English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

22 answers

This is such a if question. If criminals did not have superior firepower to the normal family..yes...I think that said "normal family" should own a gun and not have it anywhere near a child could find it...at night keep it bedside - Daytime hide it so well it is not a issue....but how many people can be that vigilant? It is a hard question.

2007-11-12 14:05:17 · answer #1 · answered by CherryCheri 7 · 1 0

If guns are controled it only stops the good guys from protection. Bad guys will get their hands on guns with or without control. There in lies the problem. While it sounds good, control guns lessen violent crime, but it doesn't work that way. Thugs get guns from places where good guys don't. The street, black market, theft. If the honorable people don't have access to weapons they can't fight back. Working in a large metropolitan city I will tell you that the guns on the streets are either stolen, fenced, obtained by illegal ways while the ones with legal guns are slowly fighting a loosing battle. Home invasions, drive by's, you name it, when a gun is found, most often its not owned by the person who had it and more often the person who has it would legally be denied access to it through legal honorable means.

2007-11-12 14:09:45 · answer #2 · answered by Agilaha 2 · 1 0

It might make a difference if you can control the importation and manufacture of them. Here in the US, I believe there are actually more guns than people, and our borders are huge and hard to defend, so gun control probably has minimum impact.

I am a gun owner, but I'll never join the NRA. They take a reasonable position, defense of the second amendment, and twist it into a extreme dogma. It's funny, I suspect most NRA members would criticize the ACLU, never once realizing the irony of that criticism.

2007-11-12 14:06:44 · answer #3 · answered by Chance20_m 5 · 0 1

well i am quite sure that I am in the minority here, but now a defense attorney after putting in my 20 years as a prosecutor I dont' think gun contron helps one single bit. If you reallly think about it, it is just like any other law or precautionary tactic: IT APPEARS THAT ONLY THE TRUE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS ACTUALLY COMPLY WITH THE REGULATION, so who benefits from that????? All law abiding good normal everyday citizens follow the law. They buy guns legally, they make application for them wait for the background check to come back and then if they are responsible they take lessons if they are not already versed and proficient in the art of cleaning, using, storing, handling a gun etc.. They take all the necessary precautions to ensure that their family does not get hurt by the gun or that a neighborhood child does not have access to the gun. They use it for hunting and they get the requisite hunting license. If they intend to carry it concealed they get a permit to do so. Now take a look at 92.6% of the guns that are used in crimes, they are either stolen, bought on the street and untracable, they are used by thugs who have no proper training in thehandling of a gun except watching other thugs shoot. They don't care about human life, not even their own. Sorry if I sound so cynical I have put killers on death row, I have prosecuted 17 year old kids who kill because their buddy told them to or because their freind "dissed" them or stole a 20 dolllar rock from them. I just successfully defended my first 2 degree homicide (first on the defense side) It was a victory b/c my client was not the killer, but he was there. Did he know more than he let on or more than he told me????? Only he and God know that> But a nice man, 88 years old was gunned down by someone he was with, and guess how they got him out of his home to rob him? pretended that their car was out of gas and they were thirsty, so the old man feeling sorry for them brought them some water. The kindest and most innocent gift of all , water to thirsty young men got him killed. One of the jurors asked me after the trial why the DA never put on evidence that the gun was registered to my client. I wanted to laugh and cry at the same time. Did this naive man of forty live in a hole? Did he truly believe these 6 african american boys from the projects each purchased their gun through legal channels and had them registered in their names?????
Please. The really sad part... i asked my client once it was all over why he had a gun when he had never shot a gun nor did he know how? his answer:: because everyone in his neighborhood and at his school had a "piece" if you don't you get killed, but if you have one, just the very nature of showing it keeps you from beong the prey. what has our worlld come to. Gun control, H--L no it does not help. What we need is more progrmas for juvenile crime so we can stop the young criminals while they are still young enough to give a DA-n about human life.

2007-11-12 14:26:32 · answer #4 · answered by dreamwhip 4 · 0 1

Well there are arguments to both sides, they are both kind of long so im going to give a quick summary of both sides and let you decide and look into the details.

For gun control:
Every year innocent people are killed due to gun related accidents or by some maniac junkie who got a hold of a gun via the loose gun laws.

Against gun control:
If people were more responsible with their weapons tragic accidents would not happen, as for criminals, they would find some way to get a hold of a gun anyway, so taking guns away from the public disarms the innocent and give criminals power.

both sides have logic to them but at this point i personally think that there is not a piece of decisive evidence to point either way.

2007-11-12 14:07:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I don't think it makes a difference in the U.S., because we aren't really serious about it. If you contrast us to some other countries that are really serious about gun control, and I think you would see that it can work if you really want it to. That's not to say they have no guns, there will always be exceptions, but they have far fewer than we do. Few enough that in some places the police don't even bother carrying guns themselves.

2007-11-12 14:05:16 · answer #6 · answered by Modest 5 · 1 0

It does not make a difference. only people who don't break the laws will follow the gun control laws.
Any local corner thug will tell you that they don't have to wait three days to get a gun and they don't have to show ID to the guy selling them out of his trunk.

2007-11-12 14:05:41 · answer #7 · answered by kia 2 · 0 1

people that watch TV-are under the impression that gun control works--of course gun control--is nothing but a delusion--pretreated by the liberal press news media--Guns are used by citizens--to defend there selves-and family from bad people-one gets the impression that gun control is good--but in reality--gun control is a very dangerous-concept--for people that want to be free

2007-11-12 14:08:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It makes a difference to an extent. Being proactive about whose hands guns fall into is the first step, and a good one.

In the end however, it comes down to a person's free will to do what he/she wants to.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

2007-11-12 14:05:50 · answer #9 · answered by Brandon 2 · 1 0

I don't think it makes that big a difference. If people want the guns they'll get them. And if they don't want them found they won't. I think they should be a little more strickter on who they give them to. I personally don't think enough of the right people have them. And I don't mean cops.

2007-11-12 14:05:36 · answer #10 · answered by GNR 2 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers