Right on antipsych meds are never talked about when these happen. We never seem to factor that in, that is very true. I think when history looks back at this time they will comment at how we were able being able to carry day to day with the entire population messed up on pills and chemicals that interact horribly. Like we look at early colonial period times when they drank whiskey because the drinking water was like a slurry of toxic chemicals. They finally figured out that if you boil the water like you boil the fermented corn/wheat to make whiskey you don't have to get smashed every day, which we look at today in a very similar vain. I personally would give room on the AR-15 being carried for sure. But being owned and lawfully locked and protected for the most dire emergencies I must disagree there though. Your electronic monitoring idea that you mentioned in the article should definitely be explored though, that is a great compromise of being able to own them but yet maintain the fullest responsibility humanly possible. I feel the ability to carry is a "ideally never used insurance policy" to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. I would hate to die because someone all messed up for whatever reason charges their ex-spouse standing right next me and then wants to spray the place after finishing the most cowardly of all deeds possible. I would want to lawfully have some chance in that event. Also, how many of these shooting suspects/convictions are NRA members, or concealed carry permit holders? Don't worry, lol we will definitely find out the first person that fits that description should it happen. I am very glad to discuss this with someone who deeply thinks out this argument, I hope I didn't upset you too much where I disagree, to a point, but I am very glad to have a real discussion with this that takes their time and evaluate realities than emotion. By the way, did you notice that up to this point, neither one of us mentioned a specific name or a specific political party by name. Full disclosure I did mention the NRA so I broke the identity affiliated argument. You may be the first person I have seen that has this discussion without injecting emotional rhetoric toward identifiable people/groups of a nationally (divisive) recognizable party, group. Major kudos for that sir.