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

I mean, there are others ways to kill, aren't there? Besides, people are still people. So why don't the libs like guns?

2006-10-03 06:49:10 · 19 answers · asked by me 5 in Politics & Government Politics

19 answers

I blame public education...


And the only reason gun control is NOT on the DNC agenda, is that the DNC has already alienated Southern dems off the radar...

2006-10-03 06:53:16 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 2 0

Gun control laws are a tool that people use to try to address the violent crime problem we have. The reason for handgun restrictions, etc. is that it will reduce ~ not eliminate ~ violent crime.

Only an idiot would think that crime won't happen if there are no guns! Baseball bat to the head, break a beer bottle and stab a person, hell, use a bow and arrow!

Personally, I thought it was reasonable that I had to wait a week for my permit to go through, so they could make sure I don't have a history of violent crime or mental disease. No problem. A firearm is a very powerful weapon that can cause an enormous amount of damage. We regulate cars, why not regulate firearms?

Most of us libs here in WA, when asked why we want to take away people's guns, say "I don't need your guns, I have my own."

How to really drive down crime? I suggest a two-pronged approach:
1. Increase enforcement (more cops on the street)
2. Separate violent and non-violent offenders

Right now, our crime problem is self-perpetuating. John is young and stupid, gets hauled in for smoking dope and selling a few buds to his friends. He gets to spend five years in prison, where he gets TOUGH and MEAN to stay alive, and joins a gang there in prison. When John gets out, he's no longer a young and stupid, relatively harmless dopehead. He's an iron-pumping, steel-toting member of the Nazi Low Riders who is going to hurt or kill a lot of people. So our "solution" actually made the situation worse.

2006-10-03 07:05:29 · answer #2 · answered by Trips 3 · 1 0

Why?

Check out this article.

Read it carefully, don't just dismiss it. You should find all the evidence within.


Why do you think murder/ suicide rates wou;d go DOWN when 60% of US households own a gun? In the US in this study 60% of murder AND suicides were committed WITH a gun. The next closest rate for suicides was Norway at 27% (where gun ownership is in 48% of households, followed by Switzerland with 23% ( 27% ownership), etc


Read it carefully and you will see.

I'm expecting that you won't read it though, because it concludes something you don't want to hear...

EDIT; To Jesi, guns are the most efficient killing tools available. People can defend themselves from pipes, clubs axes, knives because they all require proximity. Guns don't. And LOL about liberals using scare tactics, did you really type that? LOL

2006-10-03 06:59:31 · answer #3 · answered by Dastardly 6 · 1 0

Better gun control probably wouldn't actually reduce premeditated murder that much, but it would reduce accidental murders and crimes of passion by forcing the murderer to think actions through.

As a self proclaimed liberal, I really don't think much should be done in the way of new gun control legislation. I just think the existing legislation should be better enfored and, perhaps, some new legislation should be passed to insure that the existing legislation is enforced to a greater extent. For example, punishments for gun violations should be more severe and gun dealerships and manufacturers should be watched much more closely to reduce illegal gun trafficking.
I have no problem with people who can be trusted using guns for their protection (if ABSOLUTELY necessary) or hunting.

2006-10-03 07:11:57 · answer #4 · answered by asdfghjklzxcvbnm.uiop 1 · 2 0

Statistically, other western countries have less guns per capita, and less murder per capita. This points to the fact that less guns mean less murder. I personally think it has more to do with culture then availability of guns. There are situations were people overreact in situations and shoot someone, where as, if they didn't have a gun, they might have been able to cool down a little and not commit a murder.

2006-10-03 07:01:31 · answer #5 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0 1

Gun control wouldn't change anything because people have been killing other people since before written history. One of the first written books, The Bible, admonishes people not to commit murder.

Before guns people were killing each other, and if they could ever take away guns people would still find a way to kill each other.

The libs may or may not understand this simple fact. But they love portraying guns as the ultimate evil because it plays well with the voters they love to frighten and intimidate. The libs use fear instead of reason, the gun issue is one of their favorites.

2006-10-03 06:56:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

I don't know about the truth of that statement. i think we can all agree less people would get SHOT if there were less guns. It would be harder for a kid to grab his dads gun, go to Wal-Mart and buy bullets, and kill his peers at school, if there were no guns. Your question is mostly opinion, since you offered no source for this claim, but I'm pretty liberal myself, and I don't have a problem with guns. But the fact is, when a kid shoots up his school, there isn't something wrong with the gun, there's something wrong with the kid, and definitely something wrong with his parents, and even the school system itself.

2006-10-03 07:01:40 · answer #7 · answered by thecrisman 2 · 1 0

It's not all liberals that "dont like guns". I am a liberal and i dont think that taking away all guns would solve any problem. Actually there are not that many liberals who think that way. I have no problem with my neighbor having 1, 10, or 20 guns. But what is at issue is the kind of guns that are available. 5 years ago two men went on a robbery and shooting rampage in L.A. because they had military-grade assault rifles with armor piercing rounds. Other than the fact that they were dressed head-to-toe in armor, they were shooting right through the LAPD's vests, shields, and cars. The rampage lasted 3 hours! Why? Because two individuals got ahold of weapons that the local law enforcement couldnt match.
As a progressive American i believe in your right to hunt, and in your right to supposedly protect your family with weapons. But lets face the facts. Hunters dont need m-4 carbines to shoot deer, and a man doesnt need armor piercing rounds to protect his home from burgulars. This isnt my personal attack againts people who own rifles because the statistics show that most crimes are commited with handguns. Another fact is that yes, you can kill in other ways, but no other way is as easy and effective and rapid as gun violence. How many people did the Beltway Sniper kill before they caught him?
For educated people like myself, we know and understand that just taking away guns will not decrease crime. Crime rates go up when poverty rates go up. This is why crime, particularly assault with deadly weapons, is high in low income, densely populated areas. So please dont lump all of us liberals in one group together. I believe in your right to bear arms, but as with everything, there must be limitations on who can own guns and what kind of guns can be owned- for the good of all of us.

2006-10-03 07:13:26 · answer #8 · answered by southca49er 3 · 1 0

2 major causes: One is with Obama himself. He needs to stricter regulations on gun possession. some states, like mine, already attempt this. there's a wait era and a historic past examine. Obama needs to make this a nationwide challenge, so in states the position the gun possession regulations turns into extra strict, they're rushing out to get them even as its nevertheless elementary. Secondly, as all of us understand, the monetary equipment is going down the drain. even as this happens, there is an develop in crime (really burglaries, robberies and breaking and getting into), so individuals are procuring guns for self protection and to guard their residences and resources. in case you examine into historic previous, that is regularly performed even as even as ever the monetary equipment has taken a nostril dive. So, with those 2 issues happening at the same time, that's no ask your self that revenues have higher.

2016-12-04 04:20:17 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

A car going 45 down a crowded sidewalk will kill more people than a man with a fully loaded gun can. It's easier to stop a shooter than it is a car. I think we should outlaw cars and other vehicles.

You know Hitlers self proclaimed greatest achievement was gun registration.

2006-10-03 06:56:23 · answer #10 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers