lets say you had a choice: give up your gun rights or your child which would you choose? im just wondering cuz it seems like everytime a tragedy happens that involves a maniac with a gun, and the government want bigger background checks, those same people go '' boo-hoo leave our guns alone!.' why are background checks so bad? people get background checks when applying for a job, are people going to start protesting that too? whats the harm in making sure a mentally unstable person doesnt get his hands on a gun? (you cant say keep both, because that obviously means you cant make a decision, which is sad. who wouldnt pick their child?)
Because you can't. And this is the problem with people who think a law is going to stop someone intent on acting badly from committing his misdeed. Most of the guns used in the horrific mass shootings of 2012 and 2013 were obtained through extralegal means. And I can guarantee you ALL OF THE GUNS used by young black men to murder other young black men in Chicago are completely illegal. No background check required from the guy illegally selling Saturday Night Specials at O'Malleys Pub...
Even including recent events the odds of ones children being killed by a madman with a gun are vanishingly small. If you decide we have to give up everything as likely to result in them getting killed, there isn't a whole lot left. In none of the recent shootings would a background check have mattered. Actually off the top of my head I don't know of a case where it would have. Even in a hypothetical case where it might matter, you're at most blocking off legal channels. And even if they couldn't get a gun, they could just resort to a different mode of attack, which might actually result in more deaths. So while we're talking about a very minor benefit from a background check system, and it's probably not the optimal way money could be spent if ones objective is to protect children, there is still generally broad support for such a thing. The trick is doing it in such a way that it does not infringe or carry the risk of infringement of second amendment or privacy rights.
what a stupid question, no parent would trade their child for a gun unless they were meth addicts looking for the best way to score a hit. so lets come back with another dumb question........... if you were forced to choose to either giving up your kid or never associate with the liberal party ever again.....which would you choose?
I've proven you wrong already. I'm a conservative, and if forced to make such an insane decision, of course I'd choose my children. It's liberals who tend to choose convenience over children....
Honestly, seriously, who in their right mind would rather have their guns than their own children???????????????
50 years ago schools had actual rifle teams where students could train with guns on campus. Semi automatic arms were still pretty common. You could order guns through the mail without a background check as well as stockpile thousands of rounds of ammunition without anyone giving it a second thought. 50 years ago guns weren't even required to have a serial number. Gun technology hasn't changed much since then. Even the AR-15 was existent. We didn't have all these mass shootings back then. The technology hasn't changed since then. We've made stricter laws since then, but have so much violence now. Factors other than the guns themselves are making people violent and because of that I refuse to believe there is a moral situation where I absolutely have to choose between my guns or my children with no other alternative. The only way I will be forced to make that decision is if the government passes legislation forcing me to make that decision.
lol, yes ! im not totally against guns its just that im not comfortably knowing theres a gun AND a child under my roof. i actually want to go to a shooting range, but cant find one...
