In the wake of the Dayton shooting, we asked Tribune readers on Facebook: “Do you think that tightening background checks for gun buyers and passing a “red flag” law that would allow family members and friends to petition a court to remove firearms from people who pose a threat to themselves or others would help deter shootings?”

In our poll, the vote was close, with 207 voting yes, while 197 voted no.

In the comments section, reaction was decidedly opposed.

Here are some excepts of what you had to say:

“Not a fan of the “red flag” law. What if there was a disgruntled neighbor reporting you, just because he doesn’t like you? There are a few scenarios my sister and I thought of. It is a bad law, and serves no good purpose.”

— Susan Bowman Little

“If a person, with a mental problem, wants to kill people, they don’t need a gun to do it. Some murderers have given false info. anyway.”

— Cheryl Harper Leith

“Definitely a “no” on the red flag law because we see how that’s working out in other places. They already have background checks in place for gun buyers. If a person wants to get ahold of a gun, they’ll find a way. How about families making sure mentally unstable people don’t get a hold of guns!”

— Harold Duvendeck Jr.

“I see the same arguments here in favor of no restrictions on gun ownership that I’ve seen since Columbine. (…) Those same tired arguments have done nothing but fuel the gun culture we have in this country. My right to life shouldn’t be infringed upon to the point that it’s unsafe to go to work, school, or anywhere in public, just so that the gun lovers can have their toys. It’s really quite shameful that Americans love their guns more than their fellow citizens, even American children. (…)”

— Anne Artis