Quantcast

Do we need tighter laws on guns?

L.A. Times 2012/12/15 02:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
President Obama’s pledge on Wednesday to press for new gun control measures was an important commitment -- even if, despite his protests, it might look like just another Washington commission.

Only one week ago, gun control wasn’t on Obama’s second-term agenda at all. Now, after the elementary school shootings in Newtown, Conn., it’s right at the top. “I will use all the powers of this office to help advance efforts aimed at preventing more tragedies like this,” Obama said. “We won’t prevent them all, but that can’t be an excuse not to try.”

Obama directed Vice President Joe Biden to produce a plan, urged Congress to pass three long-debated measures (a ban on assault weapons, a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips and a requirement for background checks before all gun purchases) and promised to return to the issue in his State of the Union address.

gun control obama

Read More: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • zac 2013/05/29 00:18:30
    No
    zac
    no i havent lost a child, but many ppl have, and i do feel for them, murder is wrong no matter how you do it, but a weapon is a weapon, its no different then anything else that can kill, most of the "assault rifles" as most of you are calling them are assault rifles, a assault rifle is a select fire-meaning semi auto or full auto rifle, an AR-15 or semi auto AK47/74 is not a true assault rifle, its no deadlier then a bolt action rifle or a pistol, at least you see the rifle coming, most full auto weapons are made for the MILITARY and the military doesnt want to bring there weapons home because of the cost of transfer so they litter third world countries with them by the thousands, then rich criminals fly there and local criminals of the area scoop them up and sell them cheap to other criminals, normal americans dont do not buy them this way, they pay out there ass for a POS that breaks with in 5000 rounds, so id say the real criminal is the militaries of the world leaving there full autos laying around for criminals to pick up and sell to anyone, and if you dont believe this happens look it up, and they want to take our guns away? maybe they are the ones who need to learn how to take care of there guns
  • TombstoneJim 2013/04/16 18:15:44
    No
    TombstoneJim
    Killing people, outside of war is already illegal, in war they can kill you, but can’t eat you – that’s illegal.....do we need tighter knife laws, baseball bat laws, hammer laws.....these all exist in Britain. Germany, you can't mow your lawn on Sunday. Laws, laws and more laws - for the people who obey. Criminals already break laws, so passing another will only alter the methods murders use to murder.

    We need a return to “a moral and educated” society – which is what Mr. Franklin espoused our nation was created to sustain.
  • Shawn 2013/01/17 13:33:57 (edited)
    Yes
    Shawn
    I feel our country needs better gun control, the pass few shootings have been registered guns. I feel our country should eliminate citizen having semi automatic weapons There's a lot of people that said no but imagine if that was your family killed in the shootings. I don't understand what people need semi automatic guns for anyways? I believe in the right to protect ourselves, but the line has to be drawn at some point. I ask those that are saying no look at how many has lose their life to Semi automatic guns. Then the hunters that use them I've been hunting but with shot guns (I don't think people use Semi automatic weapons to hunt) I'm feel to many people have loss their life to guns!
  • Skar 2013/01/14 07:16:25
    No
    Skar
    No, we need better gun education. Even without guns massacre's would still happen, they would just find another means of doing it.
  • lunatic 2013/01/10 04:12:08
    Yes
    lunatic
    I MEAN NO!!! NNOOO!!! NO GUN CONTROL !!! NNNOOOO!~~~~
  • Marek 2013/01/03 22:20:22
    No
    Marek
    There should only be one law in addition to the second Amendment and it should say don't use guns to kill people for no good reason.
  • Mj PINKYFINGERDOWN 2013/01/02 20:02:55
  • RyanH 2013/01/02 10:23:08
    No
    RyanH
    +1
    Violence is already banned yet is still committed by criminals, what makes you think banning guns will stop gun violence? A better idea would be to address America's upcoming and overpowering culture of hate, discrimination, and bullying. When people are programmed to be violent from early on with nasty video games, unfettered access to the profane areas of the internet, and an increasingly sexualized culture, you can simply expect it to come up later in life. Let's work on the real issues at hand here rather than adding one more idiotic, unnecessary law to the books based on unfounded beliefs.
  • John Brashear 2012/12/28 21:15:58
    No
    John Brashear
    +1
    guns have two natural enemies, ...Rust and Politicians...
  • toya 2012/12/28 20:10:13
    No
    toya
    If the tightens laws people will buy GUNS OF THE STREETS. Buying gun in the streets is as easy buying drugs from a drug dealer
  • Pete 2012/12/26 09:54:00
    No
    Pete
    +1
    Tighter laws are not needed, but a different law is needed in one respect: convicted felons should absolutely lose all rights to gun ownership. Rights of law abiding citizens should not be abridged. The man who recently started a fire and then ambushed and killed the firefighters who arrived to fight the fire was a convicted felon. He should not have had access to a gun. Perhaps it's tighter ENFORCMENT of existing laws that is needed.
  • tj 2012/12/26 08:04:50
    No
    tj
    +3
    Any teacher that is qualified, has a concealed to carry permit, and is willing should be allowed.
  • drdos1943 tj 2012/12/26 10:53:07 (edited)
    drdos1943
    +1
    There would have to be a tremendously detailed and concentrated training program.. and even that may have complications and disastrous results down the road.

    I am a former teacher and college instructor and I have concealed carry.

    There occur heated situations, mostly in high school and middle school, in the classroom between teachers and unruly students. There were a few of those students I would liked to have strangled. A gun at my disposal would have made it more convenient; but I would be writing this now from a jail cell. Would I ever have commited such an act...never...but there are other teachers out of emotion in a heated situation who might. I do not think we should take that chance.

    After retiring, every school in the NorthSide Independent School District of San Antonio where I substituted had at least one an armed police officer on duty.
  • john Kills 2012/12/26 07:00:12
    No
    john Kills
    +5
    We need to end gun free zones.
  • YouSirName 2012/12/26 06:43:33
    Yes
    YouSirName
    +1
    Eliminate high capacity magazines, assault weapons that serve no legitimate hunting purpose.
  • Mike YouSirName 2013/01/02 03:03:51 (edited)
    Mike
    +2
    No legitimate hunting purposes. I don't hunt my friend, so when I hear idiots like you say that the 2nd amendment, or guns in general, should only be for hunting purpose, I get pissed and insulted. It's got nothing to do with hunting. It's about protection from tyranny.

    Corvettes serve no legitimate purpose for transportation.

    forks don't get people fat.

    The planes didn't crash themselves into the world trade center.

    if 2.5% of all vehicle deaths was caused by black pickup trucks, would we ban black pickup trucks?

    watch this video, and if you still believe what you're saying, you're incapable of rational thought.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  • Marek YouSirName 2013/01/03 22:39:11
    Marek
    +1
    Watch the video posted by Mike. So called Assault Rifles have legitimate self defense use. When I have to defend myself or someone else I want to use equal and preferably grater force than the assailant. You could say that Assault Rifle is to stop literally dead an assailant.
  • ~HopelessRomanticM17~ 2012/12/26 05:22:39
    Yes
    ~HopelessRomanticM17~
    +2
    YYYESSS

    I'm not saying we should just ban them completely, but we shouldn't just let anybody have a gun either.
  • Mike ~Hopele... 2013/01/02 03:11:49
    Mike
    +3
    We don't just let anybody have a gun. You have to undergo a background check, in which mental illness would show up, if you want to buy a gun.

    Most of the massacre shooters acquired their weapons, or prepared them, illegally. They broke multiple laws that were already on the books at the time to get their guns. Banning them does nothing as we've shown again and again.

    Virginia tech - Mental illness that wasn't reported by the state quickly enough to prevent him from buying his guns.
    Columbine - Under aged, they purchase their guns illegally from friends, and made illegal alterations to them.
    Clackamas mall - Stole the gun outright.
    Sandy Hook- Mentally disabled, was declined a gun at the store, so he essentially stole them from his mother. He may have even shot his mother because she was trying to stop him.
    Every single shooter was under the influence of some sort of psychotic drug, such as prescriptions for depression, and what have you, and they attacked "gun free zones". That is the one commonality between all of them. Not the mag capacity, not their weapon, not the way they got them, and not their victims.

    The only way to stop more massacres is for a larger percentage of the general populace to have a gun. Statistically, there are more good people than bad by a very large margin, so taking away guns, or allowing them, really only effects the victims.
  • ~Hopele... Mike 2013/01/11 03:00:30
    ~HopelessRomanticM17~
    They didn't attack these places because they were gun free. At least not for Columbine...Really not for Sandy Hook either. Those shootings happened because they were mentally unstable and there were people at those schools that they were specifically after....at least at first. It's not a gun issue, it's a mental health issue.
  • Mike ~Hopele... 2013/01/18 11:25:47
    Mike
    You may be right. But the reason he killed as many as he did was because it was a gun free zone. If it wasn't, he either would have been stopped by an armed citizen, or choose not to attack that place at all.
  • natwebb 2012/12/26 04:02:07
    No
    natwebb
    +1
    NO
    NO
    NO
    NO
    NO
    NO
    NO
    NO
    NO
    NO
  • Mordecai Jones 2012/12/26 03:14:47
    No
    Mordecai Jones
    +2
    Most of these shooting, including the one at Fort Hood, take place in a gun free zone. None of the shooting have taken place even near where I live - we all have guns and that wouldn't be safe for the shooter.
  • steven.p.robinson1 2012/12/25 23:08:16 (edited)
    No
    steven.p.robinson1
    +2
    We need a thorough review of all the many thousands of current laws and regulations, including how well our federal, state and district attorneys are applying them when the situation warrants. If current laws are not being properly applied, why would one think that more laws will help anything?
  • firefly 2012/12/25 22:59:18
  • Dale 2012/12/25 20:47:34
    No
    Dale
    +1
    Just enforce the ones that are on the books before passing any new laws that will be ignored.
  • Beccy 2012/12/25 20:31:52
    No
    Beccy
    +2
    People need to Wake up we need liberty not a police state
  • JJ 2012/12/25 17:58:02
    No
    JJ
    We have laws on the books already. This is another of his and Hillery's excuse to [ over time ] get all our guns from us. What we need is a president who cares about the people and other politions [ Dems and Republicans ] That too care...and have both wisdom and guts to stand against those that are trying to turn this country and its people into something none of us want. We are not slaves, nore robots, but human beings that were born free and will stay free. We are not their human puppets to do as they want to us...we are and always be, Americans. This is our country given to us through Abraham .
  • Ramón 2012/12/25 17:05:31
    No
    Ramón
    +1
    Gun control laws all worked in Sandy Hook. What didn't work was the fact that this evil sod killed his mom with a stolen gun, stole more guns and broke a window to climb into a school and kill innocent children and adults. He tried to buy a gun and was turned down. The law worked.

    When guns are banned, as many libtards are now crying for, then only criminals will have guns. In England where guns are banned, the rate of violent gun crime has risen 89%. And why not? Criminals will naturally gravitate to where there are no restrictions (guns or otherwise). So in England gangs get guns because no one else has them, and they do their crimes. In the US 'gun free zone' is an advertising slogan for "criminals allowed zone.'
  • krayzrick 2012/12/25 15:10:09
    No
    krayzrick
    No. What we need are guards in schools, fewer politicians, a stoppage of 'foreign aid', cheaper pizzas, looser women, more shooting ranges, cheaper gas, fewer libs....
  • ticlo7 2012/12/25 13:43:21
    Yes
    ticlo7
    From an outsider's point of view, you can't take guns away completely as it's clear people feel strongly about it, but just control who can get hold of them more tightly. Perhaps don't ban wepons, but background checks would be a good idea.
  • Grandpa ticlo7 2012/12/25 14:44:49
    Grandpa
    +2
    He should start with Eric Holder and the selling of guns to the drug cartel ,that killed our border agent and the mexican people, mostly women and kids
  • krayzrick ticlo7 2012/12/25 15:11:15
    krayzrick
    +1
    so, those restrictions would have worked on the Sandy Hook shooter? How?
  • ticlo7 krayzrick 2012/12/26 17:06:12
    ticlo7
    Possibly ensure that the buyer (which I've gathered was the mother; feel free to correct me) has the guns in a safe and secure place, out of reach of anybody who may use them to injure themselves or others. However I do know that not much has been found about Lanza's intentions, reasons or if he had any official problems (mentally) so I can't really give a proper answer specific to this situation.
  • Teachkat 2012/12/25 08:57:21
    No
    Teachkat
    It was against the law to kill 26 people in the first place. Laws don't stop criminals or they wouldn't be criminals.
  • shadow76 2012/12/25 07:07:53
    No
    shadow76
    +1
    No we need evil people locked up.
  • John Galt jr or Ron/jon 2012/12/25 04:44:57
    Yes
    John Galt jr or Ron/jon
    +2
    Gun control is always a hot topic. Many people including the Libertarians believe that the right to bear arms means that the forefathers wanted us to have unrestricted access to weapons of war. One must consider that when the bill of rights was written, guns were only capable of firing a single shot, before reloading. Today we have guns capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute, do you really believe that the founders of this country intended us to walk the streets with ak47s and uzis? Now if you allow the Libertarian logic all arms should be legal. Does this mean that we should have shoulder launched missiles in our homes. They say that's not what we mean, but that is what they are saying. Now there is the other extreme those who would have all weapons banned, so that only criminals have guns. Might I point out at this juncture that knives are weapons as well as baseball bats in the wrong hands. So the real question that needs to be addressed is "where to draw the line?" I personally believe that that line should be drawn at practability. Fully automatic weapons are not practical. If you can't hit your target with one or two shots, you have no business with a gun! Fully automatic weapons are not aimed rather they spray a huge number of projectiles in a general direction...
    Gun control is always a hot topic. Many people including the Libertarians believe that the right to bear arms means that the forefathers wanted us to have unrestricted access to weapons of war. One must consider that when the bill of rights was written, guns were only capable of firing a single shot, before reloading. Today we have guns capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute, do you really believe that the founders of this country intended us to walk the streets with ak47s and uzis? Now if you allow the Libertarian logic all arms should be legal. Does this mean that we should have shoulder launched missiles in our homes. They say that's not what we mean, but that is what they are saying. Now there is the other extreme those who would have all weapons banned, so that only criminals have guns. Might I point out at this juncture that knives are weapons as well as baseball bats in the wrong hands. So the real question that needs to be addressed is "where to draw the line?" I personally believe that that line should be drawn at practability. Fully automatic weapons are not practical. If you can't hit your target with one or two shots, you have no business with a gun! Fully automatic weapons are not aimed rather they spray a huge number of projectiles in a general direction and most do not hit the intended targets. This raises the possibility of uninvolved parties being hit astronomically. Which brings us to the meat of the matter where is the line and is there a fair compromise? I believe that the manufacture and importation of all fully automatic weapons as well as the bullets and clips that support these weapons should be banned. I believe that all guns should be registered and that all registered owners should be required to take and pass safety courses designed around their weapons of choice. I believe that any gun used to facilitate a crime should be destroyed, with out any concern for historical significance, value or ownership. I believe that the founding fathers would want it this way.
    (more)
  • Teachkat John Ga... 2012/12/25 09:10:03
    Teachkat
    +3
    The founding fathers put the right to bear arms in the bill of rights so that the people of this country would not fall to tyranny. So if the other guy (whoever they may be is capable of owning and automatic weapon then yes they'd ant for Americans to have them also for protection . That was their point. Again laws against in weapon will not stop a criminal, I personally don't own one, but as a law abiding citizen I should have the right to have it if I so choose.
  • John Ga... Teachkat 2012/12/25 23:32:39
    John Galt jr or Ron/jon
    I never said anyone should have them... including the Government
  • Ron the... John Ga... 2012/12/26 02:40:36
    Ron the Realist
    To follow your reasoning, when the framers wrote those famous amendments, a printing press was a slow, hand-operated machine. The type was set meticulously and individually. The distribution was mostly local. Could the framers ever have imagined building-sized presses capable of running automatically at speeds in excess of thousands of feet per minute? A national distribution of millions of copies daily would have been beyond their comprehension. Then, of course, there's the unseen emergence of electronic news which can reach hundreds of millions of people simultaneously, in real time and with live action images. Is that what the framers had in mind when they made the statement, "Congress shall make no law" with respect to the press? Did they mean something different when they said, "Congress shall make no law" regarding the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

    If yes, how so?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 41 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Entertainment

2014/07/29 02:36:44

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals