How can we institute some form of reasonable gun control without infringing on the right to bear arms?
2007-04-16 07:23:36 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
there is no gun control when it comes to the criminals. They will always have guns and we cant go without being able to defend ourselves.
bettyk
2007-04-16 07:37:31 · answer #1 · answered by elisayn 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because it does.... Gun Control in California has meant that you cannot have a .50 cal - which is a long range target rifle . Gun Control in Chicago means you cannot own a pistol. Gun Control in New York means a 6-18 month wait to get a permit to OWN a pistol. All of these steal the right to own or carry a gun The Musket reference is utterly nonsensical. The freedom of speech does not restrict people to quill and ink printing. Big city people need guns just as much as country people. Imagine saying that city people cannot have cars because they kill too many pedestrians. Or that country people cannot vote for one reason or another. They tried telling black people they could not vote because they are black. Why should city people be told they cannot own firearms, or the firearms they own must be less useful. Whenever you hear a policy on guns think about it as some other tool and think if it still makes sense. It never does.
2016-04-01 04:26:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it is possible to institute reasonable gun control that extends beyond the laws that are already in place.
I support the 2nd Amendment in spite of this massacre.
And I am in complete agreement with the previous posters that enforcing the laws and exacting tougher punishment on those that break the law, is far more effective than controlling gun ownership.
2007-04-16 07:30:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
We have gun control now. You can see how much good it does. There are over 23,000 gun laws in the US. The problem is not guns. It is a criminal justice system that refuses to put violent criminals away for good.
Most serious crime is caused by the same small group of criminals who are recycled back out to commit more crimes. Then there are the people who are on some type of Ritalin or other drug. They day that they don't take their drug, watch out.
Look at the countries that have disarmed their citizens: Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China. The victims of gun control are measured in the millions. The tens of millions in China under Mao.
The whole idea of gun control is placing a monopoly on force under the control of our most criminal class: the politician. Do you trust them? I don't. And neither did the Founders. That's why they gave us the Second Amendment.
The proper function of government is the protection of life and property. If our politicians are unable or unwilling to control violent criminals, it is up to us to replace them, not give them more power over us.
2007-04-16 07:33:27 · answer #4 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Gun Control Causes Crime.
I think it was a tragedy first and foremost and my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families.
The killer alone caused the crime, but the high number of victims is directly caused by gun control.
They were just sitting ducks with no way to defend themselves much like the victims of Colin Ferguson. Concealed-carry advocates warned us all long ago to expect tragedies like this as long as we have gun control.
When only criminals have guns the rest of us can only ponder tactics like "notifications."
In a state where concealed-carry is allowed or promoted, the loss of life could have been much less. He may have shot one or two, but a concealed-carrier would have dispatched him right quick.
Sadly there is no way to prevent a killer with a gun. In tribal Africa where there are no manufactured guns, tribesman make them from pipes and rubber-bands so clearly gun control is not the answer. You can make a gun out of wood in an hour! He could have stabbed just as many with a knife.
Since you will never stop the OFFENSE, we must allow ourselves a DEFENSE. We are not all of one culture anymore, so violence will only increase.
The only way to prevent these killing rampages is concealed-carry. Would you rather protect yourself or wait for the folly of police or school "notification?”
2007-04-16 23:24:24 · answer #5 · answered by patriot333 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The question is pointless as there is no way to keep people from illegally obtaining guns short of eliminating all firearms of all types from the entire planet including those that know how to make them. Where there are poeple with criminal minds there will be criminal acts regardless of what is done to prevent it, unless you can make Minority Report a reality, but even then that failed at the end of the movie.
2007-04-16 08:05:12 · answer #6 · answered by Wilkow Conservative 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Stricter penalties for violating firearm laws. Such as those that transport firearms across state lines. Establishing, more standard guidelines across the country. Not necessarily stricter, but more standard. California is unreasonably tough on guns, but they have more gun violence than Texas, that have realatively loose laws.
2007-04-16 07:29:48 · answer #7 · answered by zebj25 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Anyone that can wantonly kill 31 people isn't going to be bothered in the least breaking a gun law.
2007-04-16 07:35:42 · answer #8 · answered by chuck_junior 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Fine idea. While we're at it, let's pass legislation declaring that Cancer no longer exists.
My money would be on people figuring out that anti-cancer laws don't work first, they haven't yet figured out that gun control laws haven't had any impact on drive-by shootings.
2007-04-16 07:30:14 · answer #9 · answered by open4one 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We have ample gun laws. We need to get the ACLU, and like organizations, out of the way and PUNISH offenders.
If we pass more laws, offenders will just break more laws.
_
2007-04-16 07:29:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋