Why gun control and not stricter sentances for gun crimes??

Question

Why is it that the US (and particularly the media) is so bent on gun control? Every news story about a shooting is followed by the obligitory 2 minutes of what the media's opinion is... drivel about the brady bill and mental patients buying guns etc etc...

Why aren't we passing laws to punish those who use guns in crimes? Currently in most states if you pull a gun on someone during a crime but don't shoot them you get a very mild sentance. Why not punish those people, instead of the ones who use guns properly? You pull a gun during a crime, you get 20 to life. Bam, gun crimes go down.

Much easier than repealing the 2nd amendment, which would take an act of God or a deafeningly overwhelming public outcry (as in not gonna happen in our lifetimes).

Answer 1

Because:
Democrats & the News Media HATE guns.
But.... they both LOVE criminals.

Democrats even want Captured Terrorists to have more freedom.
"Democrats Care".

Answer 2

There are pretty stiff penalties for using a gun in the comission of a felony in some states, and they do serve as an additional deterent - while also helping to swell prison populations (much like three strikes laws and the criminalization of drugs).

One problem with severe penalties for even pulling a gun, though, is, once you're looking at life, anyway for even pulling the gun, you might as well shoot the witnesses dead - it might help you get away with it. And, when the police are coming to get you, since you're now looking at multiple murders, you might as well shoot it out with them, too.

But, in general, gun control is pushed by people who have an agenda that's incompatible with an armed society - that means one that includes a lot of government control over every aspect of individual behavior.

Answer 3

Actually, stricter gun control laws would be totally in line with the Second Amendment, which states that the people may carry arms "for the purposes of a well-regulated state militia." The amendment was designed to create a central, well-organized, responsible group to protect the common welfare, NOT to give every individual the right to create their own arsenal.

Personally, I think gun ownership should be treated as a privilege, like having a driver's license. You should have to go through a rigorous and extensive training program on responsible gun ownership, not have any history of crime or aggression, and undergo annual scrunity of the number of guns you own, as well as your habits. It should be like being in the National Guard - if you want a gun, you have to prove you know how to use it properly AND are using it solely for the public good.

Plus, I think taxing the hell out of it would be a good idea - people will think twice about who they shoot if bullets cost $500 each.

Answer 4

i'm useful you're proud and that i'm useful you're a liberal yet you're additionally only incorrect. the US would not even make the right ten any further. you could not only seem at gun regulations and make an instant correlation. that would not paintings. international places like Japan case in point only have decrease ordinary crime costs as that lifestyle is plenty extra regulation abiding. no rely what the gun regulation are there they could have decrease gun crime via fact they're extra prepared to obey the regulation and that they are extra prepared to punish regulation breakers. right here interior the US proud liberals desire to coddle criminals and blame issues like weapons for the planned possibilities of criminals so criminals regularly get away with crime or get in basic terms a slap on the wrists. in accordance to a three 365 days long learn carried out by the fairly anti gun center for ailment administration, not one of the 22,000+ gun regulations on the books ought to be shown to have a marvelous impression on crime. meanwhile 40 9 of fifty states now have some from of hid carry regulations with 40-one in each and every of them being shall difficulty and a Gallup ballot back in Dec shows that there are extra weapons in extra US families than we've seen interior the final 30 years. on the comparable time the FBI's preliminary 2011 checklist shows that the US is at an 40 365 days low for violent crime and a 40 5 365 days low for homicide with violent crimes costs dropping for 18 of the final 2 a protracted time. How can this be a threat if there now hundreds of thousands of armed voters who can legally carry weapons around? undemanding, the difficulty isn't the weapons, its the guy retaining it. regulations in basic terms impact the regulation abiding and punishment in basic terms impacts the convicted criminal. yet perhaps if individuals end killing a million or so unborn little ones each and each 365 days and discovered to know human lifestyles we'd have even fewer murders in this u . s . a .. yet proud liberal can not seem to tolerate that.

Answer 5

If the liberals ban guns, crime will rise and the demand by people for more government. To wit: the liberals will further their power base for socialist control.

Courts have ruled that gun ownership is a individual right.

Answer 6

Because punishing the criminals sends a message about right and wrong, and we can't have that. The PC thinking of "I'm alright, you're alright" has come to the point that it excuses the illegal and dangerous actions of the "morally challenged" as they are now called.

It is much easier to blame the problem on an inanimate object, as those don't have feelings or hire lawyers to sue you.

Answer 7

some say because we have no more room in prisons. Okay, lets make room. Those on death row, don't give them 5-10 years, get it done and over with. That will free up ALOT of space.

Answer 8

The socialist side of Congress wants to take our guns away because it would mean more power with less threat of an uprising.

Answer 9

the liberal government is afraid of the 2nd amendment,they know what it really means and would like to obolish it

Answer 10

Because the majority of liberals are beta manlets