Steve,
I don't think anger management classes qualify, but what if they have a police record of violent behavior? Shouldn't those civil records be connected some how to a data base of gun purchasers? Sure won't prevent all murders but even some is a victory... saving 50 lives out of 100 is better than losing all 100. I think that's our point.

Dave, I'm not saying these aren't valid points. But let's be realistic. How enforceable and trackable is it? Look at drunk driving fatalities. In the majority of cases, the perp was driving w/o a license, had a dozen priors, and should never have been behind the wheel. Obviously, you can't outlaw cars so this schmuck can't drive, but you get my point, yes?

Probably about as enforceable and as effective as a restraining order-zero.

Glad to see somebody gets the point. Yeesh!

Well there's another thing that should be cracked down on !

Make no mistake Steve, I hear you . . and I know it's tough, but do we have laws or not ?

Are we going to enforce them or not ? OR let it be a"free for all" ??

No, Dave. We don't have laws. Not anymore, that is. Not the kind of laws that at least dampen accessibility to products designed to kill in numbers. And when we did have those laws, they were easier to enforce than keeping track of every nut case in the country. I'm not saying WHO has access isn't important — it is. But what's more important — and more tangible, is physical deterrence: making access more difficult by shutting off the output valve at the source.

Deterrence is the key word. For ten years I handled the ad account for Kryptonite Locks. Never once did they claim that they could prevent bike theft. Rather they could deter thieves by slowing them down with a product that took more time to defeat. Result: fewer bike thefts within any set of criteria. Fewer, not none. But a reduction none-the-less.

If you start by making overkill harder to achieve, you measurably decrease the ability of anyone — regardless of mental/emotional state — to harm others. You and carp seem to think I'm saying only the what matters, and forget the who. Not so. But I am saying that you have to start by taking the most efficient path — and that, IMHO, makes what the bigger priority.

Well I actually want both - all semi-and fully automatic weapons banned, eliminate extended clips- limit firepower to 5-6 shots and screening for those who buy legal guns (pistols and hunting rifles). BUT I don't think it'll happen no matter how many Va Techs and Tucsons we have... just inflames the loonies to justify having MORE guns.

Thank God they can't get nukes !

Full auto, extended clips, speed-loaders for revolvers — anything like that — yeah, ban all consumer sales. A ban on semi-auto will never gain traction, unfortunately, because if you do that, you may as well ban all handguns. And you know how successful that will be. Even a universal limit on magazine capacity is a slippery slope.

What you're suggesting are consumer and professional (meaning law enforcement, security, and military) versions of these products. That becomes a manufacturing boondoggle, and I hate to say this, an economic issue. Better to simply block certain products from consumer markets than to have different versions of everything.

The problem is that guns are so much a part of American culture. You may as well try to ban pasta in Italy!

Simply goes into a data base, the same one that felons goes into - Its not that hard Steve.

Hence why there is a 3 day wait to buy guns. Gun sellers apply for the permit, it will come back yes or no.

Like I said this woman who killed her kids is the perfect example of why to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Sure she could have used a knife but she would have done that before buying and waiting for a gun.

And we've seen how effective those are.

So how come they rarely work? Your expectations are noble. But set way too high.