Gun Control

[Section 104 of patriot act] <--- the unpatriot act. Funny how congress makes laws that contradict itself by the name alone.. My personal opinion is, put a gun on the table and just leave it there.. Let's see how many people are killed by said gun. Give a murderer a frying pan, and let's see how many people are killed. The issue is not the tool, but the user.

Very true. However we can do our best to give murderers frying pans and not nukes. The type of weapons easily available will dictate just how many people can be killed before the bastard is stopped. This is clearly evident by taking any tragedy in recent history and giving the psycho a browning machine gun vs. a 5 round bolt-action rifle.

@ reisudo Try telling someone who believes that guns are evil, that it is all the users fault. Chances are you will get a nutbag that will tell you that guns "tempt" you to do Violent things. Which is why guns are evil not the people. If you meet said nutbag say hi from my behalf.

And to your final point Sunbae-kun, I gotta say that the law is a bit nonsensical. The only protection I'd imagine it'd offer would be against drunks who may shoot themselves in the nuts fumbling around with a loaded gun in a car. Otherwise anyone who intends to break that law will do so. It does nothing to prevent drive-bys. I figure the charge of homicide would kinda drown out any speak of the misdemeanor of driving with a loaded gun.

I think the biggest problem is that they don't seem to screen people(therapy, background checks, education, etc) before allowing them access to the gun... Or if they do, they're not doing a very good job at it.

I agree that background checks will prevent individuals with psychological health problems from obtaining a gun. But our problem is those nutbars who go off their rocker afterwards. Should there be continual check-ups after getting a firearm like with a pilot's license? And what of the people who've never had a psych eval? They would never red flag.

They can regulate guns but a murderer or someone in that mindset will tactically acquire the weapons regardless or use any weapon for murder. That's the point whether you make it easier or harder, all you are doing is making it harder for good people who would otherwise obtain the guns legally harder on them. If you notice a lot of murders are done with unregistered guns, or stolen guns. IF i was a murderer i'd never use my own gun, my finger prints? my registered weapon, with my ammo? lawl they'd find me lickety split. I agree gun education is needed, screenings can only do so much. I guess I have a bias because I am military, I was able to handle Mark19, 240, M16 and other nasty toys. I have been screened, but I don't even own a GUN as a civilian because I rather not. I strongly believe that people have the right to carry them. Actually you'll see a future like this.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bOQitInC84 Screenings are useless because you SCREEN today and the person is mentally stable but what about 3 weeks from then? What if they are so angry they commit a crime of passion? Honestly, screenings only dictate a persons mental health from past to present but not future. Gun education, is important we get that a lot in the military. gun locks are fine, but they need to be specifically easily accessed for the user. The main reason you have a gun is so when push comes to shove and you are in danger you can obtain it without having to go "oh fuck i lost the key" or "oh fuck the key is in the cabi.." -bam shot by criminal in his own house- Guns should be placed somewhere where only the user can get it easily but yet harder for children. Educate children on guns I mean they do it for sex at school, they can do it for guns too. I think the reason why people are scared of these sort of laws is just that usually the law makers will make laws like this until the people get accustomed to it and then eventually banning of all guns later on. We all know how prohibition went.