English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

weapons? Or will they wait until there is gun violance of massive proportions at an execute corporate office before they "get it?"

2007-04-23 14:55:50 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Come on people, we are talking "automatic" weapons here. Give me a good argument.
Go back and edit your answer(s).

2007-04-23 15:03:08 · update #1

Semi-automatic v automatic really does not make a difference. For what purpose does one by a gun like that?

2007-04-23 15:05:57 · update #2

Yes, johnyboy, we saw that "more harm than good was done." You got that right!

2007-04-23 15:08:55 · update #3

23 answers

They're idea about cleaning it up usually involves giving more people guns. Nuts, but what else would you expect from insane people?

2007-04-23 14:59:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 7

If it's not guns, it will be bombs. Or fire. Or countless other things. You can not put a stop to people who really want to committ a crime like this. I actually hate guns, I wish they didn't exist. The world could survive without them, and probably longer. But I won't kid myself that putting stricter laws on guns will solve anything. It's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people behind them. The only thing a gun does is make it more convenient and easy for them to kill and injur. The only thing implementing stricter gun laws would do is provide a false sense of security.

EDIT: Automatic, semi-automatic, it doesn't matter. You can take them away, but the people who want to kill will still kill. And the amount of people they kill may be even greater than what they could do with an automatic or semi-automatic gun. Bombs again are a good example. You can find 'recipes' for them on the internet. These type of guns can and will be sold regardless of what the law says. The people using them don't care about the law.

2007-04-23 22:08:03 · answer #2 · answered by pinkluxe 3 · 1 0

Dems lead both houses so why don't they take steps to ammend the constitution you know the part that says right to bare arms,, Thats right they are busy debating the date of daylight savings time...


Do you want an arguement well I guess when both parties quit kissing every lobbist A** for money and votes then maybe both parties will come to their senses and ban automatics weapons and semi automatic weapons..THe border would have to be closed tight cause a new market would emerge...
Keep any gun at a hunt club or shooting range like thye do in europe.

. But the former miss america story is hysterical an 82 year with her revolver and walker shooting out the tires of a car that was illegally on her property... You go granny!

2007-04-23 22:00:38 · answer #3 · answered by coco d 4 · 2 1

Do you know how difficult it is to conceal a Browning .50 cal under your coat?

Anyway...

It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF.
Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians. Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison.
The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.

Crime Involving Illegally Owned Machine Guns:

Four police officers were killed in the line of duty by machine guns from 1983 to 1992. (713 law enforcement officers were killed during that period, 651 with guns.)
In 1980, when Miami's homicide rate was at an all-time high, less than 1% of all homicides involved machine guns. (Miami was supposedly a "machine gun Mecca" and drug trafficking capital of the U.S.) Although there are no national figures to compare to, machine gun deaths were probably lower elsewhere.
Of 2,200 guns recovered by Minneapolis police (1987-1989), not one was fully automatic.
A total of 420 weapons, including 375 guns, were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests by the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (Will and Grundie counties in the Chicago metropolitan area, 1980-1989). None of the guns was a machine gun.
16 of 2,359 (0.7%) of the guns seized in the Detroit area (1991-1992) in connection with "the investigation of narcotics trafficking operations" were machine guns.

Hope this helps!

2007-04-23 22:30:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No. Been there, seen that. This is a big country with all types of nuts. You should not infringe on the freedoms of the many because of the misdeeds of a relative handful of people.

It is the price of having freedom. More efficient law enforcement would be helpful, but as we all know, that is just another part of the government bureaucracy. (i.e., inefficient, wasteful, and plagued by low productivity.)

2007-04-23 22:54:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You know those high powered bolt action hunting rifles can do a lot more damage and from a greater distance. There kind of like a sniper rifle. Its best not to mess with the freedoms of a free nation and peoples. You will only do more harm then good.

2007-04-23 22:05:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Facts show that the weapon used was not an automatic weapon so the argument is null and void. Research shows (and not listening to Rosie) that criminals will get the weapons, even if banned. A good subject to read up on would be prohibition.

2007-04-23 22:02:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

I think we do need to do something about guns. Students are not the only ones who are not safe with all the hand guns around. Police also would be safer knowing there were less hand guns.I never was for gun control before but this is ridiculous!!! Hunting guns are o.k. still, rifles, but not hand guns. there is no reason for them.

2007-04-23 22:52:48 · answer #8 · answered by marysyd02 2 · 0 0

The answer is, no.

Its not the guns its the psychos. There have been mass shootings since the beginning of the republic. They have occurred all over the world. This is nothing particularly American.

And if you think gun control will stop it, think again. Criminals dont care about laws.

2007-04-23 22:14:12 · answer #9 · answered by krollohare2 7 · 0 1

please do get it right little girl what was used at the colage was a semie auto pistol,s witch are quite leagle to own and need the triger pulled for each shot \ a automatic as you call it is a rifle and is very difficult to get with out a class 3 licence and the atf approval get it right when you make brod statment,s lady \\ oh and one wackjob dose not mean it,s time to ban gun,s cuse you do and gusse what thay find or make gun,s any way emagion that duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

2007-04-23 22:02:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

nobody used a automatic gun at that or any school shooting so i don't know what you are talking about and less people would of died if the libs would let people with concealed weapon permits carry a gun in have no more "gun free zones "the only person with a gun was the crazy guy

2007-04-23 22:01:34 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers