I do own guns, but no hand guns. I have rifles for hunting, and that is what they are used for. A hand gun (to me) is only used to kill another human being. So, the real question is, if there are no hand guns would this curb violence. Think about it. You can still be protected with a rifle, it's just harder to hide and bring in a school or other public facility. I am a firm believer in the right to bear arms. I just think gangs and things like what happened yesterday at Va Tech would be curbed drastically if there were no hand guns allowed. What is your feelings on this or possible solution?
2007-04-17 04:22:17 · 22 answers · asked by ulragincajunfan 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
We do not have hand guns either, in our home. We are avid hunters though and have quite a few rifles in the gun case. I also do not see a point to handguns. What are they used for besides violence. If we had one I would probably give it up. The only thing that I have a problem with is that once they take away one kind of gun. They are going to keep coming for the rest until they have them all. The sad thing is though that the guns that cause violence are the ones that are not registered and if they get rid of all of the guns then only the bad guys would have them and we would all be screwed.
2007-04-17 04:28:52 · answer #1 · answered by hillabee_is_me 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Did also read in the paper that the campus had a bomb threat the week before? If that had come to fruition all the gun laws in the world wouldn't have stopped the chaos and destruction that would have followed it! The guy that apparently did all this carnage was an Asian student from Shanghai and they don't have any more morals than a gnat.
People kill whether they have access to guns or not they will find alternative ways. If all guns disappeared tomorrow people would still murder.
Its morality that stops people from pulling a trigger, or building a bomb, and that my friend is very much lacking in society today. New laws or banning the item will not stop the killing only changing hearts to love one another and work out differences in a civilized manner.
2007-04-17 04:33:22 · answer #2 · answered by Tapestry6 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that curbing hand guns to stop violence is a crock of ****. You will still have violence if there were no and guns. What about knives. A crime is going to happen no matter what weapon is used. Hand guns have nothing to do with the amount of violence in this world. Hand guns are not used only to kill people, that's the way people take hand guns because they are small and easy to hide. I don't think hand guns should be taken away.
2007-04-17 04:28:12 · answer #3 · answered by sprintbabe_08 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The only problem with this idea is, the normal people will all give up their hand guns, but the criminals will still have them, and they sell them to anyone! So I don't see how normal people giving up their hand guns, would help stop violence. They aren't the people being violent! I'll bet most kids these days know just where to go to buy a gun! I think we should lock up the parents who leave their guns in a place that the children can get to them!!
2007-04-17 04:26:53 · answer #4 · answered by wish I were 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree that due to concealability hand guns can be more dangerous in close quarters, however I want you to conduct an experiment for me:
Take one watermelon and place it on a stump in a field.
Shoot it with a handgun at close range.
Shoot another with a shotgun.
Now shoot another one with an assault rifle.
Finally, shoot yet another one with a deer rifle.
I promise you the melons shot by the handgun (FMJ or JHP) and the assault rifle will be in much better shape than the ones shot by the shotgun or rifle.
In addition, although handguns make it possible to get up close and personal, killing sprees have also been perpetrated with a long-range rifle (University of Texas). They are much better at "reaching out to touch someone".
I would give up my handgun if I knew positively that all guns would disappear. But that's just isn't going to happen. The answer is that guns don't kill people (regardless of their length) scumbag psychos kill people. And as long as there are psychos in the world I will own a gun to protect myself from them.
2007-04-17 04:35:17 · answer #5 · answered by Peter D 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I believe the same thing will happen when the prohibition against alcohol was implemented, the only people with access to guns will be the people that we don't want to have them. This will definately give militants, gangs, drug rings, ect. more of an advantage and power. It's naive to believe murder can be resolved; when there is a will, there is a way. People will continue to murder and this will not be the last massacre whether there are hand guns or not.
2007-04-17 04:36:28 · answer #6 · answered by Sade 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Rephrase your question into "WHEN there are no handguns, there will be less violence".
Then, think about exactly when that will be, and how we get there. You will discover pretty quickly that getting there is just about impossible. What shall we do - sweep the country to collect all the guns? Dig up all the ground to ensure no one has hidden any? Cordon off the borders and the coast to prevent smuggling? It hasn't worked so far with drugs, and it won't work with guns.
The "when", therefore, becomes extremely far in the future, so far as to be unrealistic. In the meantime, we need to deal with the situation as it IS, not how it hypothetically might be. Society must find other ways to prevent situations like this - realistic solutions.
2007-04-17 04:25:29 · answer #7 · answered by Steven D 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Less handguns do not equate to less violence. This has been proven time and time again. Remember the weapons used at Columbine? Also, knives, hammers,hands and ropes used for strangulation, pipe bombs, explosives(fertilizer and diesel) and on and on. Before the horror of VT, the latest news blog around here was the preachers wife who shot her husband in the back with the shotgun. Removing handguns is not the answer.
2007-04-17 04:36:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It might have stopped yesterday, but it might not. The gunman could have used a rifle or shotgun. It is unclear to me that limiting handguns will stop anyone willing to break the law from obtaining them. For example, I strongly doubt that any gang member that has a weapon bought it legally. Granted some handguns may have been stolen, but many are obtained from gun runners.
2007-04-17 04:36:03 · answer #9 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Giving up my right to a hand gun wouldn't curb violence it would just make me more vulnerable. Imaging if our young minds were not brainwashed bu left wing nut jobs and one of them was packin too. The Seoul man would of walked in there blazing then got blasted. Casualty count would have been real low. This guy decided to kill people, he would have found any means to do it.
Would you be willing to give up your right to free speech as to not upset gun owners and stir them to violence???
2007-04-17 04:34:13 · answer #10 · answered by Man yahoo is biased 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋