English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

this is going to be on the so-called civilized world

2006-08-09 04:49:30 · 9 answers · asked by ppduran1 1 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

9 answers

if they are legal then none. there are many checks and balances in place to stop undesirable people from acquiring weapons. if you pass a background check and purchase a weapon then murder someone why should the dealer be responsible for your actions? i don't know where you live but here you can't just go and by a weapon at the corner store without a background check.

2006-08-09 04:58:39 · answer #1 · answered by stanyazfan 3 · 0 0

It's funny how the laws that regulates the free market economy are doctored according to the powers to be when it comes to arms and drugs.
Regarding arms: not responsibility whatsoever is laid on the producers. AK47, Kalashnikovs, to mention just the better known, everybody knows where they come from and routes do they take in order to be in the place where they are right now. But just the end user is held responsible (which is fair). What about the provider, and the merchant?
Drugs: all the blame is laid on the producer (the other way around). Colombia is being destroyed right now. Both its environment and its society. However, Wall Street yuppies can get their daily doses. The end user is spared, poor victim, poor little CEO or Hollywood porn starlet. They deserve all of our compassion.
But Israel, Russia, US, South Africa, India, Venezuela, Holland, Belgium, Pakistan, the peaceful Scandinavian countries... they're given total freedom to put weapons in the hands of dim witted fanatics.
Perhaps the end user marks the difference.

2006-08-09 05:32:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The merchants just follow the laws, so it's up to the government how easy weapons are to obtain.

I do wonder why the average joe would need an AK47, though, but I'm not a gun enthusiast, so I wouldn't really care if I could have one or not.

2006-08-09 05:00:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Federally licensed firearms dealers would be out of business if they didn't make their wares as obtainable as is permitted by law. With about 30,000 firearms laws in America, many of them conflicting or obsolete, that's a tough job.

Illegal and often unrestricted "arms merchants", mostly in other countries, are a major problem and of course, criminals that they are, they take no responsibility.

2006-08-09 05:04:39 · answer #4 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 0 0

That's sort of like asking how much responsibility do drug producing nations have for the use of drugs. If we lost the will to prove we are right at any cost, there wouldn't be much use for the weapons. IT is market driven.

2006-08-09 04:54:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You can never ban weapons because criminals will always get them no matter what. A ban would just cause people to steal from police and military arsenals.

2006-08-09 06:21:38 · answer #6 · answered by NOVA50 3 · 0 0

the two most pervasive weapons around the world are the AK47 and Katusha Rocket.

2006-08-09 04:52:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

100% but that what makes it near the top of the oldest professions.

2006-08-09 04:58:29 · answer #8 · answered by Mister2-15-2 7 · 0 0

none

2006-08-09 04:52:22 · answer #9 · answered by idontkno 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers