You're right Recon, an anger management course is not what America needs. It's not just anger they should be looking for. Other mental states or illnesses too can be a dangerous combination with weapons. Perhaps a survey every 12 months?

Ha! This thread makes me think about the movie Anger Managment.

[i]"Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad. You must be or you wouldn't have come here."[/i]

You are clearly mad and should be taking that course. >:|

That is retarded.

What a complete joke, that wouldn't even help. I've encountered more deadly drivers than crazy gun owners.

really? Like a psychopath can't sit though a 2 hour long course, and this is wasting even more of our money. All the gun control bills are stupid like the one in OP or just flat out trying to ban guns.

I'm so mad, I said two curse words when I got a gash in my ankle the other day!

No, I'm quite pissed.

Maybe the gun haters should take a firearms class once every ten years?

It's redundant anyway, it'd be easy to falsify the course results, especially if you can take it online.

2 hours every 10 years? That's a minor inconvenience at worst. Suck it up Flood.

Why are the vast majority of politicians so blatantly and blissfully ignorant and stupid?

Dear OP, Well than most likely this is a method that just uses this required anger management course to keep media out of their hair, therefore its not exactly specifically designed and targeted to controlling the issues that are at hand, even though thats what this new requirement is said to correspond to. By then again this is argument contains a "most likely." But i'm just getting to the point with this>>> ideas/ and my over all point { But if you look at the this method in a different way (less negatively), you can see its affects on citizens of USA as they are getting people to think "what are we doing about violence issues, Are we EVEN doing anything?" since most people are to busy with their lives the majority has not even looked into this issue, our people will then develop new effective ideas based of this poorly constructed one , and instead of poorly constructed we should just recognize it as a beginning step so to speak. Even though the gov. has tried to control these type of events for so many years and obviously failed, because we still have them, but not very often!!!!!!!!!! { not very common for people to shoot up movie a theatre, they aren't happening daily, weekly, monthly, and more yearly. There isn't some increasing rate for people going crazy and then proceeding to doing sh*t like that. i'd say we are doing well about keeping things under control/ "some what stable (imo)", There is no OVERALL method to completely stop this and top of that it is a difficult thing to control because of the fact that PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS BE BORN and thus it is 100% going to happen that a person will develop a corrupted mind and then proceeding to mass murder. } second approach { Secondly this prop was most likely suggested and created to satisfy gun owners as it is just a simple mandatory process opposed to giving up your guns, or etc. Because there is two sides to this issue and the gov. doesn't want a bunch of hippy protestors down at city hall complaining about yet another unfairness. } } //IMO Anyways, IMO i don't think we should look at this as the final word, in this news article is not contained the whole story, and there are most likely A TON of behind the scene factors that we are most certainly not aware of, therefore we haven't taking every bit of evidence into account about the subject. So logically its not safe to assume that this is their final and ultimate action against gun violence or that this is the only thing they have come up with so far, meaning maybe there is more to come form this policy and maybe this is just the first step of the process and thus the development safer policies and safer environments. And additionally i am no where concerned about the threat of getting shot, even though i live in a city such as San Francisco CA w/ a BUNCH of drug addicts & also crazy mentally unstable people, AND yes i have taken into account that San Francisco citizens are less accepting of things such as Walmart, and GUNS. But that general idea of out city is bullshit, I've seen SO MANY gang members and dangerous people in this city, i have been in the semi small radius of (within a few city blocks) of MURDERS and gun violence , idk the statistics but I have to say that its most likely equal to living in most cities+areas or in a area more accepting of guns.

As if people with anger problems couldn't hold it in for 2 hours once every 10 years.

Cleary im raging right now.

At least they didn't ban anything.

I thought this was only in florida.

Why do they have to repeat the same thing every 10 years?

Two hours of anger management once a year, is just plain stupid. There's that idea that my dad passed onto me that was "if you're going to do something, you might as well do it right." I honestly think the system would be better off without the two hours, because at least then they could utilize the funds elsewhere (assuming these are government funded classes). The idea is right, they're just failing with the execution. Make the classes longer and more frequent, throw in some other precautions, and then things will be heading in the right direction. It's a simple fact, guns were made for killing. Period. They should be carefully monitored, especially since unlike a bow an arrow, the potential damage they can cause is exponentially greater. Guns are fine, so long as the people who have them truly understand the risk and pose no threat to others.

This is just stupid and is only a band-aid meant to make it look like they're doing something.

we are all mad

This is just terrible.