From the civilian law enforcement people? It was a Sheriff's deputy that did the shooting.
Other civilians should not have their Second Amendment rights infringed upon either, because they might need to protect themselves from a nut-case that could be from anywhere.
2007-10-07 17:39:48 · 11 answers · asked by ? 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No it is not. If time has taught us nothing else, it is that a person bent on destruction will find the means to achieve his end. Tougher gun laws, relaxed gun laws, it wouldn't have mattered. If you want a gun, you can find one some where and if you want to use it, well there is really no stopping that.
2007-10-07 17:45:53 · answer #1 · answered by hensleyclaw 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! I was born and raised in Crandon. Almost everyone up there owns a gun. Many rely on the guns for food through the hunting seasons, to feel protected from the monsters that seem to grow in this world in leaps and bounds. The tragedy is not in the fact that an off-duty officer had a gun, the tragedy is that more than likely some rampant nepotism allowed child to join it's ranks. I have not lived in Crandon in years, but do know many of the victims or their families. Had the boy not had an issued weapon to do the deed that he did, there were more than likely plenty of weapons at his disposal, and not just guns. You cannot blame the gun for the weilder. What should be questioned is how much was done to research the boy's background? Where is his psychological profile, who authorized deputizing a mere child not even old enough to drink, but apparently old enough to arrest those that do?
Everytime someone has a psychological breakdown you cannot blame the weapon of choice. Had the murders occurred using a knife would you then shout for all knives to be removed from people's homes? Had the murders occurred by using fire would you scream for people to give up their matches and their bics? Do not use this communities tragedy to promote your cause. Realize that some people just are not mentally capable of handling "real life". And why would they be? We live in a society where children are given whatever they want, they're forced to be included in all sports regardless of skill, they are not spanked to enforce their punishments, they are taught early on that the consequences for their actions are negligible. Use this tragedy to scrutinized the child you're raising to see if you're doing a proper job.
2007-10-08 05:10:30 · answer #2 · answered by FormerCrandonite 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No it should have nothing to do with gun laws.. if anything peoples mental health should be screened better before they are allowed to become police officers and carry guns.. When you make tight gun laws. all you do is take away the good peoples right to shoot back.. As people have said in the previous answers to this.. The bad people who would do a thing like this, will always find means to do it , by creating strict gun laws you just take away the means of the good people to protect themselves.. I guarantee if a law is ever imposed that forces us to give up our guns you will not see many murderers or gang members in the line to turn theirs in.. Think about it . Maybe in a perfect world.. but the world in which we live is not that perfect world.
PS. May God bless the Souls of all those poor kids in Crandon WI .
That incident is a tragity beyond words.
2007-10-08 01:52:08 · answer #3 · answered by justmeagain2099 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No I don't. Second Ammendment rights should not be violated or eliminated because of one case. I grew up in and around Crandon, and knew many of the victims, and no one could have seen this coming. Tyler Peterson was just a normal 20-year-old young man. There was absolutely no warning.
2007-10-08 08:14:02 · answer #4 · answered by SJG 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you already know they tried doing away with the weapons in Chicago. The handgun homicide cost went up over 50 p.c.. doing away with the weapons leaves the persons on the mercy of the criminals. the government will take my weapons from my chilly lifeless palms. whilst our Founders wrote the form that they had a reason at the back of the 2nd replace. They needed to make optimistic that we the persons had the main suitable to maintain weapons in case they grew to grow to be like England. That way the persons would be armed and would desire to combat tyrannic government. additionally a ragtag military utilising commonly happening civilian weapons has defeated a some distance stronger (in education and kit) military formerly, like in the renowned conflict, the Soviet conflict In Afghanistan and in Saddam's invasion of Iran. So sure, sufficient people armed with Colt M1911's would desire to beat an enemy. yet maximum folk i understand have .30-06 and .308 rifles. bypass ask Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin and Mao how nicely gun administration worked. I thoroughly accept as true with Bertrand. in case you like a RPG or a bazooka bypass forward. in basic terms be secure approximately it. you like a quad-.50 high quality Ma Deuce AA gun? bypass forward. Minigun? bypass forward! do in basic terms not attempt to wreck me or all of us else. in basic terms invite me to shoot it some situations.
2016-10-21 10:10:26 · answer #5 · answered by sutliff 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no they def should not take guns away...
youll end up with a gang all carrying guns
and a cop with a taser..whos going to win?
Id rather see them take the taser away, cops are over using them...even at my wedding the cops were called and we live in a small town and for no reason the cop who knows my husband well pulled a taser on my husband..
what happend in Crandon yesterday was horrible...but I dont think this one can be blamed on law enforcement..at the time of the shooting he was just a guy..that went nuts
2007-10-08 01:35:19 · answer #6 · answered by hi_iduntcyber_doyou 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Or maybe if those killed had HAD guns they would have been able to defend themselves.
Either way, these folks are right....criminals will always be able to get guns...tought gun laws only keep GOOD people from being able to have a gun....bad people have no problem getting a gun....Id rather have one and not need it than need it and not have it.
2007-10-07 17:51:57 · answer #7 · answered by fortwynt 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
So sick of every time something happens with a gun we are quick to think it's time to take them all away. hmmmmm guess we better remove all the cars from the roads..get rid of all the knives.. ropes.. poisons .. no wait..maybe we just need to get rid of all the people. None of these things are weapons til the people make them so.
2007-10-07 17:50:25 · answer #8 · answered by Levi L 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
A law enforcement official can carry his ordnance weapon even in countries that limit heavily the right to bear arms.
So this event is not related to arms regulation
2007-10-07 23:45:23 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
no. if anything had the victims been armed they could have fought back.Outcome less dead.
2007-10-07 18:11:13 · answer #10 · answered by Macisbac 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋