Shots fired at High School in Florida, numerous fatalities.

I suppose any ideal that would require people to be better and try to do better is idealistic. But I never said that people should stop the gun debate, or stop research into it. I'm simply saying that they need to talk about what the real problem is that caused the shooting in the first place. A gun was the method. It's not the cause. Neglect is the real culprit here. But guns are the ONLY thing being discussed. But you bring up a good point Shinu. One I mentioned too. People are so hell bent on being politically correct that they aren't being realistic. If criminals have guns, then people need to be able to defend against them. They tried putting gun carrying officers in school. People were against it for stupid reasons. Criminals don't care about gun laws. Mass murders don't care about gun laws. You need a REAL counter measure to protect your children form this kind of insanity. Gun laws aren't going to do that. Putting police or security guards in schools will. It's not idealistic... It's realistic. Expecting congress to solve anything when they haven't solved a real problem with a good solution is over 30 years. That's idealistic. People who would pass the Dickey's amendment which discourages research into a problem... Those are the type of people who brush problems under the rug and turn yet another blind eye to them... those aren't the people you'll find a solution from... They want people uneducated. They pass legislation that is irrespective to reality on a daily basis. And yet again people are the problem. http://www.meoso.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/government-if-you-think-the-problems-we-create-are-bad-just-wait-until-you-see-our-solutions.jpg

Ahhh people starting to talk sense. How refreshing... I find that both pro and anti gun stats are very misleading in their own ways and focus on different things. To anti gunners any deaths matter equally but to pro gunners suicides and defensive kills unfairly fluff the numbers. Also with these two sides events like the one leasing to the OP post lead to "evidence" of opposite conclusions. A pro gunner like me sees this and goes "see we need more guns to stop this" and anti gunners are "see look at all these guns we need less"

@Napalm: Yeah, I tried to address that law abiding citizens with clean backgrounds are in and out faster. By virtue of being good, law-abiding citizens. I probably didn't address it well enough though. Also a little bit of info for you anti-gunners out there. http://www.assaultweapon.info

Intellectually dishonest because the facts don't fit your views? Play the ball, not the man. That is reality in Florida, it's easier to buy a semi-automatic rifle than a handgun. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/16/americans-age-to-buy-ar15-assault-rifle-mass-shootings Four countries that had four different approaches to eliminate gun deaths. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-deaths-eliminated-america-learn-japan-australia-uk-norway-florida-shooting-latest-news-a8216301.html I feel like this is still relevant: https://youtu.be/9pOiOhxujsE

That all sounds great Dagger. I'm just unsure about restricting due to signs of mental illness. There would have to be some point of definition because talk like this always worries me in regards to who decides what. Like as an example, you had a bout of depression and saw a psychologist. Can that now be used against you? As well as how it can push people away from finding help because they don't want to lose their right to carry.