The only problem with this statement is who determines what "mental health issues" restricting gun ownership are.

Do people with insomnia who see a shrink fall into that category?
Returning vets?
Victims or offenders of domestic violence (regardless of how minor)?
Accident victims?
Victims of violent crimes?
Young adults with childhood problems?

The problem is about 60% of Americans seek help for some type of issue or another for which they are prescribed drugs that would qualify them for denial in language typical of most gov't mandates.

By trying to solve one problem you create another as gov't has shown their enept ability to do just that time and again!

When the gov't gets involved in anything, it turns into an albatross or goes to hell, or morphs into something worse than the problem they are seeking to fix.

I don't need the gov't to tell me what's right or wrong, how to raise my kids, when and where I can't go, who I have the right to talk to and what I can say.

I'm not religious, but the golden rule and the 10 commandments (simple logics), along with an adherence to the Constitution and Bill of Rights (simple yet monumental documents!), should be all anyone ever needs.

There will ALWAYS be crime and criminals! Restricting the general law abiding public of the rights will never change that....EVER!

since you ask

from the same piece above

'Nearly 80 percent of the mass shooters we documented obtained their weapons legally'


,,bringing it back , in my opinion, to the point of not EVERY AMERICAN needing or deserving or obtaining a weapon

the paranoid and mentally unstable amongst those that should have some restriction,,,

Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location. For example, 20 were workplace shootings, most of which involved perpetrators who felt wronged by employers and colleagues.

Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop"). These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/gun-free-zones-mass-shootings

I have already done it on here so many times. You do realize my old name is Dragoness right?

The facts are there.

I am not the NRA, I am not trying to sell you nothin.

Factually speaking more guns equals more murders.
Factually speaking a gun present means more women and children die in family disputes
Factually speaking more guns equal more gun accidents :)
Ect....
Factually speaking guns have been present at mass shootings and the gun toter did not save the day.

Fearful gun toters are not good guys. They are full of fear so badly they need to have a gun so they are a bit neurotic.

not your property? vandalism

private property? freedom of speech

I don't see the American people standing blindly behind Obama.

The 79.6 percent are responsible for 92.8 percent of murders?

What statistics are you reading? Not the statistics that I posted that's for sure.

Overview
In 2011, an estimated 14,612 persons were murdered in the United States. This was a 0.7 percent decrease from the 2010 estimate, a 14.7 percent decline from the 2007 figure, and a 10.0 percent decrease from the 2002 estimate.

There were 4.7 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, a 1.5 percent decrease from the 2010 rate. Compared with the 2007 rate, the murder rate declined 17.4 percent, and compared with the 2002 rate, the murder rate decreased 16.8 percent.

Nearly 44 percent (43.6) of murders were reported in the South, the most populous region, 21.0 percent were reported in the West, 20.6 percent were reported in the Midwest, and 14.8 percent were reported in the Northeast.

Expanded murder data-Facts

www.fbi.gov

OK. My bad. I read the story on another site, so I didn't read it from your link. The link you provide says they won't accept the additional fee to keep the spouse on the policy. That wasn't stated in the other site I read. That's probably going to be inconvenient for those 15,000 couples. Probably another good reason to be in a union.

that would be an idea

as would be petitioning FEDERAL to make more exemptions (not every type of business is beholden to minimum wage rates) for those types of businesses they are so sure will 'suffer'