Search Results: background check

link

Quick run down: Guy came into a kindergarten, killed 27 (18 of whom were children).

Now, people keep saying "oh don't politicize these things" (usually Republicans, who, need I remind you, politicized the hell outta 9/11), but considering the many horrible gun crimes over this year ALONE it seems we really need to discuss gun regulations.

I mean, how are people OK with private sellers at gun shows or elsewhere (i.e. those who aren't part of any official commercial business selling guns) not needing to do background checks or the increase in ease for convicts or even those on the terrorist watch list or the allowance of automatic weapons or whatnot?

Let's play a math game. The DSM IV says that 1% of females and 3% of males in a country on average are going to be those who have antisocial disorder (also known as sociopaths, yes, people have been using antisocial wrong for a long time). There are 308,745,538 people in the country according to the 2010 census (I've yet to find specifics about 2012, regardless, it'd not be TOO much higher), 50.8% of the population is female, which means 49.2% of the population is male. This means ~156,842,733 females and ~151,902,805 males are in the country. If we apply that good ol' 1% of females, and 3% of males will be diagnosed with antisocial behavior (again, these are sociopaths), that gives a good ol' number of ~1,568,427 females and ~4,557,084 males are clinical sociopaths in our country. With lax gun laws, it's not hard for them to get guns. This means ~6,125,511 sociopaths could potentially have guns and be a serious threat. We've already seen with guns and people who are mentally unstable/ill doing some serious harm this year. This incident alone shows that well.

So I wonder, why have people STILL refused to talk about better gun regulation laws? Not banning guns, not keeping the average person from getting guns, but making it harder for those who shouldn't have guns getting them? We used to have bans on assault rifles for good reason, By the way. We already know that the government has a right to ban weapons. It's why your average US citizen can't go and buy say a nuclear bomb. Under the purist scrutiny of the constitution, we'd all be able to. But if you understand our founding fathers had no way of knowing the level of destruction we could create (you can claim they would figure it out, but that's just bs), then it's good reason we need to ban weapons from common hands that are made to be weapons of mass destruction. Be it bombs, chemical weapons, or assault rifles. Yes, Assault Rifles were made to be weapons of mass killing, they weren't made to hunt. They weren't made for self defense, they were made to kill. And kill a wide variety of people with little to no effort or thought. So why should these type of weapons be allowed?

Letting people own guns is fine imo, but we can do better on regulations.