Most come backs for having a gun is 'its for self-defence' but most of those people who say that threaten or/and kill randoms, or to get revenge eg. The killing in the unervestity on Monday!
2007-04-18 15:37:24 · 7 answers · asked by Shaza 1 in Business & Finance ➔ Taxes ➔ United States
I was walking through the woods of my very own property, which is posted with no trespassing/hunting signs, when I encountered a man with a gun and who appeared to be hunting. I told him that he was trespassing and to please get off my land. He shot at me!! And he was shocked and dismayed when I shot back. Sadly, I missed him, but hit his rifle. Knocked that sucker right out of his hands, and kept it. Now where would I be if I didn't have a gun? If everyone carried a gun, then the bad guys would think twice before pulling theirs out.
2007-04-18 15:48:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
wHY dO yOU TYPE WITH CAPS LOCK ON? And why to you post a political question in a tax forum? But you asked, so I'll answer.
Fact is, even if he lived in NYC where it's nearly impossible to buy a handgun legally there are plenty of them on the streets.
In the UK where handguns and rifles are completely banned -- they were all confiscated after the Dunblaine Massacre -- gun crime is at an all-time high. The only affect that the ban had was to drive the price of a gun on the streets from £50 to around £1,000.
Where do you get your information that most folks who legally buy guns for self defense are mostly involved in threats and random killings? Unfounded allegations such as that serve no purpose and trivialize your own position.
What happened in Virginia was the act of a madman. Even if no guns existed in this country, he still would have done what he did, just with some other weapon such as an axe handle or machete.
It was a deeply saddening and terrible event, but banning guns will never prevent such acts. As we learn more about the perpetrator of this terrifying event it becomes obvious that he was a ticking time-bomb. School, family, and society in general failed to take adequate note of his problems and failed to intervene. This does not absolve him of the primary responsibility for what he did but it's becoming clear that this may have been preventable.
2007-04-18 22:56:56 · answer #2 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The bottom line and most important reason was touched on by the person who asked the rhetorical questions "What government agency will decide whether we "need" our guns, free press, and religion?" The US constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Infringe that right, and all of our other rights are in jeopardy as well.
2007-04-19 03:08:35 · answer #3 · answered by dwagsfive 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where to start with all those misconceptions?
The vast majority of guns are never fired at a human.
Random killings are actually quite rare, but tend to get a lot of press.
And what government agency would you like to decide whether I "need" one? Would that be the same government agency that gets to decide whether I "need" a free press? If I "need" my religion?
Big splashy stories in the press rarely lead to good laws.
2007-04-18 16:25:55 · answer #4 · answered by enoriverbend 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If every person the gunman shot had a gun and knew how to use it, your many people would he had killed before one of his intended victims killed him?
2007-04-18 15:40:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
my thoughts too payday, right on. Not only that if you want a gun they are cheaper from that sedan just down the street.
2007-04-18 15:48:03 · answer #6 · answered by freshex2001 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Is there a tax issue somewhere in this question?
2007-04-18 19:20:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋