This is a Debate Question...
Please give me some information'es about dat question're. :- )
2006-09-27 10:32:30 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Ok, lets try this on for size. Most guns used in a violent crime are acquired illegally. If you make it harder to get a gun legally, then the person who is about to rob you know there is a much better chance you do not have a gun to defend your self. Look over seas. I don’t remember what country it was; they did away with gun to the public. Thinking the crime rate will go down. And they where wrong. It went up like 75%…. They need to work on stopping the people who sell the guns illegally.
2006-09-27 10:46:02 · answer #1 · answered by acmanjames2100 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
honestly no longer, this u . s . does no longer have even been depending had the British made their topics registar their guns. Crime charges have higher no longer decreased on condition that gun administration changed into presented after the Kennedy assiantion.If better human beings were armed there's a lot less crimes hostile to persons, because the thug may ought to agonize if his vitim ha him out gunned.Criminals will aways have guns, did you comprehend that when ones authentic to vote is restored after he has served his finished sentence and is not any longer on supervision, he can legally own a fireplace arm? SO theres yet another misnomer shot to hell. Gun registration may actually help the governement merely in a case of martial regulation, and this u . s . changed into depending hostile to martial regulation
2016-12-02 04:53:30 · answer #2 · answered by birchett 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Someone else said it but I'll reiterate - Gun control laws only affect those who follow the law. Criminals will still aquire firearms, but homeowners and law-abiding citizens will not. This tips the balance in favor of the criminal.
It goes back to the old saying "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
We do not need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we have now. The 2nd Amendment is in place to allow law-abiding citizens, like myself, the right and means to defend our property and lives.
2006-09-27 11:05:02 · answer #3 · answered by john_stolworthy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would be in complete disagreement with this. The government is just waiting for the chance to confiscate all of our guns. If they ever do, that's it, no more freedom in America. It'll be an all out fascist police state here.
2006-09-27 10:40:23 · answer #4 · answered by oceansoflight777 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
OH YEAH! I can see hwere strong gun control laws made a huge difference in England (NOT). How about strict enforcement of the laws we have.
2006-09-27 10:35:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nonsense. Gun control laws only control the legitimate gun owners. They do not control the people who commit crimes with guns.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3224.html
2006-09-27 10:43:29 · answer #6 · answered by Jean R 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think the American Government Should Establish better english skills first then we can worry about guns
2006-09-27 10:37:52 · answer #7 · answered by mrmiketattoo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i can understand this rationale. criminals will always have guns period, so i believe it is my right to legally own a weapon or two to protect me and my family. and if it's not guns it will be something else. knives, baseball bats, cars all of these items can be used as a weapon. should we outlaw all of these things? i know it sounds stupid but once we start outlawing things we have to look at what type of precedent that sets
2006-09-27 10:46:53 · answer #8 · answered by rationalm1 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guns Hell, I want a rocket launcher.
I should be allowed, the constitution says I have the RIGHT to bear arms and that is that!
2006-09-27 10:37:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Too little, too late. Too many guns (legal and illegal already out there on the streets.)
2006-09-27 10:35:21 · answer #10 · answered by Albannach 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋