Can someone please explain how taking guns away from law abiding citizens would prevent tragedy like the VT?

Question

shootings

Answer 1

The murderer in the VT tragedy was a law-abiding citizen until he commited the crime.

If you took his guns away while he was a law abiding citizen, he could not have murdered all those innocent people with guns like he did.

Answer 2

Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will not prevent tragedies like VT. Crazies and criminals will always get their hands on guns and other weapons. Period.

Sadly, this tragedy has been used as a soapbox by both sides, and the arguments are getting way off track. The real discussion should be about how EASY it is to purchase - legally - a handgun in America. And also the discussion of the necessity of handguns as opposed to rifles and shotguns has been missed.

I am not suggesting the abolition of the second ammendment - I simply feel that the laws regarding purchases needs to be reviewed...

Answer 3

No it cannot be explained because it is not a solution.

First you would not only have to ban the manufacture of guns, you would also have to confiscate all those millions and millions that are out there now. How you gonna do that? Go door to door and ask for them? Search everybodys house? And let's say all the honest people just did the right thing and turned then in. The criminals (whos JOB it is to break the law!) won't do it. So now only the criminals have guns. Nice thought huh? It would be big money then to manufacture illegal guns. Do you think it wouldn't benefit organized crime to open gun factories? Do you think that people willing to break the law can't make guns at home. Or smuggle them in from Mexico? The fed can't keep something as large as a human body from being smuggled in from Mexico, and I suppose it would help Mexico's economy out alot to be the gun supplier to the criminals of the United States. (and remember 20 million of them are Mexican citizens!)

Answer 4

Well technically, the kid that did the shootings was a law abiding citizen up till he pulled the trigger. That being said, while taking all guns away might (and I say might) have prevented this, an armed populace protects us from a potentially oppressive government. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Answer 5

Let's pretend hand guns were already illegal in the States, wacko goes to Mexico picks up a few handguns...doesn't want to get caught at the border crossing so he walks across instead. Hmmm...would border security be an issue with the same liberal folks calling for gun restrictions then?

Answer 6

They'll argue (poorly) the shootings wouldn't have happened if the shooter hadn't been able to buy a gun. They simply want to wish away firearms. The problem is: Anyone hellbent on mass destruction could just as easily make bombs or poison with everyday household products. If everyone was required to carry firearms, this massacre wouldn't have happened.

Answer 7

Well of course, it wouldn't. This is just another mantra the libs use in their pathetic attempt to control everyone and everything. This guy would have found some way to do what he wanted to do. Anyone notice that suicide bombers aren't using guns?

Answer 8

It won't. It doesn't occur to some people that anyone who will shoot 47 people isn't going to be bothered in the least by breaking any type of gun law.

Answer 9

It won't, but people just thinking that this guy was a "law-abiding citizen" are misguided. There were warning signs present, and too many people missed them.

Answer 10

Cho bought the handgun legally. Had it been illegal he would have bought it illigally. He was going to do it no matter what and so banning guns would have made no difference.