Their per day death rate is 10x what the military has in Iraq.
2007-10-10 09:29:55 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I know you've heard this before, but when guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns. (I am including the cops in this. Think about it.)
When people are not permitted to own guns, they cannot defend their homes and property, let alone their persons. Certainly, the police will investigate the crime after the fact, but you are just as dead.
Did you know that one of the first things the Nazi party did upon gaining power was to outlaw private guns? They didn't want anyone to be able to defend themselves when a knock on the door came in the middle of the night.
2007-10-10 09:41:59 · answer #1 · answered by auntb93 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Murderers don't wake up and say "Darn, I was going to go the mall and kill someone today but the State Congress just passed that pesky no concealed carry law"
They're called criminals because they break the law.
Banning firearms only inhibits law abiding citizens from having or brandishing firearms. Are "No Gun Zones" at schools ever going to stop someone from bringing a semi-automatic into class and murdering the students? Is this person going to make it all the way to the school with the intent of committing murder, see the "No Gun Zone" sign and turn around, deterred? Of course not. Just like "Drug Free Zones" don't keep drugs or drug dealers out. Criminals don't care for laws.
There were two students in the dorm at VT where the massacre took place that were lawfully allowed to carry concealed weapons but couldn't because of the schools "No Firearm Policy", had they been able to carry them, that tragedy may have ended much sooner. Those laws did not stop that man from murder dozens of people though, did they? How will more restrictive laws do a better job?
2007-10-10 10:47:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I suspect that you have viewed my profile, and know that I, too, am an ol' vet.
I have had a CHL( CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE) per the state of TEXAS for several years, and there are about 19 - 20 states that honor the Texas license.
BTW I do believe that The Great State of Arizona was the first state with a c.h.l. ( BLESS YOU ARIZONIANS FOR YOUR SHOWING THE WAY !!!!!) ( I worked at Palo Verde Nuc. Pwr. Station when EV Meekum was your governor and was there when the libbers set him up about the state paying a holiday for a certain someone).
I, personally proposed this Idea, to some of our politicians ( Yes, Texas has some of the best politicians that money can buy, and who are afraid of armed citizens) but I am afraid that the idea went nowhere :::
"Every U.S.A. Military Veteran, be tested, interviewed, criminal record checked out ( S.O.P. any way), and be ENCOURAGED TO OBTAIN A CHL, AND CARRY SUCH, AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE", with the state of TEXAS paying for at least 1/2 the costs !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Armed citizens are +/- 157 % safer than unarmed citizens", per the reports of 2005, "A.C.P.A." !!!!
2007-10-10 10:28:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
There was another school shooting today. I also wish for any links here. And what do you mean by oppressive, gun controls ?
Therefore = more use of guns? Please specify.
*Cleveland Ohio 14 yr old, the Mayor, Frank Jackson. The kid shot himself. Others wounded. Upset about being suspended. Is this an example ?
YES as it happens this is a Democratic Mayor who last week was working on stronger Gun Controls with other Ohio Mayors. (Google cleveland mayor frank jackson). But where did the 14 year old get the gun? NOT LEGALLY!
Your gang shootings are a majority MINORS shooting minors.
It is the wide range of easy access of weapons people fight. Not the honest, permit carrying, responsible, keeps in a safe average Gun Owner. Show me a majority of those!
2007-10-10 09:43:37 · answer #4 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't think political party has much to do with it.
Act D gave a spot-on answer.
One thing that really annoys me this week is the censoring of the major media (by themselves I suppose) regarding the Crandon Massacre.
That incident by itself last Sunday should stop the mindless attacks on the Second Amendment, but it won't.
The founding Fathers demanded the right of a fully armed populace as the result of their experience where the people were not allowed to be armed, only the gentry and their goons. We need look no further than Burma today to see what the result is.
2007-10-10 10:22:07 · answer #5 · answered by Gaspode 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
The undesirable adult men choose unarmed victims!!. whilst seconds remember calling 911 and asking the undesirable guy to attend isn't a workable determination. greater effectual to have a gun and not choose it than to be certain on it and not have it!!! **Police do no longer look after you from crime, they in many cases only look at the crime after it occurs.** so which you're against the indoors maximum ownerships of gun! Do you suspect in fire extinguishers? Why, you may constantly call the fire branch!! No weapons Allowed Criminals that's a protection loose zone All regulation abiding people have been disarmed for you
2016-10-21 23:01:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it has anything to do with political party per se, but is more of the same, as always seems to be the case w/strict gun control laws, the criminally minded know that the law-abiding citizens will not have guns and that they will, so there is an increase in illegal guns along with a decrease in the ability of the law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. more criminals come into the area as there is less chance of being shot by someone protecting their property. more criminals shooting innocents, more criminals shooting cops, more criminals shooting each other, more cops shooting criminals.
we should encourage law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms for no other purpose than as a deterrent to violent criminal behaviors.
crimes committed with a firearm should have massive penalties.
2007-10-10 09:43:33 · answer #7 · answered by Act D 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Apparently the 14 year old who killed himself at a school has been front-page news in the U.K. as well as the U.S. while the police officer who massacred six kids last Sunday is unknown.
That sort of censorship can have only one purpose.
2007-10-11 07:12:08 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
this is a real no brainer actually..... to quote my favorite bumper sticker....
when guns are outlawed...only outlaws will have guns....
and that is a sad state of affairs for our republic... limo liberals screaming for more gun control...and the logic of it is absurd!
marijuana, heroin, lsd, ecstasy...the list goes on and on...they are illegal...yet they continue to be a massive problem here...why?
because outlaws KNOW where to get them....they know which streetcorner sells the best...and by golly! guns will be no different....
we couldn't control alcohol during prohibition...can't control illegal substances now....and guns? are already a real money maker for the criminal element....
make guns illegal? it is not only against the constitution..it will make the gun runners richer than they ever imagined in their wildest dreams....
2007-10-10 12:40:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because the law abiding citizens who are being robbed/shot at, have nothing in which to protect/defend themselves. So they can't "fight back". Which gives the bad guys no deterrent.
2007-10-10 10:23:40 · answer #10 · answered by Tink 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋