without admitting that they do it with guns?
For the hardnuts, sure there are other ways to kill, but they are not as easy and as cowardly as pointing a gun FROM A DISTANCE. As someone else pointed out, most murders are done in an emotional outburst when a gun is handy.
2007-09-22 04:29:01 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
guns are bad and the ones behind them are COWARDS!! F them both
2007-09-22 05:31:41 · answer #1 · answered by mommy 4 · 1⤊ 5⤋
It is a very very great pity that nobody ever thought of keeping some statistics on the number of instances in which a gun has SAVED lives. Certainly saved the lives of innocent people, because I for one don't give a damn about the life of the criminal who was the aggressor.
I am personally aware of a few instances where a lawful, law-abiding person escaped becoming the victim of a criminal assault because he had a gun. In some cases he didn't even have to use it - showing it was enough to make the would-be assailant suddenly remember he had an urgent appointment somewhere else.
While it is true that the majority of cases in which a person got killed with a gun were because the shooter had one handy, it is also almost always a fact that the INNOCENT person dies, which means that it isn't the gun that should be indicted here, but the psychological state of the shooter. Guns are the weapon of choice in almost all cases of criminal violence, which tells you that the problem is that these weapons are freely available to people with that kind of a mindset. If a law was passed tomorrow, that outlawed all handguns, guess which faction of society would lose theirs....... That's right, the law-abiding citizens. Which means we would now have a situation in which all the violence-minded criminals would still have theirs, and millions of innocent, right-minded , law-abiding citizens (like myself I would add), who are responsible, registered gun-owners, would be divested of their best means of self- defence against anyone who would seek to harm them for personal gain, or any other reason. You betcha I want the "edge" of being able to get my assailant from a distance, before he could get his hands on me, because if he did, he wouldn't need a gun to separate me from my breath. I am no youthful, 200 pound female WWE Wrestler! I'd sure love to be, because nothing would give me a bigger kick than to be able to get ahold of a would-be assailant and pound him to a broken-boned pulp. I'd get far more satisfaction out of being able to do that than killing him. But I'm not, and I can't, and I still deserve the right to a means of self defence, even if the circumstances require the use of deadly force.
2007-09-22 05:03:59 · answer #2 · answered by sharmel 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes. And most murders are committed by criminals who do not get guns legally. Not sure the point you're trying to make here but if it is that guns are too accessible, make sure you have your facts straight.
Yes, due to an inadequate judicial system, guns are far too accessible to criminals. But they would be whether there were stiffer gun laws or not. Criminals don't get their guns from the local gun shop. They obtain them illegally on the street.
Statistically, when firearms are readily available to law abiding citizens, gun violence goes DOWN. Not up. Gun restrictions only penalize the innocent, not the criminals.
2007-09-22 04:40:14 · answer #3 · answered by skullklipz 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
American Zero where are your facts to support this outrageous question people kill period they use all kinds of weapons guns are a small percentage of this but because of Liberal Media hype get the most coverage look at the latest mutable killers they used Drowning Hanging and stabbing and were all used against Family members
2007-09-22 04:37:52 · answer #4 · answered by tap158 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why don't you do some research and share with us rather then spout nonsense. Knives are just as dangerous.
http://crimefilenews.blogspot.com/2006/03/gun-vs-knife.html
Remember the Va. tech. shooter? Yeah he shot and killed people, but he would have killed people anyway, one of the methods he considered was a chainsaw. A CHAINSAW!
How do you suggest stopping someone with a chainsaw?
2007-09-22 04:48:19 · answer #5 · answered by Drixnot 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You're right- guns kill from a distance.
So to you, honesty is measured in feet ? Hmmm.
Poison works at a distance, so that's OK, right ?
And of course, people WITHOUT guns kill, just talk to
Cain and Abel.
So- you're just wrong.
2007-09-22 06:53:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
there is a very simple and quick test to see which one kills.
1.lay a unloaded gun on a table.watch it for 30 days.then asnwer if the gun gets up on its own and shoots someone
2.put a unloaded gun on a table next to a box of shells.does the gun load itself or shoot itself.
3.the top two tests show that it is the human that loads,shoots, and kills
2007-09-22 19:52:07 · answer #7 · answered by charlsyeh 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Every one I know has access to guns. None of them have killed anyone. I find comfort in knowing they could if the need arises. Restricting access to guns for the law abiding public just makes them easier prey for the law breakers.
2007-09-22 04:38:01 · answer #8 · answered by panda_lynda 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Most deaths due to gunshot wounds occur after being shot at a distance of 20 feet or less. When it comes to being shot, I wouldn't spend a moment's time being concerned with issues of distance as it's gonna be up close and personal!
2007-09-22 04:35:49 · answer #9 · answered by Fast Eddie B 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
But that would defeat the purpose of having a motto....
When a slogan or motto is intended to defend one's ideals, admitting that one's ideals are part of the problem is self-defeating.
2007-09-22 04:34:56 · answer #10 · answered by Yoda's Duck 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
not all people with guns kill
2007-09-22 06:01:13 · answer #11 · answered by Rusty Shackelferd 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋