Let me put it slightly differently; if YOU were president would you change gun laws after 32 dead innocent kid

Question

s, would you wait 10 months and 320 dead kids, or would you let 1920 kids die in a 5 year term and say its a fair price to pay (as long as its not your kid)?

Answer 1

the right to bear arms was written to stop a dictatorship or a corrupt government seizing power unlucky now we have the media to jedi mind control you anyway.

Answer 2

Okay, follow me here:
In France, their government is inflexible, so they have a whole new Constitution every few years. I forget what they're called now, "the 13th Republic of France" or something.
In the United States of America, we ARE flexible. Our founder knew that we had to be because they studied world governments to create one that would endure. BUT, the Bill of Rights is protected by an amendment stating that NONE of these would ever be repealed. As the leaders of the free world we have a lot of debt - what would happen to that debt? All Hell would break lose.

NOW, the right to bear arms was made specifically so that the people would never be overrun by a tyrannical government - because we'd shoot them. Despite the many arguments about safety and accidents;
Guns are the great equalizer in a fight.
Guns are still used in great quantity for legitmate purposes like hunting out in the country, and most of our nation is country - that's why it's called a country. And taking them away is not the answer.

What needs to happen is that laws need to be uniform throughout the nation. There have to be waiting periods, background checks, and even psych evals nationwide.

Instead, we have places in Texas where you get a free gun when you open a bank account, and you can then throw that in your trunk and drive to New York City.

Answer 3

Cho was not a child and neither technically were those at Columbine, The Branch Davidians or Jim Jones! They placed his privacy above the safety of others, to be Politically correct!

No and it is not against the law to defend your own life, that of others or your property. Since the guns bans, more people that are unarmed have been killed in their own homes. Women and children raped. The crime rates went up. The Crime rates further went up, when states dumped thousands of mentally ill patients onto the streets and trusted them to take medication! They did it to cut their budgets at the rest of societies expense! It created a homeless situation as well! You cannot stop those who are legally insane from committing crimes against others! Criminals will always find a way to get one either by theft or sale in the underground! Unfortunately, the Police always arrive after the fact and find unarmed, helpless VICTIMS! Some sheep need to start biting back! That is why the Second Amendment was written and also to defend yourself against government that may run amuck and violate ther citizens civil rights and to pursue happiness! You should really read The Ten Planks of Communism and see how well that sits with you! That is the fatalist thinking of the politically correct EU!

Answer 4

First off, the President can't just change laws. But to the point, it is more important to change the laws regarding dangerous individuals. People knew that Choi was dangerous, but he couldn't be forced to seek psychiatric help against his will.

Bullying should also be dealt with more seriously, and we need to make a better effort to help kids who are having problems work them out, before they become as dangerous as he did. If he had received the help he needed, this would not have happened.

Having said that, however, I do not think that he should have been able to purchase the guns, given his mental history. I don't know if that's a problem with the laws themselves, or with their enforcement. That issue, however, is secondary.

Answer 5

If I were president, I think I would steer the direction of this energy towards providing care for the mentally ill. Three reasons why I believe this would be my course of action.

One: The president doesn't make laws, but he does raise awareness, communicates directly with the people, and can be very influential in the law-making process.

Two: Gun Control is a failed effort. We need to make a shift in thought with this regard. We either need to wholly adopt the idea of an armed state (as the 2nd amendment dictates), or change the amendment to reflect the desire of the community. This "gun control" strategy is a failed effort, and fence-sitters are the unarmed who become victims. We either need to get out of the way of armed citizenry, or change our fundamental policies and ban guns. We can't have it both ways, this is what happens.

Three: This tragedy could of been avoided at multiple points if there was adequate funding and facilities to treat mental illness. Our current policy, due to huge funding inadequacies, is to diagnose and release mentally ill. Well, you can't have it both ways, either you fund a program that keeps these people in a safe environment where they can be helped; or you live among them, and when one snaps, this is what you get.

I don't think we need more laws pertaining to guns... We need to make up our mind on this issue, and go with one philosophy or the other.. But, even more importantly, we need to put more emphasis on the well-being of our society and its needs, and less on the needs outside our borders....

Answer 6

No!

What you're attempting to do is ban an inanimate object - that is gun control, not crime control.

It takes the action of a person to fire the gun.

There are more deaths caused by drownings, motor vehicles, poisonings, falls, etc... in ANY year than caused by firearms. Why don't we ban water and cars?????

The reason there are 32 deaths is that the campus was declared "gun-free". What moron is going to believe that'll stop a criminal - now bear with me and repeat three times.;.. "criminals don't obey laws - that's why they're criminals."

You want a safer area? Require ALL teachers/professors/students to carry firearms (trained to some degree). There would be a hell of a lot more students now alive!

California Deputy

Answer 7

Th president doesn't make laws, that the house & senate's responsibility.
And the Brady Bill, which would have kept any mental patient from obtaining a handgun, expired in 1998. The President at that time did not elect to re-sign it and keep the law on the books.
And guess who was president in 1998?

Answer 8

Guns do not kill people...People kill people. If everyone had a gun the only person dead would of been the crazed shooter. And if they outlawed guns the only people that could get them would be outlaws. That idiot would of never been able to off that many kids if half of them had been armed and trained with gun safety. You could take out 32 people if you had a sword and had been trained properly. Or a bow or any other weapon like homemade bombs etc.. Guns could be our friends but we make them out to be evil. Evil they will be when only evil has them.

Answer 9

1. It's not the President's job to enact laws. That's a legislative function.

2. Laws affecting large portions of the population should never be made based on an emotional response to an anomalous occurrence.

Answer 10

Guns have been killing people since the time they where invented that is there job toughening gun laws wont do anything except piss off the NRA and having pissed off gun nuts will cause the deaths to go up. So no I would leave the laws the way they are.

Answer 11

It has never been the job of the president to make law.

That is the job of the House and Senate.

And as far as the culture of violence that creates such mindless acts of hatred, what makes you think that changing gun laws will make any difference?

Address the mindless nature of violence first. Don't waste time on another layer of laws that have done nothing to stop hatred since John Kennedy was murdered.