So, gun control didn't happen.

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

-

 

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 

 

 

People die when they die, it's a hard fact to learn but it is a fact.

 

If you did come in and brutally slaughtered them then it would be their time to die. If i managed to stop you then obviously it wouldn't be their time. As for if I would care? Yes I would but only if it were them, otherwise........-Shrugs-

[ListenToLife]

Gotta say, I'm against Guns; I.e. I kinda support the bill.Doesn't really affect me over here in Britain, but Gun Laws should not allow anyone to go out an get a gun.

 

Besides, the total banning of Guns actually works, y'know. Look at Britain here; we've got guns totally banned, and there is practically no gun crime (There is however, a lot of knife crime, but a knife is much easier to defend yourself from, and a lot easier to survive than a Gun)

Since it's against your constitution, I can accept that total illegality wont work for you lot, but some form of restriction is necessary. A back-ground check is certainly needed, if not the household back ground check.

 

PS: Some people have some rather Fatalist views on here >.> 'People die when they die'? That's basically saying 'whatever happens, happens'. Personally I hate that view, because there's no sense of optimism, and there's no inspiration to actually do anything. "If I become a Hobo, I become a hobo; it doesn't matter that I had the choice to get my qualifications, go on to University and get a good job, because what happened, happened." That's basically what you're saying.

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

Gotta say, I'm against Guns; I.e. I kinda support the bill.Doesn't really affect me over here in Britain, but Gun Laws should not allow anyone to go out an get a gun.

 

Besides, the total banning of Guns actually works, y'know. Look at Britain here; we've got guns totally banned, and there is practically no gun crime (There is however, a lot of knife crime, but a knife is much easier to defend yourself from, and a lot easier to survive than a Gun)

Since it's against your constitution, I can accept that total illegality wont work for you lot, but some form of restriction is necessary. A back-ground check is certainly needed, if not the household back ground check.

 

PS: Some people have some rather Fatalist views on here >.> 'People die when they die'? That's basically saying 'whatever happens, happens'. Personally I hate that view, because there's no sense of optimism, and there's no inspiration to actually do anything. "If I become a Hobo, I become a hobo; it doesn't matter that I had the choice to get my qualifications, go on to University and get a good job, because what happened, happened." That's basically what you're saying.

 

It's fine to hate it. I'm not going to strike out at you or anything but lets get something clear. I only mean that towards death and death alone. Death is an absolute that will happen to all of us. That's just how it is. 

[M-Cube]

I actually just wrote a paper on gun control and controversies here in the US recently. I find that limiting gun availability will do nothing to help those who obey the law and would just create a larger black market for criminals. In the end though, I think a decent background check is a pretty good idea. Any criminal stupid enough trying to get a gun the legal way would be stopped. The bill just didn't pass, though.

 

To prevent death to the innocent in places like schools, we should take a leaf from Israel's book and provide extra security. How do we protect government officials? Guns. How do we protect banks? Guns. How do we protect celebrities? Guns. How do we protect children? A sign that reads "This is a gun free zone", then call someone with a gun if there is an emergency.

 

TL;DR: Banning guns disarms the innocent, a background check is not a bad idea, but extra security would also be ideal.

[Agro]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE

 

Something I fell that everyone should watch.

[SpectralMaliceX]

I'm not advocating the gun control bill nor am I showing advocacy towards the second ammendment with my post, but if you're going to buy a gun to defend your home, or family then the shops should supply you with the non lethal ammo dumdum bullets rather than live ammo!

Also at all the people bashing the guy for saying people die get over it, we will all die some day by some form, of disease, murdered, old age it's an fact.

people die. IT'S WHAT THEY DO!

If people was killed by other methods for example mass strangling in a school would we try passing a hand control bill?

On the other side why do you want to buy a gun unless your planning to kill somebody?

[Legend Zero]

Ok, seriously, the "[insert way to kill somebody here] becomes a problem so we should ban/control [insert weapon here]" argument is horrifyingly idiotic. Its not funny, its not logical, and it doesn't help your case. Do cars kill people? Yes. Do knifes kill people? Yes. Do pools kill people? Yes. Do hands (I can't believe this is actually used as an argument) kill people? Yes.

Do you know the difference between all of these? They cannot kill several people as effectively as a gun in a given time frame. The only one you could argue for is cars, but even then, cars serve as pretty much a necessity for modern US life.


Is background check infringing your 2nd Amendment? Only if you've committed a crime which makes you a possible danger to others human rights.

[SpectralMaliceX]

My dear Zero if you use a knive in the correct way it could just as easily do the same job as a gun

[Legend Zero]

My dear Zero if you use a knive in the correct way it could just as easily do the same job as a gun

Are you joking right now? Your counter point is that there is a chance (just a chance) that a knife could be a dangerous as a gun? This chance that would require at least three things: close distance, skill with a knife/luck, and ninja speed.

Close Distance: Target must be an arms length away. Multiple targets (as in the chance you're describing) would be unable to run.
Skill/Luck: Multiple targets would need to be unable to disarm you.
Ninja Speed: Killing multiple people with a knife in the same time as a gun requires this, especially if they are moving targets.

Again, I'm not saying a knife murderer would not kill many people. I'm saying that comparing a knife spree to a shooting spree is stupid.

[SpectralMaliceX]

Well saying one method of killing doesn't need controlling because it's more effective than another method is stupid also, most people aren't killed by guns globally speaking murders/deaths caused by cars far outway that caused by guns!

[Legend Zero]

I'm not even following anymore. Are you saying that because there will always be a way to kill people that we should not try to regulate the most dangerous ways?

And there are way more drivers than gun owners, so naturally there would be more deaths. Car manufacturers also continue to improve safety in their vehicles (new guns might also have improved safety features, if so then my bad).

[SpectralMaliceX]

I'm not saying it shouldn't be regulated, nor am I saying it should what I'm saying is that there are more deadlier weapons that can be used that don't get regulated, how can you justify the regulation of one and not the other?

[Legend Zero]

Can you list these weapons?

I don't get how you came to that conclusion, seeing as I never said any such thing.

I understand that there are several things that kill people, but among them how many of them are manufactured with the intent to do harm to another living thing? I could live with taking something extremely dangerous away from the populace, but there must come a line (like we can't take pressure cookers away because they can be used for bombs). I respect the hunting culture that America has and they have the right to do that, so long as they do not commit crimes that could flag them on a background check.

[.Rai]

Guns are an exception because they were made for killing. Plain as. It would be strange to suggest otherwise. Using knives as an argument is silly, because people use them on a day-to-day basis in pretty much every country I can think of. I'm sure there are knife laws anyway just in case. They exist in the UK anyway. So, knives are regulated anyway. I think LZ sums it up quite contently really. And Agro's video.

[Agro]

Just for extra examples of guns vs, say, knives:

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/04/09/mass-stabbing-reported-at-houston-area-community-college

Houston, TX mass stabbing

14 injured, 0 deaths

 

Virginia Tech Massacre

17 wounded, 32 killed

Movie Theatre Shooting

58 wounded, 12 killed

Fort Hood Shooting

30 wounded, 13 killed

 

Also take into account that there've only been 7 mass stabbings since 1901 in the United States. Whereas with guns, we've had almost double that since 2001.

 

So yeah, sure, you can definitely try to make comparisons between knives and guns just because knives kill people. Definitely comparable and doesn't make one look like an ignorant bastard.

[Big Bad Pennar]

I have noted a set of wise words I see almost every day.. I will Quote them now, since it contributes well to the topic...

 

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes..." - Thomas Jefferson

 

I'm very glad Gun Control did not go through...

[Legend Zero]

I have noted a set of wise words I see almost every day.. I will Quote them now, since it contributes well to the topic...
 
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes..." - Thomas Jefferson
 
I'm very glad Gun Control did not go through...

Can you explain how only requiring background checks will "disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes"?
 
Seriously, I don't think I have seen one good reason as to why background checks are a bad thing. Logic such as, "Well it wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook." is awful to use in this particular discussion. Sure the Sandy Hook incident started the discussion, but the outcome is to prevent future violence.
 
 

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.

This is actually a brilliant idea, imo. I'm sure there are some kinks to work out. Such as....

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.

Law enforcement have training and might be required to take extra classes. You could even allow the general populace to take such courses, depending on the severity of the mental condition of the person in their house?


There are a ton of ways to go about this, but just standing aside saying "Its not guns fault, its people" is not really going to do anything. Why hasn't the NRA supporting senators introduced a mental health care bill? Instead of getting clouded by money and which side you're on, people need to look at the problems and say what they don't want (people generally have this down) and also what they do want.

[Big Bad Pennar]

Can you explain how only requiring background checks will "disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes"? Considering that was a quote that was said by a founding father of the Constitution, Which said quote existed for much longer than the thought of Gun Control Laws... But then again, I was mainly talking about Idiotic Gun Control Laws, Like outright not allowing citizens to buy guns period...

 

Anyway, About the Gun Control Background Checks, I can see that going horribly wrong, but i'm very fine about it... although Criminals could just go to another country to buy a gun

Seriously, I don't think I have seen one good reason as to why background checks are a bad thing. Logic such as, "Well it wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook." is awful to use in this particular discussion. Sure the Sandy Hook incident started the discussion, but the outcome is to prevent future violence. This is why Teachers should have CCWs, THAT would have prevented Sandy Hook

 

EDIT: Scratch the Striked part out, I forgot to consider the Psycho Teachers... Metal Detectors at the School Entrances Perhaps?

[Tentacruel]

Personally, I think we need better security in public schools.  Obviously, background checks is a good idea, BUT, it's a terribly inaccurate response to Sandy Hooks. 

 

Obviously, teachers with guns is an atrociously bad idea, but I think it would be a reasonable notion to have two odd security guards (or full on cops) locked in a secure location armed with handguns that get to the school before everyone else, leave after everyone else, and are only deployed during emergencies.

[Agro]

Unfortunately, the accurate response to Sandy Hook wouldn't be allowed by a document that's over 200 years outdated and so vague that it allows for an infinite amount of interpretations, many of which have nothing to do with what the original meaning that it tried to put forward.

 

But enough about my critique of A Modest Proposal.

 

Many, many schools already have an armed security guard in the building at all times. I know, personally, that my High School had an officer from the local department who was assigned an office inside the building. I don't think it would be so bad if there were 2 positions in every school from pre-school through High School for a security guard. Preferably someone from the local department like my HS did and not just somebody from off the street.

 

Still, the fact of the matter remains that the more guns there are, the more likely someone is to get shot... which is why there's more focus on hitting guns with laws-especially guns meant to kill a lot of people at once. It doesn't matter if it's not the "accurate" response to Sandy Hook, as long as we're trying to do SOMETHING to make it harder for guns to get into the wrong hands instead of sitting idly by and merely saying "There's no way we can stop them from getting the guns, so why try?"