I know it's in the constitution but surely after what's happened they should amend it? After the Dunblane (Scotland)shootings all handguns were taken from licenced owners (the owners were compensated for this). Would this help if the same was done in America?
2007-04-17 01:08:23 · 28 answers · asked by woody13974 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I don't care about your poxy constitution. If I visit the USA, I expect to retain my right not to be shot at or otherwise violated by gun carrying crazed individuals. Dump Charlton Heston and the NRA and start educating your children to live without fear and without weapons.
2007-04-17 01:47:35 · answer #1 · answered by Archangel Gabriel 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
what would be the point? You would just do what happened here and take away the rights of the many to enjoy a perfectly safe sport. Here in Briatain guns are pretty much banned but plenty of people are still getting shot. It doesn't solve the problem at all. All it does is stop law abiding people from doing something they enjoy doing. Why would someone intent on killing someone give a stuff about a law that says they can't? Prohibition fails. Always has, always will. these occurences are tragic but they won't be prevented by banning guns.
2007-04-17 01:15:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
in the beginning, did you ever evaluate the possibility he gained 2 elections because of the fact a majority of the persons do sense like he's doing the outstanding element? there's no such element as a Gun administration regulation. there are various rules, the two Federal and State, that do positioned some regulations on procuring and using a weapon, yet they have been there for years. President Obama has by no ability interior the previous asked or suggested a gun ban, neither is he doing so now. I examine your link, (in a Indian newspaper), the place does it say he needs certainly one of those gun ban? via the way, gun possession isn't strictly a liberal or conservative concern. there are a super style of liberals who savor looking and capturing, and a super style of conservatives who do no longer.
2016-11-25 00:46:01 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It should have happened after the FIRST shooting like this. In the UK things changed after Dunblane, too late for my mother though who was killed with a gun in 1988.
Gun crime is rising again in the UK, if people want guns they can get them, even if guns were banned in the US, people would still be able to get them. Drugs are illegal but look how many people are using!!!
there must be more control though, how many times are we going to see this type of thing on the news?
2007-04-17 01:14:40 · answer #4 · answered by Nickynackynoo 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, we like our guns, we like to hunt. Just cause some nut case took two and went to school doesn't mean we need to change the books. There are already enough laws on the books. If no guns are around, the next nut case will use gas, or some other means to kills. The Media is a big problem... If they would stop talking about it and stop sticking the camera in peoples faces, people would so called issuses would find something else to do.
2007-04-17 01:22:08 · answer #5 · answered by Boomrat 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the problem is that in this situation...liberals will say take all guns and conservatives will say don't blame the gun, blame the criminal.
Neither are functional arguments.
The fact is that guns need to be more heavily regulated and we must never take the position that the criminal nor the gun were responsible here....both were.
The criminal did the crime...yes but without the guns I suspect he would not have been able to kill 32 people.
More guns mean more crime period...people seem to think that only gun crimes are committed by hard core criminals....well what about this guy? What will we find out in the comming weeks? He was a decent student with no criminal past...perhaps? Many crimes instigated with the use of guns are perpreteated by people who before the event were not criminals....how do we determine who should and should not get them...so we can't just ban them...but we must do more.
I read an answer say that more guns equal less crime...actually its opposite...the states and countries with more guns have more gun deaths.
There were 22,000 gun deaths in the US last year. There were 700 in Germany, and Japan had 75....both nations with violent and impreialist histories....
2007-04-17 01:21:37 · answer #6 · answered by Dr. Luv 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Brilliant, SKIP G. You cannot change the Constitution. Especially the Second Amendment.
2007-04-17 01:22:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Another example of how absolutely fkd up the USA is. This is a country where it is 'normal' to bear arms, a country where the
c unt of a president feels so mutha fkin sorry that this keeps happening but at the same time is a big part of americas gun culture. Im sorry, i have complete sympathy for the victtims and their familes but the USA as a country is not the best country in the world as american slike to think, in fact nowhere near. kiss these nuts man.
2007-04-17 01:24:48 · answer #8 · answered by lex C 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
A responsible, Licensed "conceal-and-carry" permit holder could have saved dozens of those lives.
Texas pioneered laws allowing citizens to take classes and earn the right to carry concealed weapons. This was done in response to a mass shooting in a Luby's restaurant. When the bad guys don't know which of their potential victims is going to vigorously defend him/herself, they tend to think twice about their plans.
2007-04-17 01:21:01 · answer #9 · answered by chocolahoma 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Never happen!!! The NRA will protest and say their usual mantra- " Guns don't kill people, people kill people"
People will scream from the rooftops about their 2nd amendment rights are being violated, even though I can't see what the big deal is about waiting a few days to buy a gun to make sure the people is NOT an ex-con with no right to purchase a gun or to make sure the purchaser isn't a non citizen such as a non immigrant or a nutjob who can turn around and kill senselessly with the newly purchased weapon but then that's just me. The regulation isn't denying them the gun, it's just making sure they have the RIGHT to buy it. It is not seen that way.
2007-04-17 01:10:32 · answer #10 · answered by thequeenreigns 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
If just one person in Norris Hall had been armed and used his licensed weapon to take out the shooter- how many people would have been saved.
You can't blame murder on the weapon- if he had driven his car into a packed cafeteria would we be screaming for tighter regulations regarding the licensing of drivers or the purchasing of cars?
It appears that what would have stopped this shooter was for him to have been denied entry into this country in the first place.
Edit: Amen to Feed me
2007-04-17 01:32:45 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋