Mehmani Posted April 19, 2013 Report Share Posted April 19, 2013 http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-won,32106/ (#LOL) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/17/senators-killed-gun-reform-bill?INTCMP=SRCH http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/18/obama-condemns-senate-gun-reform?INTCMP=SRCH So, the NRA reportedly paid a combined total of around $800,000 to US senators throughout the past decade, with some senators registering donations by the NRA as recently as three weeks ago. How do you feel about more kids dying in the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheComposer Posted April 19, 2013 Report Share Posted April 19, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fusion X. Denver Posted April 19, 2013 Report Share Posted April 19, 2013 This is unacceptable. I understand both perspectives on the issue of gun usage and why some people would be rightfully angry on abolishing the 2nd Amendment, but I think it is only common sense that at the very least there should be some concessions to better improve the situation. Background checks should be an elementary procedure behind gun purchases. What sort of reasoning could justify their decision? If the families of the children who died at Sandy Hook were to ask them why they rejected this proposal, what could they even begin to say that would make sense of their decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a bad post Posted April 19, 2013 Report Share Posted April 19, 2013 I'm going to get flamed for this comment, but w/e See guns aren't the problem. Do you think those people who are shooting people up are actually purchasing guns legally? That Sandy Hook shooting didn't happen, because the guy went out and bought guns legally, he killed his mother, and then stole them from her? No gun control bill you think up can possibly stop that from happening. I agree that something has to be done about this nation's gun problem, but taking guns away from law aibing citizens. Personally I'm a pacifist, and don't believe in guns/violence in the slightest. Well, just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted April 19, 2013 Report Share Posted April 19, 2013 This is unacceptable. I understand both perspectives on the issue of gun usage and why some people would be rightfully angry on abolishing the 2nd Amendment, but I think it is only common sense that at the very least there should be some concessions to better improve the situation. Background checks should be an elementary procedure behind gun purchases. What sort of reasoning could justify their decision? If the families of the children who died at Sandy Hook were to ask them why they rejected this proposal, what could they even begin to say that would make sense of their decision? sums this up about right. I can understand wanting to protect the 2nd amendment, but a background check is not going to make law abiding citizens unable to purchase firearms, so why drop that much money to stop something that at least can slow down the purchase of firearms by insane people? yes there might be some loopholes, but in comparison to bomb control (which could never actually happen seeing as anybody with a connection to the internet can make one at home) well executed background checks have a far better chance of making a sizeable difference in the frequency of gun crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a bad post Posted April 19, 2013 Report Share Posted April 19, 2013 sums this up about right. I can understand wanting to protect the 2nd amendment, but a background check is not going to make law abiding citizens unable to purchase firearms, so why drop that much money to stop something that at least can slow down the purchase of firearms by insane people? yes there might be some loopholes, but in comparison to bomb control (which could never actually happen seeing as anybody with a connection to the internet can make one at home) well executed background checks have a far better chance of making a sizeable difference in the frequency of gun crimes. I get what your saying, and I'm all for it, but what I'm saying is these insane people aren't purchasing guns their: stealing them, purchasing them illegally, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted April 19, 2013 Report Share Posted April 19, 2013 I get what your saying, and I'm all for it, but what I'm saying is these insane people aren't purchasing guns their: stealing them, purchasing them illegally, etc. I know. what I meant(mostly) is that they will have would have had a bit more difficulty in getting them legally if any of them were planning to go that route. gun fairs would have had to go through the same background checks, and that could have limited the amount of gun violence by a bit. I'm nowhere near stupid enough to say the new law would have solved everything, but for what it was worth, it would have been an honorable attempt at a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a bad post Posted April 19, 2013 Report Share Posted April 19, 2013 I know. what I meant(mostly) is that they will have would have had a bit more difficulty in getting them legally if any of them were planning to go that route. gun fairs would have had to go through the same background checks, and that could have limited the amount of gun violence by a bit. I'm nowhere near stupid enough to say the new law would have solved everything, but for what it was worth, it would have been an honorable attempt at a start. The gun fair thing is a definite yes, and I don't know why they hadn't been doing it already. Whether or not the bill would have been a good start is debatable, but w/e. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyng's Old Account Posted April 19, 2013 Report Share Posted April 19, 2013 How do you feel about more kids dying in the future?Children tend to die, like adults, because of a thing called mortality. Many things hasten this, guns included, but not the chief cause. One shouldn't forget the effect diseases such as cancer, or heart attacks, which also can kill children too.Anyway, I digress.OT: I'm not surprised, I'm not impressed, I'm not...well, I'm completely neutral about this. I'm not American, I don't know how the whole gun control thing is supposed to be a good thing in the first place. I will say, though, that gun control won't really do much to change crime rates (at least the reported ones). Knives exist, after all, and just because something is illegal doesn't mean it won't be accessed. Marijuana is a good example of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted April 19, 2013 Report Share Posted April 19, 2013 The gun fair thing is a definite yes, and I don't know why they hadn't been doing it already. Whether or not the bill would have been a good start is debatable, but w/e. Fair enough. so I guess the only question is why did the NRA feel the need to drop $800,000 just to stop legislation that has, to the best of my knowledge, no real harmful side effects? and more than that, why did so many senators fall for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Rai Posted April 19, 2013 Report Share Posted April 19, 2013 *idgi*The bombings occurred as a result of IEDs. IED laws are practically irrelevant and difficult to enforce in comparison.I'm going to get flamed for this comment, but w/eSee guns aren't the problem. Do you think those people who are shooting people up are actually purchasing guns legally? That Sandy Hook shooting didn't happen, because the guy went out and bought guns legally, he killed his mother, and then stole them from her? No gun control bill you think up can possibly stop that from happening. I agree that something has to be done about this nation's gun problem, but taking guns away from law aibing citizens. Personally I'm a pacifist, and don't believe in guns/violence in the slightest.Well, just my two cents. It's plain logic that making guns harder to obtain legally makes it harder to obtain illegally anyway, especially via firearm trafficking.What would have happened if the shooter's mother didn't have a gun at Sandy Hook in this way? I wouldn't wish it upon everyone, but how would those who rejected the bill feel after experiencing a shooting themselves? It would be hypocritical to have the same view as they have now. And I don't expect another shooting to occur for them to change their minds.Don't think about taking guns away from citizens. Think about it as confiscating weapons that no-one really should have ever had in the first place. It's no surprise that intentional homicide rate each year is incredibly, incredibly linked to firearm access. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fusion X. Denver Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 That Sandy Hook shooting didn't happen, because the guy went out and bought guns legally, he killed his mother, and then stole them from her? No gun control bill you think up can possibly stop that from happening. What about doing background checks of everyone living in the purchaser's household instead of just the purchaser? I believe that's fair, as someone buying a gun is imposing that on everyone else in the household to begin with. If everyone can consent to their housemate buying a gun, then they should be willing to allow a background check placed on them. Maybe if they had that implemented when his mom bought the gun, they could've seen that her son wasn't mentally sound and not allowed the purchase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STVB Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 im glad gun control didnt pass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'tyleR Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 So wait, Sandy Hook occurred because he had access to guns? My bad, I forgot guns automatically made everybody go insane. Jk. Sandy Hook happened because the dude was NUTS. If he hadn't had guns, same thing that happened Boston would've happened to Sandy Hook, and there would be a lot more children dead. Guns provide a more extravagant, stylized way of committing acts of terror. And honestly, whether you can buy guns legally or not, the street has enough to go around, and they aren't hard to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 I completely support the 2nd amendmant, but the NRA is a terrible organization. Also, I'd like to point out that it's easy as hell to build a bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a bad post Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 What about doing background checks of everyone living in the purchaser's household instead of just the purchaser? I believe that's fair, as someone buying a gun is imposing that on everyone else in the household to begin with. If everyone can consent to their housemate buying a gun, then they should be willing to allow a background check placed on them. Maybe if they had that implemented when his mom bought the gun, they could've seen that her son wasn't mentally sound and not allowed the purchase. Not to be rude or anything, but how many people would actually consent to this. Second of all what about law enforcement, what if they have people who are not mentally sound in their household, will you deny them a job? Unfortunately their is no easy/single fix to the U.S's gun problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makο Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 I shoot guns as a hobby, so I'm ok with this. Granted, there could be some changes that would not be too much and help get guns to the right people instead of the wrong ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 just so the people reading this know, the law that got rejected was not some "overkill on your 2nd amendment rights" thing. it was just to put in place more sturdy rules for background checks when buying guns. Nothing "overkill" serious, Just proper background checks. So I cant really see why people would object that much to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Zero Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 Once again, its not one or the other. It's not only the fault of our current background check system/ease of access to weapons that have no business in public hands and its not only the fault of our lacking mental health care. It's both!Having said that, I feel this is a great shame. If I've read this right the bill was nothing more than keeping guns out of the hands of bad people. Sure, you can say "bad people" is subjective, but we all know it would be lenient.Unless someone can explain how this bill infringed on 2nd Amendment rights? (Serious question because I never really understood it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.A._Sakuyamon Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 Not surprised nor do I care either way. Just to add to the conversation, no matter how hard you restrict gun control. Gun will still find ways into the wrong hands. Plus even if you did restrict it at this point, there are still all of the guns not in the right hands now to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted April 22, 2013 Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 To the victor goes the spoils, I suppose. lol! Q4T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunar Origins Posted April 22, 2013 Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 People die. Get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted April 22, 2013 Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 People die. Get over it. I strongly disagree, and this is coming from someone who supports gun rights. People are going to die no matter what we do, but we should never just turn a blind eye toward unnecessary deaths. OT: I actually support this particular bill. There's no logical reason not to have background checks. Those people basically bent over for the NRA. That's not something you should do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miror B Posted April 22, 2013 Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 People die. Get over it. Like above said that kind of mentality basically says "Well people die so fuck that shit gimme another beer" rather than try to at least slow the rate of death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'tyleR Posted April 23, 2013 Report Share Posted April 23, 2013 People die. Get over it. - What? That's one of the top 10 most ignorant comments that I've ever seen on YCM, only trumped by the stupid shit Ragnarok used to say. So you're saying that if I came in and brutally murdered your whole family right in front of your eyes, you wouldn't care because you'd be over it right? If you answer anything other than "No I wouldn't care" then I say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.