For those of you who advocate banning gun ownership, are you also advocating the banning of guns from police and military at the same time? If not, why?
2006-07-26 14:33:46 · 16 answers · asked by John C 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I mean, removing the guns FROM the police & military.
Why would they need guns if all of the citizens had their guns already confiscated?
2006-07-26 14:44:47 · update #1
I'm a pacifist, I don't believe in guns or wars. So by that, only the police should have them.
2006-07-26 14:43:58 · answer #1 · answered by Aussie Chick 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Anti-gun people make me so mad!!! ; /
If someone's anti-gun, I'm anti-them.
Criminals are going to be carrying guns no matter what, even if it is outlawed, so why shouldn't everyone else be able to defend themselves?!
I think that everyone should have a gun and know how to use it - if a criminal knows that any old lady on the street could have a gun, they wouldn't try to mug her. Or if some young woman could have one, she might not be raped.
If everyone had a gun, I think that crime rates would drop significantly - even if you can't physically keep yourself from harm, you cannot be overtaken because you have the fire-power advantage. It evens the score. In Britian not that long ago, carrying concealed weapons was outlawed and the crime rate tripled, I beleive.
Sorry that I've ranted so much on this, but that really is one thing that I feel strongly about, and I always have.
And I'd like to see the person who'd try to mug me...; )
2006-07-26 14:42:26 · answer #2 · answered by paralyzed nomad 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
not yet, they will though. in england you have diffrent type of police. one that is armed and the other that crys for help from the armed police. imagin a gunman holding a gun to a persons head and as a policeman you have to wait for an armed policman to show up... they cant have my gun. but they can have small pieces of it at a time if they try and take it from me .
john do you think we couls pay them to post those anti gun signs in their front yard ?? how much do you think they would charge us???
their is a town just above atlanta that has made it illegal to NOT to own a gun. if a crime is commited on the premise and the owner did not have a gun in house, the victim will have to pay a civil tax. they have a low crime rate and it got lower after the law went in effect, should be federal
2006-07-26 14:44:22 · answer #3 · answered by joe 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I don't advocate any gun banning. If all the good people have no guns, the only ones with guns will be the criminals who get them illegally.
2006-07-26 14:37:32 · answer #4 · answered by Gwen 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Gun ban proponents want only the military (state) to have guns, like Hitler did. Hitlers first act as chancellor was to disarm the public, making them vulnerable and defenseless.
The anti gun fantatics would have us all defenseless. Man oh man, the terrorists would love that. They dont have to worry about a population that can fight back even if we see who they are.
2006-07-26 14:39:01 · answer #5 · answered by jack f 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As I say again and again, guns are neutral objects. If a gangbanger drops his gun after he just shot up a neighborhood, a cop can pick it up and use it to enforce the laws and restore order. Or, a soldier can use it to protect our country. It isn't like guns have signs on them saying "Malicious purposes only". Instead of just taking care of the symptoms, why don't we try to cure the disease? Why don't we instead try to curb the violent behavior that leads people to become rapists, murderers, and so forth. Why don't we go after the groups that spread most of this violence, the gangs and other lawless groups that breed on violence? Because, as history has proven time and again, if they are already breaking the law, they aren't going to follow a gun law which makes them even more vulnerable.
2016-03-26 23:49:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Guns are, indeed, dangerous. So are cars, bicycles, swimming pools, football, and a gazillion other things. I am in favor of banning swimming pools, because I know of far more children who have drowned than have been shot. I have been thinking of forming a non-profit organization to make it illegal to have swimming pools because they are so dangerous to children. I think only lifeguards should be able to have swimming pools. Rosie O'Donnell would probably help me out since she is so concerned about child safety. I would think that if she only knew that swimming pools kill more young children than guns she would sign on immediately. Or maybe not.
2006-07-27 13:27:33 · answer #7 · answered by Clathrus 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm scared when George Bush is out of office because people like you will use a democratic president to pass such a law and mess up not only the country, but the whole dam world!!!
2006-07-26 14:52:51 · answer #8 · answered by butanebird91 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In response to Jamie S, all guns are meant for hurting and killing living things. With the exception of guns specifically for target practice or competitive shooting, that is their primary purpose. Now the problem with gun-grabbers is that they refuse to recognize that sometimes hurting or killing is necessary and proper.
2006-07-27 08:03:02 · answer #9 · answered by benminer 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
military guns?? Yes... Why would civilian's need m-16's and AT-4's??
I'm not against guns, but people shouldn't be able to have the ones that are meant for killing people..
2006-07-26 14:42:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋