Whenever we see or hear of people wielding guns and killing innocent victims, there is an outrage. Is there a need to improve and make the individuals who threaten and kill other people with guns, more responsible?
From a school in Colombine to a subway in New York City to a shopping mall in Utah, innocent people have been killed by angry and disillusionioned individuals. Would outylawing guns serve any purpose and make the streets/schools safer?
Your thoughts on gun control and those who shoot innocent people...
2007-02-15 11:51:44 · 18 answers · asked by marnefirstinfantry 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I'm sick of the legislators passing laws that punish law abiding citizens to protect us from those that break the law.
2007-02-15 12:00:19 · answer #1 · answered by cheri b 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
People who want guns will always have them, just like people who want heroin or pot will always be able to get them. Outlaw guns and they'll just be included in drug shipments, which seem to get into the country without any problems.
So the best we can do is make sure that good people have the ability to defend themselves against bad people who have firearms.
The mall shooting in Utah was a good example of this. The shooter ignored the signs that said "no firearms". (If you're willing to commit murder, why worry about an additional few months tacked onto your sentence for having a weapon where they're not permitted?) Unfortunately the good, law abiding people with concealed carry permits obeyed the law and left their firearms at home or in the car. The shooter was finally stopped by someone with a gun (who is a cop and thus allowed by law to carry even in areas normally off limits because the property owners posted signs). How many people could have been saved if someone closer to where the shooter began his spree had been armed?
2007-02-23 02:21:21 · answer #2 · answered by Faeldaz M 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. To quote a saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people." A person can kill with a knife, hammer, rock, pointed stick, the list goes on. What we need is to enforce the exsiting laws and fix the problems in society that are the root of violence. Trying to end violence by banning or over-controlling guns is like taking a pain reliever for a brain tumor. Sure, it might help a bit with the pain, but the overall problem will continue. With all of the negative publicity on firearms, it is hard for some ill-informed people to realize the vitues of these tools. First, there is personal protection. How does a 98 LB woman fight off a 6'2", 300 LB attacker? Simple: with a 357 magnum. Second, there is hunting. Not a popular subject with some of today's 'animal friendly' people, but some people (believe it or not, it's true) still rely on harvesting game just to survive. Third, well armed citizens of a democracy insure that their country remains a democracy. The first step in builing a tyranny is to disarm the public.
Our society has its problems with violence, but to take away or limit a citizen's right to self protection is not the answer. If guns were banned, bad guys would still get them (making a gun is not hard, and making gun powder is simple chemestry), but honest people would not have legal access to them, which would put our entire society in jeopardy; unarmed law-abiding citizens would be at the mercy of well armed criminals. And if you think that the police can protect you, think again! They are stretched too far as it is, and if more cops are needed, our taxes would be raised to an unbelievable level.
The only real solution is to raise our children to be upright citizens. Teach them to respect others and not to resort to violent behavior when things don't go their way. It may be difficult to do, but it is not impossible.
2007-02-15 12:22:51 · answer #3 · answered by ripcurt 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
most guns used to kill inocent people are illegally obtained. that means most of the people who do this are criminals who would not be able to obtain a gun under the most common levels of gun control. most of the killings that do not fall under this descriptions are domestic disputes..... where the guilty party would have easily found anouther weapon.... you don't need a gun to kill one person.
then there are the rare exceptions, of which you speak.... where a mentaly disturbed person gets thier hands on guns. and the even rarer case where they had them legally........ these are tradgedies, but hardly grounds for any change in the laws. they also demonstrate a disturbing beliefe that these people would have done no damge without the guns (or, do you remember what a disturbed person with some fertilizer did in oaklahoma city?) leaning on these extremely rare cases as a case for gun control is weak at best, and at worst, a concious attempt to reduce the rights of americans with a deliberate twisting of facts.
my view on gun control: convicted criminals should have no acess... there should be some accountability law to those with gross negligence that do not secure thier guns (less stolen guns, less illegal gns on the street).... this is the only increasein the law i think we do need.... and the weopons available to those who can legally buy them should be comparable to weapons commonly used by the military.... because anything less ignores the origin of the purpose of the right to bear arms. (read your history books.... the right being garanteed in the bill of rights had nothing to do with hunting.)
i feel the gun control issue often misses key points..... i have friends who own many contravercial weapons.... with an ATF form filled out for each one.... and they have never shot anyone.... all the guns are also kept locked up in secure safes...... they are no threat.
2007-02-15 12:16:55 · answer #4 · answered by foo__dd 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We have lots of laws against injuring others. These laws should be enfoced. But more gun control is not the answer. The problem is human behavior, not hardware.
The essence of a free citizenry is that the common people must be free to arm themselves. Ideally they should be free to arm themselves to any level of weaponry, and possess at all times the ability to get rid of their government of it becomes tyrannical.
Tyrants and despots have always sought to disarm the common people, from Peisistratus of Athens through Henry VIII of England to the Nazi regime in Germany. Tyrants don't want to do away with the arms of the forces under their own control, such as the police and military, they seek only to disarm the people who might resist their rule, the ordinary citizens who are not their servants.
In America today, notice that the push for gun control often comes from people who think it's quite O.K. for themselves to have bodyguards and to live in gated communities with armed guards. Gun control is intended to be exercised only against the ordinary people, while the rich and powerful rule over them.
2007-02-22 05:21:51 · answer #5 · answered by fra59e 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i do no longer think of that that's a non secular project. i think of that's greater of a political party project. Republicans are professional 2nd modification. perhaps that's barely via fact the Republican party is made up of generally center class Christians. Gun possession is a appropriate and privilege that the yankee human beings have. Why no longer be professional weapons? weapons do no longer injury human beings, stupid human beings injury human beings. i'm a gun proprietor. i exploit mine for objective practice and interest (shooting catch). I even have on no account been looking and that i've got on no account injury anyone. i'm Christian although i'm no longer a Republican yet I do help our 2nd modification.
2016-12-17 10:59:31 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps we should loosen the gun laws. When people take it upon themselves to do things such as this it would be nice having more people with guns to take him out after he had killed the first person. Gun control is against the Bill of Rights!
2007-02-15 11:56:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Yes the more people who can pass a gun carrying tests should carry. While we are at it fire up ol sparky and fry these worthless ungrateful bags of crap. As far as gun control there should be classes on how to keep a bead on a running criminal, with a one shot take down.
2007-02-15 12:02:09 · answer #8 · answered by Redryeder 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Strengthening laws for misusing guns is political FRAUD. The laws are already strong enough. Enforcing the laws is what we need. Outlawing acts that already violate multiple laws does no good.
2007-02-15 12:49:01 · answer #9 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
America was founded by White Males with Guns, the government needs to execute pedophiles, carjackers, rapists, people who sell documents to foreign powers, murderers, kidnappers, corporate types whose actions knowingly hurt large numbers of people, repeat offerder illegal aliens,
2007-02-23 10:28:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋