dedicating suburbs with high walls with metal detectors on the eentrance to be a model of green zone
2007-04-20 20:11:54 · 13 answers · asked by s_fouad 3 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
No. There should be red zones where everyone is required by law to carry a firearm. When a potential shooter KNOWS that a dozen people are going to be shooting back, it's more of a deterrent than any sort of gun ban. Banning guns only keeps the good guys from carrying them. The bad guys don't really care about the LAW. If they did they wouldn't be shooting at people in the first place. I say at least give people the chance to shoot back.
I know, I know. "If we did that, there would be gun battles in the street every day." Well, guess what ... there already are. You just don't hear about them everyday, not unless they're sensational enough to make the network news. But they happen every day, somewhere in America.
2007-04-20 20:31:06 · answer #1 · answered by valmay 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The problem with gun free zones is that nut jobs like Cho don't care about laws. Metal detectors stack people up in a nice little line like ducks in a row. In the military this situation is called a fatal funnel. The only real solution is to make treatment mandatory when they exhibit the kind of predatory behavior like this nut had done for years. Stalking, Voyeurism, and basic anti socail behavior should be enough to have the guy locked up for at least a seven day observation period to determine the extent of his illness. People want a seven day cool down period on handgun purchases. I think it's fair we ask for seven days to see if someone is truly a possible nut job psycho.
2007-04-20 20:37:06 · answer #2 · answered by hitchie 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You do know that some guns are made of plastic right?
What you're talking about sounds like chucking away rights for a false feeling of safety remember the worst mass murder at a school happened with explosives not guns (Bath, Michigan Massacre 1923 over 40 victims).
The answer is more guns in the hands of responsible law abiding citizens who are screened before hand for proof of citizenship, criminal background check, drug screen and background check on psychiatric record plus they must take a firearms safety and target practice course.
Read this bit of irony...
"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
- Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker after hearing that a law that would allow students and employees who qualify for a carry permit to carry their weapons on campus had been defeated. The bill was defeated one year and three months before the Blacksburg Massacre.
2007-04-20 21:01:29 · answer #3 · answered by sprydle 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The bad guys prefer unarmed victims!!.
When seconds matter calling 911 and asking the bad guy to wait is not a viable option.
Better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it!!!
**Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens.**
So you are against the private ownerships of gun! Do you believe in fire extinguishers? Why, you can always call the fire department!!
Hide message history
No Weapons Allowed
Criminals this is a defense free zone
All law abiding people have been disarmed for you
2015-01-07 06:35:31 · answer #4 · answered by Arnie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Really? I'd call it a sheep pen. It could really be a "green" zone with the installation of ovens/boilers powered by burning terrorists to provide electricity for the "neighborhood". Auchtung Sheeple!
2007-04-20 20:25:02 · answer #5 · answered by Perry L 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Better be well guarded because that would be a criminal magnet - do whatever and nobody can do anything (didn't use the gate to get in, don't need it to get out.
Actually though, we have these. They're called gated communities and home owners pay a tax of sorts to have private security guard it, etc.
2007-04-20 21:28:15 · answer #6 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I understand & empathize w the concept, but how would this be enforced? There are already plenty of laws in existence regarding firearms.....generally speaking , more laws won't make the problem go away.
The young men involved at Columbine were not permitted "by law" to own or possess firearms............
2007-04-20 20:22:21 · answer #7 · answered by SantaBud 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
HELLO...All guns cant be detected by a metal detector.Ever heard of smuggling...What.You say smugling is elligal...duh..Crimenals don't abbey the law.VA shooting was in a green zone....No gun are aloud at school...duh...sick-o's don't abbey the law....duh
2007-04-20 20:32:43 · answer #8 · answered by tdwatch 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
what a dumb question.
no guns were allowed on the VT campus.
these anti gun post are really stupid
2007-04-20 21:32:49 · answer #9 · answered by Harry Merkin 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Freedom of movement" is not in the bill of rights, but it should be.
We don't do martial law in the US, nor should we, nor should we ever consider specific areas for martial law.
2007-04-20 20:35:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋