va tech and gun control?

Question

So here we have a very unfortunate incident that happened at the end of a gun but executed by the hand of a killer. Now we need to have stricter gun control laws because the guy didnt have a criminal record and somehow if he had to wait a week to get the gun he would of magically changed to a nice guy and this never would of happened??? There is no measure of gun control that could of prevented this. If you make it harder to get a gun it will only be harder for the honest people to get a gun, the criminals will still have ready access to them. The more the government unarms the populous the more it will turn to something other than a democracy and the more likely innocent will fall prey to the criminal population. So why is the government using this incident to propose stricter gun laws when in fact there is no measure that could of prevented someone without any prior criminal history from repeating these events. If you know how gun control could of fixed this I want to hear it?

Answer 1

And you notice, so far no posting of anyone with an actual answer to your question, but those posting in agreement because you're correct. Nice job.

Answer 2

Stiffer gun control raises crime rates, not lowers. The only people who obide by the law are honest citizens. It just gives the criminals easier unarmed targets. I'm armed at all times, and chances are in a crowd of ten people another 3 of them are legally armed. Had the other students been allowed to carry on campus, he wouldn't have gotten to victim number two.

" The FBI reports that the nation`s total violent crime rate declined every year between 1991 2004.12 In 2004, the violent crime rate fell to a 30-year low, lower than any time since 1974. The murder rate fell to a 39-year low, lower than any time since 1965. The 2004 robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower than any time since 1968 and 1984, respectively. Since 1991, total violent crime has decreased 39%; murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 44%; rape, 24%; robbery, 50%; and aggravated assault, 33%.13 Between 2003-2004, the violent crime rate declined 2.2%.14 Concurrently, the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics crime victimization survey found that violent crime is lower than anytime since 1973, when the first such survey was conducted"

The more laid back we get on gun laws, the less crime that happens. The reason is, a criminal is mainly ******* who don't have the bag to screw with armed people. I WILL shoot and kill anyone who poses danger to my life or those around me. I WILL do it within the law. I WILL defend my right to own handguns as long as I live. you WILL NEVER be able to talk politicans into making gun control bills and or getting them passed. Statistics show(democrats 1994) that if you try to ban our right in any way shape or form to own a firearm, you will get voted out forever. so, as much as someone may like gun control 1.) you're not educated on the facts 2.) it will never happen 3.) if it does happen "MY COLD DEAD HANDS"

Answer 3

I am pro-gun control, but I also very much agree with you. Outside of prohibition, which won't happen (except maybe an assault weapons ban again), there's no good law that could have been in place to prevent this act.

(However, "the government" is not proposing stricter gun laws... one or two politicians have talked about gun control, but as a specific issue raised after the shooting, not as a corrective measure to prevent this particular event with these particular circumstances).

Answer 4

that is ludicrous. Unfortunately the problem with that is gun control laws limit the future sales of legal firearms. The problem is not the future sales, it's the hundreds of million guns already bought by consumers. What you are suggesting is that we diffuse the bomb after it has gone off, in fact what you need to do is start taking away the remaining explosives left in circulation.

You ask how do you fix it, make it illegal to carry concealed firearms. Then ban the new sell of firearms. Then pass legislation to confiscate firearms from people that they have registered firearms, then stiffen the penalty for being caught with firearms.

Answer 5

The shooter had legal get proper of entry to and rights to posses hearth fingers. in case you made them extra sturdy to get carry of he stll ought to were waiting to get carry of them. i'm in basic terms wondering that volume of rounds he replaced into waiting to fireside by length of the clips that you'll legally purchase and own now attributed to the intense quantities of fatalities. i imagine they favor to restrict attack and semi computerized hand guns because once you've 4 clips you get 60 pictures so with 2 guns and a couple of spare clips you are able to kill 60 those with nicely positioned pictures. in case you had a six shooter that ought to in straightforward words be 24 with a techniques extra time to reload so it ought to were a techniques a lot less injuries and deaths. The protection market runs the authorities, media and us via concern and lobbying it truly is why it gun bans and regulations is not likely stated.

Answer 6

Why does an honest person need a gun? Plus, an honest person could easily turn into a dishonest person.

All of you gun fanatics can say what you want, but the fact comes down to the the people were killed by guns. They weren't punched or screamed at by an angry person. They were gunned down and killed or wounded.

Even a person brandishing a knife is more easy to overwhelm than a person firing a high caliber assault weapon.

Answer 7

It is refreshing to hear from someone like you ,who still has his God given common sense to reason things out., while many are demonizing an inanimate object for this dispicable act at VA Tech.

Answer 8

All the students should have been armed! They would have sent that little communist strait to hell! Instead they were like lambs at a slaughter!

Answer 9

i agree with you, the dems are using this event to bring back an old stance and it is sad

Answer 10

Excellent question and I agree with you 100%...........