with this shooting at the college this morning do you not think that the US gun laws should be changed.
from what I have heard on the news that 30 people have been killed. Speaking as a non American I can't understand why you would want to have weapons in your homes. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that the constitution should be changed but I think you should be responsible for your weapons.
Why would you want to keep semi automatic gun in your home man some people have machine guns of all things in their homes. I really think the laws should be changed if you want to keep guns then why keep a hand gun and store it in a safe secure place. I know that this is a political hot potato and the NRA are very powerful but there have been far too many school shootings recently collumbine then another one I can't remember the name of and then a couple of months ago the Amish school shooting really something has to change and think I the change should happen now because more are killed
2007-04-16 08:01:35 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
We have 25,000 gun laws. Maybe before some knot head trys writing more laws, they might enforce the ones we have.
As England has learned, when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.
2007-04-16 08:04:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 11⤊ 1⤋
What you do not understand is that gun control laws have never worked except in totalitarian police states.
Also, no country the size of the US has ever undertaken gun confiscation.
While it's nice and cozy to think that in "Modern" society the police protect us, the government protects us and all bad guys are in jail......the truth is we are all....US, Europe, Oz, Canada, wherever....just a couple of steps away from anarchy and chaos and self-survival.
This is NOT a political hot potato and the NRA does not have any inate power....you don't understand at all..........the NRA simply represents tens of millions of Americans that believe that the reason we are FREE, and the reason we are GREAT is that WE THE PEOPLE tell the government what to do and not the other way around. This is POWER and it's not excercised in the voting booth it's excercised in the barrel of a gun.
2007-04-16 12:09:29 · answer #2 · answered by DJ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Tell me, now, just how many more laws would it have taken to have stopped the shooter this morning? There are already 25,000 laws on the books in the US regulating firearms -- which one would have stopped this nutjob murderer from taking out his anger and frustration? After all, Virginia Tech (VPI&SU) is a "gun-free zone" -- so how did the shooter get his guns onto campus legally? Answer -- he didn't. HE BROKE THE LAW.
The obvious answer is that there is not a single gun law that has ever before or ever will stop a determined criminal from getting a firearm and using it for evil purposes. Criminals, BY DEFINITION, do not obey the law. Only law-abiding people obey the law, and they don't go out killing people!!!
On the other hand, if VPI&SU weren't a "gun-free zone", then perhaps some students would have been armed for self defense, and could have taken out the shooter before he killed 30+ fellow students.
Just some food for thought.
2007-04-16 09:34:15 · answer #3 · answered by Dave_Stark 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem is not the guns or the citizens whom legally own the guns. The problem is criminals with guns or in the "school shooting" case irresponsible parents with guns. There is already a law against killing people so why would a criminal pay attention to a gun law when they are already breaking the "don't kill someone" law. Taking rights away from people who follow the rules is simply leaving them vulnerable to the criminals. Look at the statistics in the US. All the states with strict gun laws, have the highest crime rates, and places like Vermont with almost no gun restrictions are very safe. I'm a person who moved from Boston (many gun laws, lots of crime) to the Burlington Vermont area(no excessive gun laws, not much crime) and I feel safe all the time here. It is as simple as criminals not following the rules, they already can't own a gun by law (but they do anyhow), then they kill someone (also against the law).
2007-04-16 08:20:44 · answer #4 · answered by Jess B 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I can understand your sentiment. And even though I am not a gun owner, to be more matter of fact, I don't like them, I also agree with the gun owners. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. There are many laws here that make it extremely difficult to buy guns legally. However anyone can get a gun on the black market. In fact there are laws on the books that make a gun owner liable for any crimes commited with their gun, if it were stolen. So like you said it is a political hot potato, but it is not an easy fix by just getting rid of the guns or changing the laws.
2007-04-16 08:10:36 · answer #5 · answered by eric g 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Obviously the suspect in the shooting was not concerned with the law. He took the law into his own hands and others suffered for it. So no, the gun laws should not be changed. People will always find ways around the law to get what they want.
2007-04-16 08:31:35 · answer #6 · answered by radiant_mercury 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not going to give up my right to self-protection just because every couple of years a few people are killed in a mass shooting.
Yes, it's very sad, but more people are killed every year by swimming pools than by guns. You don't hear an outcry about swimming pools though, do you? You can hardly argue that swimming pools are an essential item, either. At least you can hunt and defend yourself with a gun.
I know that this incident is going to be the latest rallying cry for bleeding heart morons more prone to hysterial theatrics than statisical analysis or civil rights considerations. But I and others will stand firm and demand our rights are respected.
2007-04-16 08:12:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
If you're trying to link automatic weapons to new gun control laws.. your argument is flawed.
Those are already illegal and adding another law to make it illegal is pretty pointless.
We ( or at least I ) don't have enough details on this shooting to even form a valid opinion on how gun control laws relate to it. Were the guns used legal or illegal weapons? ( Again, see the argument about making something illegal that is already illegal ).
2007-04-16 08:14:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Semi-automatic weapons are difficult to come by.
Most students at an institution such as Virginia Tech are well educated, over 18 and without criminal records. It wouldn't be that difficult to get your hands on weapons no matter what the gun laws.
2007-04-16 08:05:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Good people don't shoot others, and bad people can always get guns.. I think we should arm a few of the good guys. Give me a gun, and if I had a chance I would have taken a shot at that nut!
2007-04-16 08:05:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
No - they should be enforced better, and those who break the law should receive mandatory sentences.
The Second Amendment is there for a reason.
Ask those who lived through Nazi Germany after all their guns were taken away for their protection.
2007-04-16 08:19:35 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋