Saturday, May 31, 2014
House Dems unveil new gun bill
This article is about a new bill introduced by Democrats that would restrict the gun-purchasing rights of people who have been involuntarily committed mental patients and deemed dangerous by a court, and also people who have been convicted of stalking or domestic abuse. This comes very soon after a deadly shooting at UC Santa Barbara by a mentally ill student who had been in therapy since he was young but bought guns legally anyway.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While I agree that there is no one law that will stop gun attacks, I believe that this bill and the one that just passed in the House are steps in the right direction. This problem, like global warming, is not just going to stop because we change one thing. We have to keep working to stop these terrible events from happening. They are no longer a rarity and will continue to increase if nothing is done.
ReplyDeleteI am in full support of this new law and hope more like it are put in place. Constitutionally, the right to life outweighs the right to bear arms.There is nothing unconstitutional about stricter gun control laws. We still have the right to bear arms. That right isn't being taken away. These types of laws just make sure that preventable shootings do not occur.
ReplyDeleteI am thrilled to see these new bills and think that they are definitely a step in the right direction. I recently saw a picture somewhere that quoted John Oliver saying "one failed attempt at a shoe bomb, and we take our shoes off at the airport. Thirty-one school shootings since Columbine and no change in the regulation of guns." I think that says a lot about what we need to do and what restrictions need to be put in place.
ReplyDeleteLike the comments above me, I agree that this bill is a step in the right direction. As Emily said, there is no one specific law that will prevent gun attacks and these horrible tragedies, but if this bill could help save just one innocent person's life, it is worth passing.
ReplyDeleteI support this bill because the underlying causes, such as limited mental healthcare, cannot be fixed quickly, if ever. This type of law will hopefully help reduce gun violence. However, I think the publicity of these massacres needs to be limited because it shows others who are unstable that this is a way to get a big name. The Santa Barbara obviously also opens up the subject of sexual harassment and the objectification of women.
ReplyDeleteYes! This is what is needed. If you want to see my gun control rant you can look on Olivia's post, I won't re-type it. I can't see the negative side to this bill that the republicans will no doubtedly see. Having stricter gun control laws protects everybody. What is wrong with that?
ReplyDeleteI think that passing this bill is definitely a step in the right direction. These shootings are becoming more common and there hasn't been anything done yet. It's about time that we start putting restrictions on who can and cannot legally buy a gun or any other weapon as a matter of fact. This may sound horrible, but I'd rather have one person lose a right than the lives of many being at risk.
ReplyDeleteI think we need to realize that gun control is not going to do very much to end this problem. This individual killed three people with a gun, but also killed three people with a knife. People who believe gun control can solve the problem have an ambitiously large confidence in government to solve problems (after all, knives would simply replace guns and there would be mass stabbings instead). The underlying problem is cultural (just look at how he describes Call of Duty). While games are more or less okay in moderation, overindulgence (as this individual did) can lead to an immense amount of desensitization and other dangerous effects. Finally, can we note that almost every single mass shooting has been committed in a no-gun zone? That is a rather interesting correlation that pro gun-control people need to realize before they attempt to pass gun control.
ReplyDeleteI believe in the second amendment, however I also believe that it needs to be revised. I believe that all that should be allowed to be sold in stores is pistols and standard sniper rifles for hunting. The fact that stores sell assault rifles is completely unnecessary. Also, we need to make the process for somebody to get a license to own a gun a lot longer and the possibility of it being revoked a lot easier. With all this said, the 2nd amendment should stay
ReplyDeleteI think Andrew has his head up his butt when he says that people will turn to mass stabbings if we add more gun control laws. That just won't happen. I agree with my other classmates in that this bill is a step in the right direction. I don't understand why Andrew as well as other Republicans are so against this. As Olivia pointed out, the right to life outweighs the right to bear arms and this bill only makes it harder to bear arms, it does not eliminate that right. Andrew also pointed out that most mass shootings occur in no-gun zones. Well that is a no brainer, most no-gun zones are places like schools where there is a large concentration of people and there is no necessity for carrying a gun.
ReplyDeleteI support this restriction on guns. I see no need for people with mental health issues to own fire arms. The same goes for proven dangerous people, and stalkers. A lot of people would argue that, these restrictions are completely against the right to bear arms. However I think a human life is more precious than the right to bear arms. I think this is a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteFinally Congress is taking steps in the right direction of gun control. We need restrictions on who can purchase what if we want to prevent deaths of innocent people. Even if people switch to stabbing, there still won't be as many deaths as if there were guns allowed. Practically speaking, stabbing isn't as easy or efficient as shooting. It's messier and slower. We could easily save lives if every person blocked by this law (dangerous-deemed people, stalkers, people labelled mental patients) was forced to find other ways to kill people without a gun. What data do you have, Andrew, that these video games are really the problem. Most people can play video games and distinguish between the concept of the game and reality. I think the real problem is not recognizing the mental illness and not worrying that someone with a mental illness can construe the lines of reality. Anyway this law and others like it are definite pros for the fight for safety.
ReplyDelete