the gun owner who sold the guns, and bullets to cho to shoot 32 people is just as responsible right?..too a young asian boy..hmmm...
firearms owner is responsible also..
2007-04-17 16:20:39 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
first of all, guns and car are two different things..
u dont use a car to kill 32 people in school....guns you dont need to be a safe driver..just point and shoot...
so dont compare a car too a gun..thats so not even close.....
2007-04-17 16:32:40 · update #1
I just wanted to respond to you saying that cars aren't used to kill 32 people.
The Oklahoma city car bomb killed more than 32.
Cars can be just as easily used as a weapon to create a massacre like the one yesterday.
2007-04-17 19:45:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
WRONG!
Maybe we should sue the companies that make cars that can drive over 100 miles an hour, it isn't legal ANYWHERE in the US to drive that fast, but if there is an accident we should sue the car company for making it possible.
Edit:
I am so flattered that you tracked me down and responded on my question that had nothing to do with my answer here. But in response, yes cars can be replaced, but the lives they kill each year can not. Do you remember the older gentleman that drove his car into a crowd of people just a few years ago? Should the car company carry responsiblity because he was too old to drive? I don't think so. So ok You didn't say anything about sueing anyone, fine, I overspoke. But I still see can not see the person who sold the gun responsible in any way.
2007-04-17 16:26:54 · answer #2 · answered by Question Addict 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
So, if the dealer sold the gun to an AMERICAN boy that would have been okay?
Is this a race question rather than whether the dealer is responsible or not?
I do not agree with the gun laws of America but they are what they are and the dealer is not responsible whether the person buying the gun was 'Asian' or not.
Get a grip - this tragedy could have been committed by anyone - just because he was Asian is irrelevant.
2007-04-17 17:12:13 · answer #3 · answered by fijibabie 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Not really. It's a world of difference between a police officer carrying and some 19 yo who isn't even drinking age legal carrying. Perhaps even worse with drinking age legal. Imagine where bar fights or party brawls or sporting events would lead if many people easy access to firearms. Refs would need bulletproof vests. Your solution would cost more lives in the future than would have hypothetically been saved in the past
2016-05-17 22:22:29 · answer #4 · answered by bev 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not believe that the owner of the gun store was even present for the shooting!!
I can assure you if he had sensed any danger in selling this young man a gun not only would he refuse to complete the sale he would have reported the threat to the authorities.
No one can gauge the actions of someone that they do not know and who seems perfectly normal and knowledgeable of the subject.
When I am cutting up chicken in my kitchen and I slice my finger is the maker of the knife as responsible for my injury as I am. I mean if the knife had not been so sharp it would not have cut so deeply. When my grandchild or one of my children are riding on their skateboard, falls and injures themselves possibly causing permanant damage is the makers of the skateboard or the store employee that sold the skatboard responsible for the injuries? I mean maybe my 6 year old grandchild should not have been on her 24 year old uncles skateboard. Still the child was injured. The wheels turned too fast, she was incompetent to be on such a big board. Really who is to blame the maker, the seller or the person using something that was make for other people and purposes.
Let's stop trying to blame everyone else for this horrific crime and put the blame directly where it belongs, on some poor demented young man who wanted everyone else to hurt as much as he did. And I think we all feel a deep sense of pain for such a senseless act.
2007-04-17 16:39:13 · answer #5 · answered by Mee-Maw 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Wrong. Only the person who committed the murders is at fault. Virginia's state laws concerning selling firearms are at fault. If there had been a five day waiting period as in most states, he may or may not have changed his mind. New York state stated that most crimes committed on their streets are by person/s who purchased firearms from Virginia. New York has stricter gun laws. What about Virginia Tech who outlawed any firearms on the campus? The law officials said that this possibly could have been prevented is some of the students had owned guns and had been allowed to have them on campus.
2007-04-17 16:23:46 · answer #6 · answered by Sparkles 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
first of all, i dont know why u have to bring up "asian boy" in ur question. What does that have do do with anything? as for your question, guns are considered tools, if used in the right way. Knives, cars, tools, and even pets can also kill people. Just because guns are more symbolized as an ideal weapon, doesnt mean that the gun salesman was wrong for selling the guy a gun.
2007-04-17 16:28:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No the gun dealer is not responsible. The dealer did not do anything wrong. Cho was of legal age and legal citizen and passed the background check.
You ain't too bright are ya?
2007-04-17 18:07:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so Tim. If the murder had used an axe or a chain saw would you say the same about the hardware store. I doubt it. How about the car dealer if he had crashed a car into a crowd, again I don't think so.
What if the Virginia law had been passed that would have allowed concealed carry permit holders to carry guns on campus.
2007-04-17 16:29:31 · answer #9 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, only the shooter is responsible. Even though this was a illegal purchase (i think). The owner did not know that he was selling the gun to a mass murderer. Its not his fault
2007-04-17 16:28:51 · answer #10 · answered by love_alw_693 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋