Re: Gun Control In The U.S.A.

#52
Fight against the bloody Government? What is this a bunch of insane people marching onto Washington DC with their rifles? Need I remind everyone that the US Military is the most powerful military on Earth? You honestly think that a group of civilians can take on a modern military?

In my opinion on the militia thing. Way back in the day the way things operated were way different than now, remember that back in the late 1700's the British Empire was the most powerful force on Earth, and the US did not have a large standing army. he Militia were basically anyone who is a white male, over 18 and under 45, at the time. Now days the US has a fully fledged Military to defend itself, you don't see the President calling up the Militia to fight a way or defend a territory?
SCP:CB Administrator. 99% of my statements are my own and do not represent the official developers viewpoint.

Re: Gun Control In The U.S.A.

#53
Destructoid wrote: Believe it or not, it's to make sure the people are strong enough to fight against the government if it gets too powerful.
Yes, but that was long ago. Right now, if they try anything like that, they wil get blasted by the US military. They wouldn't even stand a chance. In the past, the military was just trained soldiers with weapons. Now the military has advanced armament and a much more rigorous training. The militia would get killed in no time.

Guns are still kept around because people don't want to lose that power. Having a gun makes you feel confident, and people get mad when that power is taken away.
-Resident Bacon Fanatic-

Re: Gun Control In The U.S.A.

#54
I did a research paper on gun control recently and I think you guys should read it:
Spoiler
When there is a mass shooting or someone innocent gets caught in gunfire from criminals, everybody hears about it. Then the subject of gun control enters politics, local and national news sources, and everyday conversations. Gun control is a tricky subject to discuss; and, it was best said as “Guns, like abortion occupy a unique, high-profile position in U.S. politics”, this to her most likely meant that it affects our rights as U.S. citizens (Sales). A lot of bills have been recently introduced to congress and the President to restrict our rights to own a gun to protect ourselves. Some people might say that we do not need a gun to protect ourselves from criminals, and that the local police force will protect us from criminals who attack us. But those people are wrong; the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on several occasions that officers are not here to protect the people. The U.S. Supreme Court did rule on those several occasions that officers are only here to apprehend the criminal committing the crime. Therefore, we need weapons such as guns to protect ourselves from someone who may attack at any moment. We the people need to demand that our President fix the real problem, which is our failing mental health system to remove the right people off our streets and fix them. We the people do not need to demand that our President remove or restrict our right to protect ourselves.

Understand that guns do kill people, but who they kill depends on where and who it is aimed at. A gun can be used to commit a crime and to stop one; therefore, it is the mental condition and actions of the person handling the gun that decides what it is used for. If there was a better mental health system in place for citizens to use, most likely would be less mass shootings and serial killers. Sadly, we the people do not address this issue; therefore, it never gets properly addressed by Congress and the President. People just accuse guns for the shootings and call it at that. In fact, it was best said as: “Banning guns tomorrow will not stop this. Focusing on handguns instead of rifles or with rifles will not stop this. A renewed assault weapons ban will not stop this. Until we figure out how to fix the family instability and educational problems within the inner-city (because the problem is ultimately about poverty more than anything else), any solution proposed in Washington will be a Potemkin village solution masking the real gun conversation we should be having.” (Erickson). Realize that gun control can be applied properly in ways to decrease gun violence. Better and extended background checks, mental health checks, and removal the removal of gun show loopholes could stop most mentally ill people and criminals from getting guns. But a restriction on guns, themselves, would be a bad idea. Guns save more innocent lives than they take. Gun restrictions would not affect the ability for a criminal to get a gun. The country of México is a great example of failed gun restrictions. Méxicos government applied heavy gun restrictions to their citizens, yet they have a higher rate of murder from guns than the United States. If gun restrictions do not affect their criminals and mentally unstable people, why would gun restrictions affect ours?

People will find a way to hurt someone regardless if they cannot get a gun. If a criminal or mentally ill person truly sets out to hurt someone, he or she will find a way to hurt that person regardless. So if we do not have a gun to protect ourselves, who will? This is one of main reason why we need guns. Understand that if guns are taken away and it would not most likely affect criminals, you are not going to stop a criminal with a gun by using a baseball bat. It is a harsh reality, but it is also one of the many reasons why it is important to own a gun. It could save your life from someone that is willing to use a gun to harm you. So why would you want to restrict something that could save your own life? We can save lives by educating people on gun safety; instead, we try to restrict the guns themselves. The best defense in this case would to give people public healthcare to access the proper mental health doctors so they will not do something to inflict harm on another person because of their mental state. But we as Americans have yet to make such demands to our own government. So, we have not gotten the proper help for our mentally afflicted people. Obama-care is a step in the right direction for public healthcare, but realize it will increase our everyday taxes for the right reasons as presented here: “Obamacare increases the Medicare hospital tax by 0.9 percent, beginning in 2013, for anyone who earns more than $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers). It also creates a new, 3.8 percent tax on investment income, setting income thresholds at the same $200,000 and $250,000 levels mentioned above.”(Kliff). So why would you not want to prevent the mentally unstable from getting the much needed help just because of a tax increase?

Gun Safety is a big issue for people trying to obtain a gun illegally. Leaving guns out in the open can create situations in which, a criminal or a mentally unstable person can acquire a gun. Even if it is inside in a locked closet, they will find a way into it. Therefore, it is partially the gun owner is at fault for the gun getting into the wrong hands. However, if they really want a gun, they will find a way to acquire a gun and use it for bad intent anyways. But, we can slow them by buying gun vaults so the mentally unstable or criminals cannot get to a gun easily. There is no good reason not to buy a gun vault or a trigger guard for your gun of choice. Gun will never go away from us, for guns are embedded in the American culture. But we can choose to practice gun safety so the guns to not fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally unstable, “teaching gun safety should be a priority.”(Rogers).After all, it would be our fault if we did not protect our guns from the criminals or the mentally unstable and they used the gun in a crime would it not?

We need to stop ignoring our failing mental health systems in schools and teach kids at a young age what is right and what is wrong, then show them the consequences if they do something wrong. “Reinforcing respectful behavior by acknowledging when it happens increases its likelihood.” (Lawrence) this quote should mean to you that if we reinforce good behavior in our schools such as not bullying on other kids should have positive side effects, not a neutral side effect. There have been cases in which kids brought guns to school to kill their bullies because they have been bullied beyond sanity. Getting the simple point that doing negative things could have serious negative consequences could stop some gun violence in general. There are also some kids with a mental ailment that could cause them to go insane and shoot up a school. These kids could get help by their parents informing the school about the Childs mental ailment, but in most cases they do not tell the school about it. An example of this is what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The mother of the teenager who attacked innocent children failed to tell anyone about his mental ailment. She did not care about his mental ailment at all, so his mental ailment degraded and turned him insane. If the parents could just tell a mental health Doctor or the school about his mental ailment, it could keep the mental ailment from degrading to something worse. Another way to stop some gun violence would be adding a variety of extra-curricular activities so the kids raised in troubled homes do not go into gangs that could convince them commit crimes. If the kids could find an extra-curricular activity that interest them, it could stop them from going out onto the streets after school and meeting those people who can lure them into gangs with promises of infamy or money.

If all these demands were to be met, a drop in crime would most likely follow. The American people need to inform themselves, instead of blaming it on the object used. Gun restrictions are not the answer, fixing the underlying problems of improper gun safety, the failing mental health system, improper parenting or bullying that leads to troubled or mentally unstable children, and no public health care would stop most gun violence the occurs in the United States. Obviously there will always be bad people, but we can fix the problems in our community that creates them.
Spoiler
Works Cited:
Erickson, Erick. "The Real Gun Violence Problem." Political News. Red State, 9 Jan. 2013. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. <http://www.redstate.com/2013/01/09/the- ... e-problem/>.
Kliff, Sarah. "Five Ways Your Health Care Will Change in 2013." Washingtonpost.com. Washington Post, 26 Dec. 2012. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... e-in-2013/>.
Lawerence, Michelle V. "Right from Wrong." Right from Wrong. More 4 Kids, 2004. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. <http://www.more4kids.com/Articles/article1011.htm>.
Rogers, Griffin. "Yuba City Sikh Says Assault Weapons Ban Infringes on His Faith." Appeal-Democrat. Appeal Democrat, 13 Mar. 2013. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. <http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/gr0 ... 911--.html>.
Sales, Leigh. "A Look inside America's Gun Culture." - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). ABC News, 17 Apr. 2007. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-04-17/a ... re/2244912>.
Manager of the Steam Community :D
Here since May 28, 2012
Time Elapsed Since

Re: Gun Control In The U.S.A.

#55
I can confirm that you don't need guns to hurt people.

Works cited: The shit I do.


Also, I doubt the government would slaughter its citizens if there were a hypothetical situation in which we would have to practice the second amendment en masse.
Image
I WANT TO [REDACTED] INSIDE TWILIGHT SPARKLE
DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL
Atheros drivers SUCK!

Re: Gun Control In The U.S.A.

#57
Destructoid wrote:I can confirm that you don't need guns to hurt people.

Works cited: The shit I do.


Also, I doubt the government would slaughter its citizens if there were a hypothetical situation in which we would have to practice the second amendment en masse.
The thing with gun is not that it is a way of hurting people, but a really easy way of killing them.

Also, yes, the government would do that if they started seeing citizens going against them with guns.
-Resident Bacon Fanatic-

Re: Gun Control In The U.S.A.

#60
Ketercheat wrote:These gun laws won't mean anything in a few years anyway. People will be 3d printing RPG's and MIRV's and stuff from the interweb. Soon the nerds will inherit the earth.
Yes, the issue with the 3D printing gun is not to be looked over. The problem is, that the government is trying to apply the old laws, the ones used currently for "real" guns, into this 3D printing business. The thing is, it won't work. The blueprints of a gun is not a gun, and shouldn't be treated as such. New laws must be applied in order for the 3D printed guns to not be a dangerous issue.

I am sure that we will be seeing a lot of this guns in the future. From household defense to small wars and battles. They are cheaper, easier to manufacture, and it wouldn't surprise me if they were started to be improved and then used by the army in a not so distant future.
-Resident Bacon Fanatic-