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

2007-03-03 05:39:35 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

9 answers

Gun control generally affects the law abiding far more than it does the criminal. In 2004 the Center for Disease Control finalized a study that took three year to do and they couldn't conclude that gun control had any positive impact on crime. Yet just this week one of the stronger proponents of England's gun ban ten year ago came out and said that the ban was a total failure as England's crime rates have soared.

I have a concealed carry permit. I also have a wife and two daughters. When traveling, I can legally carry in several other states, yet not in all. So that at the state line of some states, in order to be legal I must unload my gun, put it in a case, and lock it in the trunk until I pass through that state. When traveling in unfamiliar places its easy to end up in the wrong part of town and in those states where I can't carry, the license plate on my car will assure that any would be attacker now knows I'd be an unarmed victim. Does that make sense?

I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, but I don't want to be disarmed and made defenseless in the process.

2007-03-04 07:58:20 · answer #1 · answered by Christopher H 6 · 1 0

Criminals do no longer pay any interest to regulations... If weapons have been ever banned than in simple terms the undesirable adult men could have them..Criminals desire unarmed sufferers!! Having a gun won't help each and all of the time yet being defenseless will never help.. Calling 911 and asking the undesirable guy to attend isn't a available decision. extra effective to have a gun and not choose it than to choose it and not have it!!! **Police do no longer safeguard you from crime, they often in simple terms check out the crime after it happens.** @

2016-10-02 07:57:11 · answer #2 · answered by rosalind 4 · 0 0

It is an incredibiliy nieve idea - it ensures that those that follow the laws do not have access to guns - of course criminals will always have access to guns because failed drug and prohibition policies have proved you cannot keep contraband out of the hands of anyone because there will always be a black market their to supply that which is prohibited..

2007-03-03 06:12:15 · answer #3 · answered by thefatguythatpaysthebills 3 · 0 0

Yep, I'd never be able to hit my target if I didn't have gun control and I'm one hell of a shot. I fired expert in the Marines.

2007-03-03 07:09:30 · answer #4 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0 0

it helps keeps criminals from owning guns and helps keep track of automatic weapons owners. there is no gun control in the sense anyone is going to outlaw legal gun ownership.

2007-03-03 05:44:53 · answer #5 · answered by J Q Public 6 · 0 0

1)it makes it hard to acquire hand grenades,auto-weapons@such.
2)makes it easier to find and prosecute law abiding citizens
if they commit a crime using a registered gun.tic
3)it can inhibit the ability of a law abiding populace to defend
itself against violent criminals who will allways be able to find
weapons..including firearms of "every sort".

2007-03-03 05:57:54 · answer #6 · answered by Justbear 1 · 0 0

The restrictions on firearms purchase and possession affect only the law-abiding, and then only negatively.

2007-03-03 05:47:14 · answer #7 · answered by dBalcer 3 · 0 0

gun control is being able to hit your target, other than that it's just a myth

2007-03-03 05:50:45 · answer #8 · answered by sic-n-tired 3 · 0 0

subservience. what else? crime against humanity

2007-03-03 06:03:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers