Would the shooting in VA be avoided if the US has stricter gnu law?

Question

I understand that the constitution right gives the US people right to bear firearm, but it really give people easy access to firearm to do bad thing. Or not? Based on the statistics from news: "Handguns are completely illegal in Britain, which recorded only 46 homicides involving firearms all of last year. By contrast there were 579 gun homicides last year in New York City alone."

Answer 1

If you have gun laws that are more strict it would not help. People, criminals for the most part, would still be able to buy guns and still be able to use them for whatever purpose they chose - including murdering innocent people. If you take guns away from private citizens you are taking away their only means of defense in some cases. For example, if I did not own a gun and someone came into my home to cause me harm, I would be long dead before the authorities arrive because I live in the country. Even though I live right outside town, the city police would not respond - it would be the county sheriff - who is 15 miles away and when we did have to call them once for someone prowling on our property, it took them 25 minutes to arrive. I would be a corpse by then, so I'll take a gun any day!

Answer 2

That is a fine statistic, but did you look at what the murder rate was for stabbings in Britain? Crazy people will always carry out their wishes, if they want to kill people, they will do it, with or without guns. I was watching NBC and they interviewed a woman whos son went to school in England and he said the gun ban meant nothing, there were still people getting stabbed just as often as there were firearm attacks in America. Firearms are not the only way to kill people. I think it should be much harder to purchase guns yes, but I do not want anyone taking away the guns in my house, that is what makes me feel safe. Criminals will still find ways to do what they wish, they care nothing about breaking the laws, that is what makes them criminals. It would only be a pain in the @$$ for law abiding citizins.

Answer 3

I thought it was a Korean, not a Gnu. I wasn't even aware the there were any Wildebeests in Virginia. Criminals don't register firearms and they don't care if they're illegal. Stricter "gnu" laws only affect law abiding citizens. Would the problem go away if only criminals had guns? I think not.

Answer 4

IF we sacrifice freedom for security based on government security we have neither security or freedom

Easy access you say, as a legal firearms owner when I purchase a firearm through legal channels my gun dealer is required by law to run an FBI background check through the NCIC computer.

Cho did not get these weapons through legal channels or never got on the legal radar, or lied on the 4473 form (committing a federal crime. in the process.)



If guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have them.


we have strong gun laws, and people with intent will find a way to perpetrate. Guns are tools as are fire, knives, pitchforks, ammonium nitrate, jet fuel, gasoline, the problem is NOT the object. The problem is the perpetrator.

I believe many people have become willing to usurp their personal liberty for security they will clamor for a police state before long.

I believe that tragedies such as this ought to give us a reason to pause and look at the causes as to why angry people do atrocious and horrific acts.

I believe the media is culpable. I believe that parents are culpable, I believe liberals are culpable, I believe by removing any semblance of conflict from schools we not given kids healthy outlets for conflict and aggression.
When I was a kid, I carried my 22 rifle and 20 gauge shotgun in the truck of my car so I could go hunting after school, I never once thought when I was getting picked on by a bully to go get the gun and kill him.. I thought differently because I respected myself and those around me. If it came to blows with the bully it would be with fists in the parking lot. a bloody nose generally stopped it.

Guns are not the problem. Ignorance of anything is dangerous and society has become ignorant of firearms. Both of my children have certified in hunter safety and firearm training. They not only know HOW to use firearms but HOW NOT to use them. This is the problem with schools today, we no longer accept firearms as a norm so they've become abnormal AND people clamor for control. This is wrong.

The media is wrong in reporting facts. This not the worse, not even close.

http://www.columbine-angels.com/violence...

Answer 5

I haven't actually seen any gnus in the US.
Buffalo yes, gnus no.

As to guns, if we disarm all the sane people, that leaves the crazies and criminals armed, I don't want to live in that America, I want to be able to defend my family, and my property.

If Cho did not get a gun, he could have made a bomb, and it might be 1000 killed instead of 33 yesterday.

Acts of violence like VA Tech are not about "guns" they are about the mental health or religious hysteria of some misguided and possibly mentally deranged persons.

Answer 6

The tools of a carpenter can make a shelter or a gallows; A weapon can be used to defend life or rob it. The thing that creates that distinction is the wielder of these tools, and the thing that shapes these wielders are their virtues and perceived connections to others.

Seung-hui Cho, the shooter in the VT massacre, left a "disturbing note" criticizing "rich kids," "debauchery," and "deceitful charlatans" before killing two people in a dormitory room on April 16, 2007. It is believed he had a history of taking medication for depression, and was stylized as a "loner" by most witnesses.

Gun control is not the issue; It is an issue of empathy. Cho's statements seem to reveal a young man who found himself in a world that was corrupt, immoral, and was a threat to him personally. The fact that he apparently had no one to go to, no one to seek out to discuss these thoughts, thoughts that lead him to seek action in the only way he felt that matter?

This simply points out how devastatingly destructive the illusion of how alone each and every one of us appear to be really is; When in reality there are but a few immaterial degrees of separation between us.

If we begin to rely on law (such as gun control) more than virtue (human empathy), then our society has already lost its way.

Answer 7

If someone is mentally unstable then they will find a way to hurt others. In the DC area they have had several people sho have set people on fire? Do you out law flames? It has nothing to do with the tool, it has to do with the person using it. He could have chained them in and burned the place down. The question should be why is violent crime lower in Britain and other countrys-why do their citizens solve situations with out resorting to violence.

Answer 8

Stricter gnu laws? Well, I'm sure that gnus are not permitted to roam free on VaTech campus already. So, how would you prevent gnus from wandering on campus by enacting another paper law? They're animals for gosh sakes!

Answer 9

both section can use the hot VA bloodbath to further their argument. the pro-gun human beings can say, "If the guidelines weren't so strict then someone would have shot the guy formerly he killed such extremely some human beings." The anti-gun human beings will argue in favor of banning all guns. for my section, i ought to not in any respect be in favor of giving up my proper to possess and carry a gun. The guidelines in straightforward words harm regulation abiding voters, criminals do not care what the regulation is. it may be argued further, such extremely some guns are produced and such extremely some are already obtainable unaccounted for, i do not see any uncomplicated answer to the gun challenge contained in the u . s . a .. one element that would nicely be carried out on the instant's to end the drug warfare and concentration extra on the unlawful gun commerce. One argument must be to reduce or ban the manufacture of up to date guns, this couldcontinual up the cost of up to date guns and placed the undesirable at a downside, they have an equivalent proper to look after themselves. one element to guage, it truly is ultimately the pastime of the persons to look after ourselves, take the 9/11 terrorist attacks as an celebration, each and each of the money, intelligence, miltary, police, air marshalls, etc. contained in the international couldn't end some men with razor blades, contained in the precise it replaced into the voters who defended themselves, armed with no longer something more beneficial than techniques, and presented down the airplane in Pennsylvania and kept who's acquainted with what number lives. yet then you may argue if the terrorists were allowed to carry guns on board then no one ought to've been waiting to end them. i actually don't recognize then answer, except to assert i ought to not in any respect favor to provide up my guns, ever, because it truly is a risky international we stay in and that i trust a lot safer being armed.

Answer 10

Who would give up there gun...the law abiding citizen. Who wouldn't, the criminal. Who would you want to have a gun the law abiding citizen or the criminal?
It is our right and duty to our self and other to follow the laws, just because the criminal mis-uses his gun, others shouldn't have to give up there rights to have one.
Just make the laws tougher for the mis-use. in this case though.....it is finished with out questions answered unfortunately.