4 killed in Philly on Monday,
5 in Utah Mall Yesterday....
2007-02-13 01:38:33 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
btw... This is a non-partisan question. I don't think I should give up my guns, but I do think that some people do not have the right to bear arms... there goes my dilemna.
2007-02-13 02:20:45 · update #1
I have to agree with the others here on this issue. I feel having the right to own arms is a very important freedom that shouldn't be taken away. That doesn't mean I'm not open to new ideas of gun legislation, but I don't know how you define "real Gun Control" and I'm OK with the current laws.
2007-02-13 01:46:48 · answer #1 · answered by Bluefast 3 · 7⤊ 1⤋
How is more legislation going to work? The laws we already have don't address the root problem. Poverty, low education levels, parents not involved in their kids' lives, etc... Attacking these things will do much more to lower gun violence than writing more laws.
Pope Barley - You say people can't be trusted with guns. Whats next? are you the type that wants to tell me what I can eat because you know better for me. Or whether I should wear a helmet on my motorcycle(I have good medical and life insurance). What other freedoms would you like to restrict? The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of the citizens of this country.
2007-02-13 09:55:19 · answer #2 · answered by meathookcook 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
If someone in the malls had been carrying them there would have been 1 person killed in each mall, the only one dead would have been the gunman.
Oh, and as for guns being the #1 cause of death for children, the CDC tallies those numbers and they could all ppl from the ages of 0 to 21 years old! 21 year olds are not kids!
2007-02-13 09:53:05 · answer #3 · answered by macruadhi 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, the headlines would read 4 killed in Philly, 5 killed in Utah and the swords left a bloody mess.
If someone wants to kill people it won't matter if they have guns or not. Besides if the cops can't get the guns away from the criminals now, do you think they are going to turn them over because they pass a law?
2007-02-13 09:44:40 · answer #4 · answered by snowball45830 5 · 6⤊ 1⤋
There is already enough gun control. Problem is gun control keeps guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, but does nothing to keep the criminals from getting them. Stricter penalties for laws already on the books are what we need.
The 2nd amendment is there for a reason. One of which is to keep our own government in check. And if you don't think armed civilians can stand up against and Army, just look at the lessons in Iraq and Vietnam.
2007-02-13 09:51:35 · answer #5 · answered by cornholingmidgets2 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. As you said, there is no reason for you to give up your guns. And I am certainly not about to give up mine.
The question is, why all the crime? What is our criminal justice system doing about it? Do we need to replace those people who are unable or unwilling to do something about crime?
Gun control advocates, consider this: Who would control the guns? Do you trust those people? I don't. You and I know that they (for the most part), are criminals.
Washington DC is a perfect example of gun control in action. It's the murder capitol of the nation. Is this what we want for the rest of the nation?
2007-02-13 10:53:11 · answer #6 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How is gun control going to stop criminals from killing? They steal those guns, Dude! They don't buy them at the local gun shop! If we had gun control, the innocent would be defenseless, except for the steak knives in their homes, and all the rotton evil murdering people would have the guns!
The RIGHT to bear arms for We The People was set down by our forefather's, so we could have a means of defending ourselves against government, it's in the Constitution. Our forefather's were pretty smart. They knew what is was like being controlled, and like them, I WILL NOT!
By the way, I am not a gun owner, but I want my right to have one, if I ever deem it necessary.
2007-02-13 09:48:38 · answer #7 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I got an easy solution for you: exterminate the murders, and you exterminate the problem of who's allowed to own guns or not.
If murders are dead, we won't have to worry about them controlling guns or not. Get it?
Oh yeah, I forgot, you believe that child molesters and convicted killers deserve rehabilitation using taxpayers dollars! Way to be a hypocrite: complain about murders possibly owning guns and then not wanting to punish them when they actually DO commit a crime.
2007-02-13 21:32:47 · answer #8 · answered by godlyteengirl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Every time stricter gun control laws are enacted,violent crime goes up.Criminals are more likely to commit crime if they know their victims are unarmed.A liberal professor named John Lott,set out to write a book against law abiding citizens having guns.Once Mr Lott looked at crime statistics in States or cities with strict gun control,he found they had much higher violent crime rate than than areas with conceal carry.Mr Lott then wrote the book "Less Guns,More Crime" which dispelled the myth less guns,less crime
2007-02-13 10:06:06 · answer #9 · answered by roysbigtoys 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You bet, a law requiring all adults without felony records to carry a firearm after a mandatory firearm usage and safety class should be legislated on a federal level NOW.
Then death toll would have been
Philly: 1 instead of 4
Utah: 1 instead of 5
Columbine: 2 instead of 14
Bad math? (only for those idiot liberals that live in Alices rabbit hole)
2007-02-13 09:57:15 · answer #10 · answered by Gunny T 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋