2007-04-16 09:23:36 · 8 answers · asked by Meatball ;) sub 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I fully agree. What the anti-gun people fail to understand is the term 'law-abiding'. To be issued a handgun permit one must undergo an extensive background search & firearm training. If just one person had their weapon at today's tragic incident they would have been able to save many lives. Granted, criminals and psychos all can get their illegal guns anywhere. But it's got to be better to allow those honest & sound-minded individuals to protect themselves (and family or society) from harm.
2007-04-16 09:44:05 · answer #1 · answered by justntime2c 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mabey. I can certainly envision that scenario. But, let me ask this. What if you were a law abiding gun toter who happens across the situation. Since there are several people (other law abiding carriers) with guns and they have allready gotten them out to shoot back at the criminal, how do you know who the bad guy is? What if you shoot one of the 'defenders'? What if someone else mistakens you for another criminal and starts shooting at you? You can see where I'm going with this. Its a sticky situation no matter how you cut it. Mabey we should all carry tasers instead?
2007-04-16 16:43:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Quite possibly. The Luby's massacre in Texas that is noted in the Yahoo article is a case in point. There was a survivor of the incident who had a concealed weapons permit in the restaurant. Unfortunately, she had left her firearm in her car because the person she was with didn't like guns. Had she had it with her, that incident would have only cost a couple of lives instead of the 27 it did.
2007-04-16 16:31:48 · answer #3 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Is this really the way you want people to live?
Let's see - I've got my books, calculator, two pens... And oh, yeah! I need my magnum 45.
Canada, Japan, Australia and European countries have tougher gun laws and fewer of its innocent citizens (Even accounting for population) get shot every year than in the United States. How do you explain that?
2007-04-16 16:29:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I wouldn't want to be sitting in a classroom with a bunch of "armed" people - no thanks. Human beings are emotional beings and there are too many bad days for too many people where they might be prone to pulling a weapon. Look at Iraq, there are many armed people there - but would you feel "safe" in their towns & cities? Gang-infested areas in many cities have many armed individuals - is that safer too?
It comes down to personal self-control and respect for others. That starts at home.
2007-04-16 16:46:01 · answer #5 · answered by Lake Lover 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I cannot believe that ANYONE would suggest the answer to this question is MORE GUNS.
2007-04-16 16:31:52 · answer #6 · answered by r0adie20 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Sure...that is the answer. Open warfare on everyone. Life is not a videogame, right?
2007-04-16 16:28:18 · answer #7 · answered by It is what it is 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
i just heard that it was 32 pepole have died....WHERE IN THE HELL IS THE SWAT TEAM ??????? I JUST CAN'T BELIVE HE THAT ONE PERSON KILLED AND WOUNDED SO MANY WITH SOMEONE KILLING HIM.....OMG..PRAY FOR THERE FAMILIES!!!!!!!!!
2007-04-16 16:34:21 · answer #8 · answered by fefe 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋