In light of the terrible shooting in Washington DC, do you think serious changes need to be made to the US's stance on gun control?

Posted by: murphy_phillip

Do we need a complete revamp of the policy, or leave as is and do nothing?

Vote
29 Total Votes
1

Do nothing

20 votes
5 comments
2

We need serious changes to the current policy

8 votes
0 comments
3

Add background checks

1 vote
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
StarTrek says2013-09-17T19:31:34.2935191-05:00
I think the poll is wrong. Background checks do need to be enforced, but not serious, strict gun control (meaning taking up assault weapons).
Cowboy0108 says2013-09-17T21:27:00.5873449-05:00
Yes we need change. We need to loosen the gun laws. The shooting took place in D.C., the area with some of the toughest gun control, and it took place in a "gun free zone". Gun control is not about the guns, it is about the control. If it was about the guns, there would be virtually no gun control since it clearly does NOT work.
imabench says2013-09-17T22:09:17.8049529-05:00
Cowboy go be stupid somewhere else
fluffybunnypuff says2013-09-26T08:24:23.9258060-05:00
No one has the right to reduce someone's ability to defend themself, by doing so you take responsibility/liability for their safety, something gov cant do because gov cant get there on time and they arnt always able to call for help, makeing gov liable for not protecting them. Forced them to be defenseless knowing the gov cant protect them. If an innocent gets murdered as a result of being disallowed to have the means to defend themself, whoever disallowed them to the means to defend themself IS GUILTY OF MURDER and should be put in life in prison. Anyone who reduces the ability for innocent people to defend themself is liable for their saftey. Ordering murder doesnt=murder. Paying someone to murder doesnt=murder. Banning someone from defensive means resulting in them being murdered cuz they couldnt defend themself is = to not giving your kidnapped victims water resulting in them dehydrateing the death. Being able to defend yourself is a basic survival need. Only criminals/tyrants want gun control to use guns to control and victimize the gunless. Gov doesnt have the right to do anything that non-gov doesnt have the right to do. Gov doesnt have more rights than the individual. The name of your group doesnt give you more rights. Its groupism, lableism, hypocritical and illegal for a group to ban weapons from another group based only on group name/ labels/ if their gov or non-gov/ military or not/ nazi or jew/ shia or suni/ crip or blood the popular, rich, powerful, have no more right to guns than the unpopular, poor, weak. Gov isnt more moral, responsible, or necessarily more well trained, more skilled at hitting the target, a better shot, or smarter, than non-gov. On adv non-gov is more moral and responsible, and less hypocritical and violent than gov. Gov background checks puts gov above the law and turns arms from a right into a gov granted privliage, and bans guns from anyone who doesnt obey gov. Gov background checks are at the whim of whatever tyrants deside to call a crime, or who desides to falsly label people as criminals, and background check doesnt nessicarily =just criminal background check, it can be anything you did that the tyrant doesnt like(gov critizers, political oppoents, being non gov...). Gov wants guns wo anyones´╗┐ permit, and doesnt want anyone to have guns w/o its permit self defense is a god given right rights cant be taken away. What is right is always absolutely right. Freedom to exercise your rights can be taken away by tyrants. Its a privlage to use someone else's property, its a right to use your own property as long as it doesnt infringe on = rights of others. Corrupt gov thinks it owns everything thus calls everything gov lets gov's property(humans) do with gov's property(everything) a privilage. They call paying your taxes a privlage. Ordinary people need fully auto and high capacity mag to protect themself from tyrants, corrupt gov members, and criminal groups w fully auto and high capacity mag pro-gun controllers shuold start with telling gov to rid itself of auto and semi auto rifles before it thinks about banning it from non gov. Only criminals/tyrants want gun control to use guns to control and victimize the gunless. Predators dont want to be outgunned by their prey. Assault weapon= may refer to a weapon that was/ is used for assault, not a weapon that could be used for assault if "assault weapon" refered to any weapon that could be used for assault that= all weapons and all items that could be used as weapons including all humans and all objects. There is no such thing as an assault weapon what gun control people call "assault weapon" is the same type of weapon they call personal protection weapon when its for DHS. Gun control people falsely define "assault weapon" as all weapons non-gov has. Gun control people call semi-auto rifles(long gun) assault weapons.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.