpose and let the kids and families sleep better. Can you give something up for that?

A wise man once said

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin,
Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

How about targeting the makers of the drugs most of these mass shooters were on? How about holding the prescribing doctor liable for any violent actions caused by a paitient until their names are entered into the NCIS database? How about a 20, 30, life rule? Commit a crime while in possession of a firearm you get 20 years mandatory no parole, brandish the gun during a crime 30 years mandatory no parole, discharge the firearm during a crime life mandatory no parole, and NO PLEA DEALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That would be a better step in the right direction rather than trapple on the rights of law abiding citizens.

No, they are not godly, but they understood what it was like to live under an oppressive govt. They understood what it was like being over taxed and having their speech suppressed by the govt. They knew what it was like to have govt soldiers kill citizens for protesting. Those authors had person experiences that they intended NO CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES EVER EXPERIENCED AGAIN. Just because the govt isn't oppressive now, doesn't mean they couldn't one day become oppressive. Two years ago the Obama administration tried making it illegal to protest in the view of a public official or the President, yet it's ok for The Westboro Baptist Church to protest at the funerals of our fallen soldiers. See where our rights are being stripped little by little? How about the bill the Obama administration passed allowing the govt to kill US citizens they deem a threat? Or detain US citizens indefinately without cause? Now they want to restrict what types of weapons we are allowed to use for protection of our rights? Sorry, but the GOVT can never be trusted. The 2nd Amendment is there to protect all of our rights from the politicians.

Hahaha...no, no. I am not attacking the Constitution, which I think is a great document, particularly in its "checks and balances" of powers.

The Bible was created by a group of Catholic Bishops who decided which Christian writings would be included and which would not. What it lacks, unlike the U.S. Constitution, is an amendment process.

Had the founding fathers thought they were "godly" they would not have included the amendment process.

Dawgfan - OK...the Supreme Court has ruled recently that the second amendment IS an individual right, whether one belongs to a militia or not.

But, what is the purpose of that right? The way I read it is to maintain "the security of a free State," which is what the Constitution itself ensures - i.e. it is aimed primarily to ensure an armed citizen "force" (i.e. Militia) to combat either external or internal attack (i.e. invasion or insurrection) against a free State.

Not for an individual to rebel against that State.

In fact, the Militia Act of 1792, gave Congress the power to call upon the State militias to act, in concert, to put down insurrections in the name of the United States...which Washington subsequently used to head an army of state militias, into Western Pennsylvania, to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion against a federal excise tax on whiskey.

It is treason to take up arms against one's own country. Political change is via either the Congressional legislative process, which includes free elections, or amendment of the Constitution itself.

Not for an individual to rebel against that State

The second would seem to have some important things in mind

Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution

In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:

enabling the people to organize a militia system.

participating in law enforcement;

deterring tyrannical government

repelling invasion

suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts

facilitating a natural right of self-defense

Suppose we know what they had in mind.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The "tyrannical government" of the day was Great Britain and the "founding fathers" desire to separate from them, as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.

The U.S. Constitution was the instrument by which they "formed a more perfect union," which replaced the Articles of Confederation and provided a legitimate and stronger central government.

Madison, who penned the Bill of Rights, wrote after Shay's Rebellion, in Massachusetts, and prior to the Militia Act of 1792 and Washington's subsequent use of a militia call-up from Virginia, Maryland and Deleware to march against rebellious distillers in Western Pennsylvania, who were in revolt, ironically, over a federal excise tax, approved by Congress and imposed by Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, to be used to pay off debts of earlier Congresses, primarily linked to the costs of the Revolution. [Ironic because one of the major causes of British taxation had been to obtain reimbursement from the colonies for their costs in the French and Indian Wars.]

The founding fathers in 1776 were the rebels, who pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the cause of independence. In 1787, the founding fathers, who met for the Constitutional Convention were representatives of the government and had become the political establishment. Some were the same people; some were not. The "threat of the moment" was scarcely themselves, but the threat of insurrection.

Continued: Madison had an "orderly mind" and a gift for organization. As you may know, he initially opposed a "bill of rights," as unnecessary to the Constitution, because most of the individual "rights" were covered in existing State Constitutions, and he thought them superfluous for a document whose focus was on the relationship of the States to the Federal Government and the different branches it contained.

A substantial number of State politicians (among them Patrick Henry) objected to a strong central government and used the lack of a bill of rights as a reason to oppose ratification, fearing that a central government could overshadow their own position within their own sovereign state. Madison came to believe that in order to counter these arguments and to achieve ratification, a bill of rights was necessary and he would rather write it himself, than leave it to others...although ultimately, of course, Congress and the people had to approve its inclusion in the Constitution. Later, after its ratification, he would change his mind and agree it was a necessary component, but initially its inclusion could be considered as blocking the threat of non-ratification by the anti-federalists.

My personal opinion is that he added the "militia clause" to create some deliberate ambiguity, in that the bill of rights DOES address the rights of individuals and the right to bear arms had long been a part of the basic rights of Englishmen. Madison included that right, but also connected it to the right of a militia to oppose foreign invasion, as well as the suppression of domestic insurrections. [See Federalist #29, by Madison's co-heart Hamilton and hios discussion of the use of militias...to repel invasion or insurrection.]

Continued: Madison himself clearly uses the second amendment to quell fears of too powerful a federal government (the argument of many opponents of ratification), in Federalist Paper #46, by pointing out the ratios of "regular" (or federal) armies to state citizen militias, showing that state militias would easily overcome any regular federal army...and "noting" - in an appeal to the general population, upon whom ratification depended, that no European monarchy could trust its people with arms of their own. I suggest he was "playing to the crowd." Madison was not a populist...unless it helped him accomplish a larger goal. In this case, the larger goal was ratification of a Constitution, which provided for a relatively strong central government.

The American Revolution was not, for the most part, a populist rebellion. The colonies had existed for some time. The "founding fathers" were primarily lawyers, successful merchants, or gentlemen farmers, who due to slavery, had the time to pursue politics. All of the colonies had colonial legislatures. And, as John Adams famously said, in the beginning about one-third of the population was in favor of Revolution; one third against it; with the remaining third not caring either way.

The New Englander's were a bit more rambunctious than the Southern planters, but they were all better educated and better informed than the average colonial - i.e. an elite with their own self-interests and believing what was good for them was good for everyone. One factor not often mentioned was the impact on westward expansion, in light of the British Crown's Proclamation of 1763, which granted western territory between the Appalachians and the Mississippi largely to Native Americans, in return for their peace at the end of the French and Indian Wars. That did not sit well with many of the colonialists, who engaged in western land speculation.

Do not think that the "founding fathers" were above politics and looking after their own personal interests. Some, maybe...but I believe most helped to create a brilliant system of government, largely out of self-justification and interest.