2007-02-13 04:16:43 · 39 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
LIVE by the sword and die by the sword.
Just because someone has a right does not mean they should exercise that right.
2007-02-13 04:18:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 5⤋
Yes. I would never live in a country where only the military, the police and the crooks were armed.
What I would do is impose stiffer gun control laws....there is NO reason for anyone to own an AK47 or other weapon of that nature.
Then, of course, all we law-abiding citizens would follow the new laws and the thugs would ignore them - just like they do now.
I don't own a gun even though I have had them in the past. (Where I grew up, almost everyone received a nice single shot 22 rifle when they turned 13 and the adults in my extended family all owned hunting rifles and hand guns.) But - if I feel like I must arm myself, I want the right to buy and carry a weapon.
2007-02-13 05:34:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. People are not allowed to go into malls or schools and start shooting at people. Yet they still do it. If you tell them they aren't allowed to have guns at all what makes you think they won't do it any way. The only people who would stop carrying guns would be the law abiding citizens who aren't going to go on a mass shooting rampage in the first place.
2007-02-13 04:26:21 · answer #3 · answered by kat 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I believe in the right to HAVE guns, but most people who reference the Second Amendment confuse the letter of the law with its intent. What possible purpose does CARRYING an assault rifle have, other than murdering humans? If you hunt, have a hunting rifle and keep it unloaded and locked away unless you're actually hunting. If you're concerned about family protection, get an alarm system or a dog.
Perhaps a solution might be for gun owners to renew a safety course or instruction, like renewing a driver's license that would also test for mental health? But I grew up in liberal hippie communist California with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.
Handguns have no rational purpose for anyone other than law enforcement or military. It might be easier to fight crime if we weren't arming criminals by manufacturing handguns and assault rifles for commercial sale.
2007-02-13 04:39:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Our congress/government has stated the subject of strict gun rules among one yet another for years. besides the undeniable fact that, the final public of them nonetheless consents that human beings would desire to be allowed to possess weapons. Why they adjust to this, i do no longer comprehend. It replace into designed via the founders of our usa as a protective mechanism. It replace into made for the individuals to guard against any government administration. Now that's basically used to kill harmless human beings, the excellent has been abused. i do no longer comprehend how plenty this would help. If human beings choose to kill others, they're going to detect a fashion. the two intense college mass murders in Colombine, Colorado (1999), have been stumbled on making explosives of their garages. If it weren't for the weapons, they greater advantageous than probably would have used this. additionally, I certainly have a handgun. that's for my risk-free practices. i do no longer circulate around shooting human beings. as quickly as I heard interior the information a pair of years in the past some female that have been given her domicile broken into and alter into raped and killed via some maniac, I went out and have been given a gun. somebody steps foot into my domicile unwelcomed, i visit have no sense sorry approximately in utilising my gun.
2016-11-03 08:35:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They have a right to bear arms in their constitution
so it would take a very brave president to try to outlaw firearms.
but you must bear in mind that guns are only a tool the same as a kitchen knife. it is the person who kills. the weapon is only a tool. perhaps the Americans need to amend their law to vet the mental fitness to purchase a firearm? although how practically that could be applied is anyones guess.
2007-02-13 04:27:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why can't they just carry paint guns then when a shoot out arises the first person to get splatted is the loser?
Seriously though, how some of them can come out with, and believe, such nonsense as 'guns save more lives then they kill' is beyond me. If there were no guns, there would be no shootings.
It's blindingly obvious. Sure you would still get idiots with knives and other weapons but they do infinitely less damage.
2007-02-13 04:33:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Yes!!! I am a permit holder but the difference is that I'm not crazy enough or stupid enough to hurt someone unless they are going to hurt my children or me. This person obviously didn't know gun safety and didn't care. They were on a mission to kill people. Just because someone carries a gun does not make them dangerous or a killer it just makes them safer if trained to use it correctly.
2007-02-13 04:24:18 · answer #8 · answered by CountryGirl 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely, can you imagine how difficult it would be for those crazies to kill a bunch of people with a baseball bat. With a bat maybe they could get one but with all the guns and ammo they can carry, well the possibilities are unlimited.
They have their rights. What's the matter with you?
2007-02-13 04:29:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Why do they need to all (or at least a fair darn few) have guns?! We get along quite happily here (mostly) and we dont have guns. Is it a power thing cos surely they dont all need protection?! And if you all need protection - whats wrong with a good old guard dog?!
2007-02-13 04:26:30 · answer #10 · answered by keeley 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Maybe if MORE Americans were allowed to carry guns in public places, someone would have been able to stop the mall shooter before he killed five people.
2007-02-13 04:26:08 · answer #11 · answered by Crusader1189 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋