To everyone who answered my question: If I may clarify what I mean when I say "gun control" to all these people out there who weren't too happy with my question: I have no intentions of debating over taking away all the guns because that would be ludicrous, and leave us completely defenseless to the people that don't care about the gun-control law. I'm only proposing that the requirements to possess a deadly firearm should be heightened and the more powerful firearms shouldn't be available to the general public. To help prevent future disasters like the horrible Virginia Tech tragedy. But hey I just wanted to thank every1 for taking the time out of their busy schedules to help me out, and really do sincerely think everyone has their right to their own opinions. After all, we do liv in the greatest country the world has ever known! PS.To the person who told me their dad was murdered. You have my deepest sympathies…
2007-10-20 22:38:32 · 2 answers · asked by Tim t 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
not again...
''requirements to possess a deadly firearm '' there are roughly 20,000 laws on the books re firearm ownership.
How many more will make it all better ?
"disasters like the horrible Virginia Tech tragedy''
The shooter used two pistols, one of them a .22 - not the most powerful weapon...
Realize this : I don't disagree with protecting people, I just think that more laws aren't any help and restricting weapons only affects those who obey the law.
2007-10-21 06:24:19 · answer #1 · answered by sirbobby98121 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Firearms are just a natural evolution from crossbows, which were a derivative of a bow and arrow. Emotions may sway an audience, but won't help you win a debate. The easy way to counter the argument guns kill is to produce an emptymagazine and ammo. IF the ammo doesn't load itself into the magazine and subsequently into the firearm, the firearm is just a fancy paperweight. But since a firearm is an inanimate object it is subject to the rules of physics. It can't kill. A firearm is a tool like any other tool, no better no worse than the person that wields it. ANY tool can be used as a weapon. Any doubts contact the Department of Corrections of your state for information. Gun control is an interesting concept from the way the Brady's push it. For some reason an inanimate object having 28,000 laws isn't enough. For some reason, those for 'gun control' seam to think one more law is going to make a criminal obey. Insanity if the criminal is already ignoring thousands of laws. You can use stats, but as Sam Clemens once said there are three kinds of lies. Lies, Danged (edited for content) lies, statistics. There is always away of twisting stats to say what you want them to. The problem is doctors actually kill more people than are killed by people using firearms. As far as what the Founders say about firearms ownership, the Federalist Papers totally back the idea of private ownership of firearms. I don't really understand what you mean by different types of ammunition, but your being short-sighted if you think human development should stop with inferior ammo (along with New Jersey). Hollow-points are used for self-defense and law enforcement so there isn't an over-penitration thus protecting innocent life in the vacinity. Ball ammo is used for target practice and for the military. There are various hunt rounds also. Also, the frangible bullet was developed so it would have "bean bag" type affect on a subject w/o killing them, but that's just a technological development you don't really need...I guess you would rather have a dead criminal. In all honesty, I'm for gun control too. It involves training, a good fire safe, a triple retention holster, and hitting what I'm aiming at. Anything else violates the constitution
2016-05-23 23:44:40 · answer #2 · answered by marybeth 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋