I, for one, think every upstanding citizen of the United States should have a gun for protection. If you come in my home and plan on doing me or my property harm, you will die. It's that simple!!
2007-04-17 16:24:34
·
answer #1
·
answered by The Nana of Nana's 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Guns are morally neutral. They don't commit crimes. Although if you've ever seen what a 45-70 does to a watermelon... that feels a little criminal. But luckily there is no United Nations of Melons so I think I'm safe from prosecution...
2016-05-17 22:14:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by karol 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is true. Where do you stop at in banning things. Everything could be used in a bad way when you think about it.
I guess you could blame the bad people. It's what people do with the things they have at their reach that cause the trouble.
It also has a lot to do with helping them. From articles I've read he seemed to be a bit warped in regards to his writing and mentality. At Port Arthur, the gunmen who killed the 35 people was mentally disabled.
I guess it's just a point of being aware of what people are like and trying to help them. If we banned everything where would we be.
2007-04-17 16:23:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by gretphemelger 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Matches have other primary uses, as do cars, Wal Mart and the other stores
The women and children examples are just plain bad because both are the recipients in your scenario and not the culprits like in the previously mentioned examples.
Guns, on the other hand, have no other use than to shoot with.
2007-04-17 15:57:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
According to your argument, though, shouldn't anyone capable of affording it be able to buy a missile-launcher? Or a nuclear bomb? What about a tank? Tanks don't kill people. They mostly just sit quietly.
And as for women causing rape, children causing molestation and Wal-Mart causing shoplifting, at least get your metaphors straight. Nobody is saying victims should be banned.
2007-04-17 15:53:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
Cho, the Va. Tech shooter is the ***ONLY*** one responsible for the deaths.
The Virginia Tech massacre was a horrible, horrible tragedy but in time, it will fade from public view. Only those who have suffered a personal loss will be faced with the struggle to overcome their grief and restructure their life.
Security guards can only provide a "sense" of security. They cannot provide virtual security. The objective of the security guard is to take control of the situation, keep people calm, stop panic.
After the reports have been filed, the investigations have been completed and the recommendations made, people will calm down and feel secure, then complacent.
Because of my personal experience, I favor allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons if they have had training and have not had a felony conviction. Most of the people in the self-help group Parents of Murdered Children have strong feelings about this issue as well as Citizens against Homicide. (Members of both national groups have suffered the loss of a loved one to homicide) Compassionate Friends is also a self-help group however it is for parents who have lost a child to any cause homicide, accidental death or disease.
http://www.pomc.com
http://www.pomc.org
http://www.murdervictims.com/CAH.html
http://www.compassionatefriends.org
People in these organizations spend a lot of time writing letters to parole boards, and getting legislation passed like Michigan's "truth in sentencing" and sentencing guidelines" (despite the fiscal impact).
It would be very nice if all the predators, murderers, rapists, child molestors and other gun-toting sickos could be locked up...... or maybe even hanged, drawn and quartered for some.
The justice system and law enforcement can only do so much. The ATF can only seize so many weapons from the predators.
The reason I favor responsible citizens being educated in safe gun use is for protection. They will not be the ones using the guns to commit a crime or kill an innocent.
At the Appalachian School of Law shooting in 2002. A disgruntled student killed two students before he was killed by two other students with their personal firearms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
Concerned people recognized that Cho was a disturbed person. They tried to get him to go to counseling and he refused.
Lucinda Roy, the department's director of creative writing, who had Cho in one of her classes and described him as "troubled. She referred him for counseling....but he would not go.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-04-17-virginia-tech_N.htm?csp=34
“I kept saying, ‘Please go to counseling; I will take you to counseling,’ because he was so depressed,” Roy said. But “I was told [by counselors] that you can’t force anybody to go over ... so their hands were tied, too.”
Fellow students in a playwriting class with Cho also noticed the dark and disturbing nature of his compositions.
“His writing, the plays, were really morbid and grotesque,” Stephanie Derry, a senior English major, told the campus newspaper, The Collegiate Times.
“I remember one of them very well. It was about a son who hated his stepfather. In the play, the boy threw a chainsaw around and hammers at him. But the play ended with the boy violently suffocating the father with a Rice Krispy treat,” Derry said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18148802/
A copy of Cho's play entitled "Richard McBeef," can be found at thesmoking gun website. The bizarre play features a 13-year-old boy who accuses his stepfather of pedophilia and murdering his father. The teenager talks of killing the older man and, at one point, the child's mother brandishes a chain saw at the stepfather. The play ends with the man striking the child with "a deadly blow." (10 pages)
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0417071vtech1.html
Yet, there are people who would BLAME the school, parents, society, etc. for turning Cho into a killer......Cho himself BLAMES....
Killer's Note: 'You Caused Me to Do This'
Cho left a long and "disturbing" note in his dorm room at Virginia Tech the note, which runs several pages, as beginning in the present tense and then shifting to the past. It contains rhetoric explaining Cho's actions and says, "You caused me to do this,"
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3048108&page=1
It is best to take responsibility for your own safety. Blaming doesn't help. Banning doesn't help.
Cho also wrote a second play, entitled "Mr. Brownstone"; the play is named after a Guns N' Roses song and contains lyrics copied verbatim from the song. Both plays are available on the website below.
http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/
2007-04-17 17:26:14
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
knives=stabbing. I guess no more steaks either
hammers=bludgeoning, no more building houses
Cleaners=poison, no more housecleaning (but we won't have houses anyway, so who cares)
Mailmen=going postal, no more mail services
gasoline=aids in fires and poisoning (but we can't have cars so who cares)
propane=explosions, can't heat our homes,(but hey we still dont' have homes, no hammers)
Electricity=cause electrocution
Fertilizer= bomb making materials. I guess cows will have to move to another country. But hey we can't eat them anyway, no more knives.
Besides all this anti-crap is maneur we have enough fertilizer anyway! lol
2007-04-17 15:58:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by Chrissy 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I never once saw a gun that jumped up pulled it's
trigger and killed a person, however I did see a
person use a gun and pulled the trigger that ended
up killing a person, so guns don't kill people kill.
2007-04-17 15:57:07
·
answer #8
·
answered by RudiA 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
Matches have MANY good uses besides arson. Guns have only ONE use.
You can't light a spleef with a gun...
2007-04-17 15:55:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
GUNS DO NOT KILL ON THEIR OWN THE PERSON WITH THE GUN KILLS AND YES WE SHOULD HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE
2007-04-17 15:55:07
·
answer #10
·
answered by thefemalealphawolf 3
·
1⤊
0⤋