Americans....why won't you give up the everday possession of your handguns?

Question

Its our constitutional right doent do it for me, not with head cases on the streets nowadays! Sympathys to all the students families

Answer 1

It won't happen they feel very proud to have guns. It's true that most people say that the Americans are trigger happy! However I'm proud to live in the UK where guns are illegal. My heart goes out to the family's and students. Guns suck!!

Answer 2

So a Constitutional right means nothing to you. That is kinda stupid. A Constitution is the foundation of a government, therefore a Constitutional right is VERY important.

Besides saying "giving up handguns will stop gun violence" is the same exact thing as saying "Giving up all automobile transportation will stop all travel deaths and make everyone happy"....False and Unrealistic.

This keeps being pointed out but for some reason anti-gun people NEVER respond. In a world where guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. How is anyone supposed to be safe if no one can have a gun but those who will obtain them illegally? Because check your records...most of these shooting cases are done so with ILLEGAL weapons...so by taking away legal weapons you have emboldened and aided those who would prey on the innocent. Good job...maybe next you can make a baby seal clubbing machine

Answer 3

I'm not American (though I'd gladly live there), but the following quotes may be helpful:

"A gun is 32 times more likely to be used against a criminal threat than to kill anybody."
~ Dr Preston Covey

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are inclined to obey the law."
~ From Unintended Consequences, by John Ross

“Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do – for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m the bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun.”
~ Sammy ‘the Bull’ Gravano, ex-Mafioso turned informer, in an interview with Vanity Fair, 1999.

I answered a similar question to this yesterday, and pointed out that the Blair-faced Liar banned the ownership of of guns in the UK, on a wave of emotion, following the massacre of children at Dunblane Primary School in Scotland. Since then, violent gun crime in the UK has spiralled, and the UK police are unlikely to turn up unless the innocent party hurts the criminal in some way. Canada has similar gun laws to the US, yet has nowhere near the number of shootings, even proportionately. It isn't gun ownership that's to blame, but the attitude of the murderer. Has it occurred to you that if one or more of the teachers, properly trained, had been carrying guns, that freak would have been stopped much earlier? If someone broke into my house, I would like the opportunity to ahve a gun with which to defend myself and anyone else in the property: unfortunately the liberalistas have destroyed this chance. Burglar gangs now break into homes and threaten the occupants with their guns, stealing jewellery, cars and other things, and sometimes kill the occupants for the sheer "thrill" of it.
That said, I am in favour of a vetting procedure to ensure a person regarded as unstable cannot get their hands on a gun legally; therefore some regulation for ownership should be followed, such as a five-week check between application for a firearm and actual purchase of the weapon.
I wonder, too, if you would consider the outlawing of alcohol, as most shootings happen under the influence of drink, or is that interfering with your "freedoms"? Likewise, more US citizens are killed by drink-drivers every single year than in the whole Vietnam war, and more than are shot dead every year: do you ban cars because of that statistic, or is that
just "something we have to put up with"? Don't fall for liberal lies that guns are evil, as even without them man is capable of savage murder using Improvised Explosive Devices, vehicles, knives, or even their bare hands.
The world won't improve until Jesus returns as Lord of lords and King of kings, and destroys the unsaved. Until then, we have the right to defend ourselves, and the duty to defend those who can't -- or even won't.

Answer 4

One responsible citizen with a firearm and a conceal/carry permit would have saved 33 people at Virginia Tech.

Where guns are outlawed, not only are there still gun deaths, the number of drownings, beatings, and knifings increases. Whereas in areas where the citizenry is encouraged to possess firearms and take safety courses, crime rates drop.

When the sh*t hits the fan, it's nice to have an umbrella.

Answer 5

I'm English, so I can't really speak for Americans and I would prefer to live in a gun free society.
However, I think the theory of the gun lobby goes something like this:
Every man/woman should have the right to defend themselves. In relation to the shootings recently, if all students had been allowed to carry guns on campus, 32 people wouldn't have died - because they could have defended themselves by shooting back.
Having said that, I'm not sure how safe I'd feel the rest of the time in a college where everyone is carrying a gun!
Still think I prefer a gun free culture, but I can understand where the gun lobby is coming from.

Answer 6

I would like for you to remove this question as well as all of your others. I do not like what you say, so give up your freedom of speech. Will you do that? and don't argue it is your constitutional right, that doesn't do it for me.

If what you want infringes on even one persons rights it is not worth it, at that point you might decide that something else is worthy of infringing on several peoples rights and then were does it end.

The day that those who want to restrict the rights of the second amendment all agree to have their mouths shown shut is the day I might agree. If I dont have to listen to you it might be worth having my records more closely examined.

You see you are more than willing to give up my freedoms for you perception of safety, which is wrong. What will you willing give up? You cannot have it both ways.

Nothing in terms of gun control could have prevented this, do you understand that he could have bought weapons from a criminal, illegally. You will never eliminate weapons and to believe so raises the question of your naivete.

You cannot sacrifice someone elses rights, it is not up to you and if you would like to get it on a national ballot, go ahead, Americans will not give up theri rights, even if it saves one life.

In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent.

Over 50% of American households own guns, despite government statistics showing the number is approximately 35%, because guns not listed on any government roll were not counted during the gathering of data.

Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime.

Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.

Answer 7

I don't get it - American's are trigger happy? One psychopath goes shooting and all of a sudden "all American's are trigger happy"? Pray tell please give me the source of your wisdom - I long to be as knowledgeable.

That would be like saying all the people in England look and act like Austin Powers. Or all the Irish look like the Lucky Charms guy! You cannot make blanket statements like that. False analogies are not a decent argument.

There are crazy people every where, and the VT shooter was one of them. He slipped through the cracks after definitive evidence of mental instability. Americans are not trigger happy, pyschopaths with no remorse are trigger happy. You could have tightened gun laws to the hilt and a person like that would have found a way, and maybe even on a larger scale.

Answer 8

Because of instances like Monday. I will never allow the government to bar me from carrying the means to protect myself from criminals. Criminal will ALWAYS have access to guns.
If other students in that building were legally carrying, it is likely that many lives would have been saved.

You liberals always feel that the Constitution can be changed and twisted to sereve your own agendas. If you throw out the 2nd ammendment, then you might as well trow out all the other ones so that we can have prayer in schools, and military patroling the streets. - Now that scares you doesn't it?

Answer 9

Head cases and law breakers would still be able to get guns. A law taking guns from every person would not stop someone who is going to go on a rampage and kill. They wont worry about breaking the law against having a gun because they know they are going to do much worse.

Answer 10

People need them for protection judging from your question I would guess you live in a populated area but many people don't. Some people live in very isolated towns where there are only a few police officers, people have to rely on themselves if someone breaks into their house or attacks them. Not everyone has the luxury of a large and armed police force which can respond at a moments notice.

Answer 11

the bad guys will always be able to buy guns off the street, or make a bomb using internet directions! me carrying a gun means that i am in control of me and my childrens safety. if some nutcase started shooting people, id be able to take him out before it became a massacre!! also, it is proven that when a criminal knows that someone has a weapon, they are less likely to target that person!! its all common sense! the "head cases" arent going away... in fact, there are more of them now than ever! not to mention that if you think its okay to start taking away our constitutional rights, where will you draw the line? no more freedom of speech? or religion?