What WOULD have been Cho Seung-Hui's weapon of choice? ( since he was "hell-bent" on destruction anyways? )
2007-04-17 16:01:45 · 19 answers · asked by watchlizard 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
His gun was illegally owned and illegally purchased, and he used it in an illegal place. I don't think he really cared about the legality of his guns.
2007-04-17 16:08:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
Guns. They can't keep guns away from anyone, and if this guy wanted a gun, someone would have hooked him up. There is someone somewhere that would have hooked this guy up. He might have used something else? I don't know, but I am pretty sure a gun free campus will be as effective as a gun law. If people want to kill, they will find a way. So now this immigrant has got the whole country talking about the right to bear arms. Wow, one dude is getting this country up in arms (no pun attended) over gun control. I hope this makes the liberals happy. What do you do, let this one guy ruin another freedom? Great, Thanks Dude.
2007-04-17 16:09:03 · answer #2 · answered by The Angry Elephant 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm pretty sure he would have still used a gun.
I'm pretty sure Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't a liberal. He was a communist. And wasn't Timothy McVeigh a republican? So why try to make gun control into a political issue? Don't forget to let Charlton Heston know. He to is a conservative, and the head of the NRA. Why is it again that conservatives keep bringing up gun control?
2007-04-17 16:16:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Most Liberals don't want to make guns illegal. Hell, almost all are against that, though they are for restrictions. To answer the Q, ummmm.. According to what I read on here, he could've had a blowdart and done the same amount of damage. Because "guns don't kill people, people do".. Right?
2007-04-17 16:12:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Luckily he didn't have a rental van full of fertilizer. That nut head probably could have gotten a gun in Canada, Mexico, or off his local thug on the corner. Once again, this has to be all about politics. I wonder if he was a conservative?
2007-04-17 16:07:55 · answer #5 · answered by InDyBuD2002 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He could have used explosives!, oh yea guns kill, but you have to work harder to get such high kill rate!.
the problem is we are spending to much time finding reasons to hate each other insted of learning to live together!
But you know we will never get along, so guns or no guns, we will find ways to kill each other over the dumbest stuff!
2007-04-17 16:13:42 · answer #6 · answered by onesinnergirl 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
uh a gun, the people who commit crimes generally dont obtain them through legal means so making guns illegal dosnt fix anything just makes the inoocents suffer while the criminals thrive off of unarmed people
any idiot who thinks making guns illegal will solve the problems is to damn ignorant to see how the black market works
the innocent peoples will be unarmed while the criminals keep there weapons
2007-04-17 16:06:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Were his weapons legally purchased? The terrorist seem to love the sword for slitting throats, would have that been more civilized?
How about a truck bomb that seems to be the rage?
2007-04-17 16:09:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He'd still have a gun. The weapons he used were illegally bought.
Or if guns were nonexistant he would have made a bomb out of fertiliser and fuel. The casualties would have been far higher, as at Bath School in 1927
2007-04-17 16:07:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
A gun. Duh.
Legal or not, there's millions of them in the U.S. He could have gotten one anyways.
Nice biased question by the way.
2007-04-17 16:10:22 · answer #10 · answered by Matt O 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He will simply get the guns illegally.
2007-04-17 16:13:46 · answer #11 · answered by RICARDVS 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋