To our American cousins. I understand you are concerned about your freedom, your rights.
But don´t you think stricter gun control laws might be the way to go.
For example, this weeks Economist suggested :
"child-proof locks",
"system of registration for guns and gun-owners"
"wider blacklist of those ineligible to buy them"
And hey, enough with the cheap jokes about our terrible teeth!
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9040170
2007-04-23 20:56:22 · 15 answers · asked by Paul H 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Yes "child proof locks" on guns. In 2005 more than 400 children were murdered with guns.
2007-04-23 21:06:31 · update #1
Thank you Shell. How can a law in the 18th century be applied to modern day times, modern semi automatic handguns.
2007-04-23 21:09:44 · update #2
You can go to any police station and get child proof locks for free. I don't have any children, however, so I don't use them. What am I gonna do, tell the rattlesnake that's on my front porch to hold on while I find the stinking key?
We already have a system of registration. Once you buy one legally, you are automatically registered as it's owner. Of course, criminals don't buy them legally so as usual, only the law abiding are affected.
Wider blacklist? The people who aren't eligible to buy them just buy them illegally, for about half the price those of us who follow the law have to pay. As usual, only the law abiding are affected.
Criminals aren't called criminals because they follow laws. Making more laws doesn't do much to deter them.
2007-04-23 21:00:22 · answer #1 · answered by Jadalina 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It seems to me that this topic comes up after every mass killing, and, of course, nothing is done about gun control. Probably because this Pandora's box was opened looong ago. It appears the way to go now is to do what they do in Spain and Italy and several other European countries. That is, have armed guards all over the place. America has thousands of ex military men with tons of experience in weapons and fighting. Find the ones that are still mentally stable, and give them jobs in all the schools, hospitals, court houses, government buildings and anywhere else that needs protection. It won't stop these nut jobs from attemping something, but I'm pretty sure they won't rack up such a high body count!
2007-04-24 16:27:02 · answer #2 · answered by Prairie Guy 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
America does have, for the most part, strict gun laws. However, there is an abundance of liberal judges in this country who will not back up our police and release these criminals time and time again. The pro-gun people also fear that, once they give up their right to own automatic weapons or "Saturday Night Special" handguns, it won't be long before the liberal politicians confiscate ALL guns. It's just like the pro-abortionists who fear that surrendering late-term abortions will lead to outlawing all unwanted infants.
By the way, England is my second favorite country and the only one that I'll visit these days (I've been there six times).
2007-04-24 04:13:14 · answer #3 · answered by foster 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
there will always be guns in this country..i can not legally own a gun..(convicted felon....from my youth)and the "strict laws"prohibit me and even if they were stricter i could still walk down the street and get a fully automatic assult rifle for cheaper than you would find in the gun store...the fact like it or not is guns are easy to get no matter how many restrictions you put on them...
2007-04-24 04:12:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If a nutter wanted to get a gun to go on a shooting spree, he would obtain one with or without gun controls. I agree with gun controls, but it wouldn't stop the determined mentally deranged from mass murder.
2007-04-24 05:09:46 · answer #5 · answered by Veritas 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well for one thing... its not the guns who pull the triggers, its the people who are using it. banning guns wont solve anything, people will just stab others more... but my opinion about gun control is... register all guns, so we know who has what, so if a gun is used in a crime it can be traced, and there has to be background checks for gun purchases so no ex-cons that had violent crimes can buy them.
2007-04-24 04:07:58 · answer #6 · answered by Elc 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Maybe if you read the full 2nd amendment the right to bear arms is only granted as part of a militia. To ignore this part is dangerous, it's like only reading the parts of the ten commandments we want to ie KILL, STEAL, COMMIT ADULTERY. They don't quite sound the same without the Thou shalt not.... do they.
2007-04-24 04:05:20 · answer #7 · answered by Jon Soundman 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think stricter gun control is the way to go.
2007-04-24 04:06:34 · answer #8 · answered by Max 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
MA is one state that has very stricked guns laws but it seems that crimals still manage to get them.
2007-04-24 05:55:21 · answer #9 · answered by evildragon1952 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As far as I'm concerned the right to bear arms involves smooth bore muzzle loading muskets c.1800.
Thomas Jefferson did not envisage todays weapons.
2007-04-24 04:04:26 · answer #10 · answered by shell 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋