32 murders, and both pro gun and anti gun types go at each others throats within minutes.
The gun debate is important, but it surely could have waited at least a few days.
I'm pro gun, and the tragedy at Va Tech won't change that, but I'd like to at least show some sensitivity and not politicize the issue by arguing over guns right now.
Who agrees that debating guns so soon into the massacre is in bad taste?
2007-04-17 20:45:44 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
agree 1000%. i am anti gun, but the debate should wait at least a month. get everyone a proper and respectful burial, everyone cool down, and then go for it.
2007-04-17 20:50:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't necessarily think guns should be restricted. I do think that the process of purchasing a gun should be uniform and streamlined. I also think that firearms should be registered and that people should be screened for mental health purposes. How to do that is the big question. Finally, we could consider going back to banning high capacity clips for consumers. All that would help. But the right to own a gun is clear and cannot be debated any longer.
2016-05-17 23:16:41 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Washington, D.C. would be the safest city in America if gun control worked, as handguns are illegal there. I have lost track of how many of the last 20 years it has been the murder capital of the U.S.
EVERYONE IN D.C.KNOWS THAT GUN CONTROL DOESN'T MAKE YOU SAFER, but has the opposite effect. And yet the politicians continue to ignore this, so that they can raise up the Straw Man of the 'evil of guns' so that they can knock it down.
For the record, the last time there was a shooting at Blacksburg, the shooter was stopped when one of the students there went to his room and got his own gun and subdued the attacker until the police got there. Amazing how you never hear about guns SAVING lives. I guess the facts aren't important when you have an agenda.
2007-04-17 20:58:29 · answer #3 · answered by Mitch 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you 100%, however it was the anti-gun Liberals who first brought forth the debate.
Sadly it seems as if they relished with joy at the murders. Just so they could renew the debate and disenfranchise the "Bill of Rights".
What ever their social agenda, they are sick!
2007-04-18 16:47:50 · answer #4 · answered by Eldude 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree 100%. You should never debate anything when emotions are high to begin with. Debates are best served by rational thought and discussion, and not in the shadow of tragedy.
Its in terribly bad taste.
2007-04-17 20:49:33 · answer #5 · answered by Daniel R 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
bad taste, but as predictable as anything. Especially since the killer committed suicide, so we can't point the finger at anything with certainty. Thus we point the finger everywhere. I'm sure they'll look at the music he liked and the movies he watched and all other things to try and find a scapegoat.
2007-04-17 20:53:06 · answer #6 · answered by Son of a Mitch 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah! I just bought a new hunting rifle this weekend. Wait for the gun debate!
2007-04-17 20:50:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree... What's the point of arguing anyway? If people want guns, they are gonna find a way to get guns!
2007-04-17 20:49:38 · answer #8 · answered by Sarah R 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course it is in bad taste. But the rabid anti-gun lobby prays for incidents like this to politicise their cause.
2007-04-17 20:49:56 · answer #9 · answered by Chief BaggageSmasher 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it is in bad taste------very bad taste----yet I do have to admit the thought did cross my mind when I first heard the news of this tragedy that I bet sarah brady and hillery are foaming at the mouth to prepare their agenda.
2007-04-17 20:52:24 · answer #10 · answered by EZMZ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋