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

Remember the school shootings and some areas of the country (big cities) are much different than the woods of Michigan.

2007-11-13 11:58:33 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Calhus: Thats funny!! What happens if you dont do your home work? So how do you assume I am a gun nut or I even own a gun?

2007-11-13 12:09:32 · update #1

Fretless: Insurance for gun owners is interesting

2007-11-13 12:11:07 · update #2

Misty Blue: Haha!! yess. You shoot someone you'll be guilty of tax evaision also!!

2007-11-13 12:50:44 · update #3

We really do have to admit that unlike other tools, guns are killing tools and handguns are people killing tools.

2007-11-13 12:54:24 · update #4

20 answers

Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. He understands that every law-abiding American has an individual right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed by the Constitution. To deal with a city where crime was out of control, Mayor Giuliani worked to get guns out of the hands of criminals — resulting in a 66% drop in the murder rate and 72% reduction in criminal related shootings. The best way to deal with gun crime is to prosecute the criminals and enforce the laws already on the books. Rudy Giuliani will make sure that if someone commits a crime with a gun, they will go to prison for the mandatory sentence.

http://www.joinrudy2008.com/issues/

2007-11-13 14:44:18 · answer #1 · answered by wider scope 7 · 1 2

Practice. Seriously, we have plenty of gun control laws on the books. How 'bout we enforce some of the ones we already have before we take the law abiding citizen's guns away. When I went to school, there was always a number of pickups in the parking lot with shotguns and rifles in the back window, and we ALL carried pocket knives to school. When we had a beef with someone, we butted heads and duked it out. No one EVER thought of going out to the pickup and getting a gun and shooting up the school. Don't forget, we've had more school shootings since we've increased gun control laws than we did prior.
There is an old saying, "an armed society is a polite society". Let me ask you a question: If you thought that someone was armed, would you be as likely to start trouble with them?

EDIT:
Fretless, Would you require the same "education, licensing, and insurance requirements" for owners of steak knives, butcher knives, baseball bats and fists?
ADDITION
Fretless, if students were allowe to carry concealed weapons, maybe, just maybe, that nut job could have been stopped when he started shooting.

2007-11-13 20:10:26 · answer #2 · answered by madd texan 6 · 2 2

If it makes you feel any better Richard---I don't think you sound like a gun-nut ;)
We need to look to Canada and Western Europe for intelligent guidance; these nations have strict gun-control laws and gun-related violence that is almost nonexistent compared to our own. (Exception: Finland, and we all know what just happened there.)
I have little problem with people owning shotguns or rifles. The problem comes with handguns (of which the entire point is that it's easily concelaed) and the NRA's insistence that it's practically every American's "right' to own an RPG launcher. What American citizen "needs" to own a semi-automatic weapon unless he/she has ill intent? While I'd love to see handguns banned altogether, our society is now so saturated with them that it's an unlikely possibility. I think the logical step would be to ban the ammunition used in them, as well as assault weapons.

2007-11-13 20:17:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Hey Richard. I don't have anything to do with illegal drugs (stick with me here). But I know if I wanted a common drug of some type, all I need to do is call around and a friend of a friend chain reaction will probably get me what I want in a day or two. But I'm a law biding guy and am not going to do that. If we disarm our citizens, the same thing would apply. If I really wanted a gun, again, I would just have to call around. But being a law biding guy, I won't do that. What that tells me is just the criminal element will be armed. I know that the police can't defend me all the time, and the day may come when I have to do it myself. And yes, I belong to a shooting club and constant safety and training is part of it. Also, Great Britain and Australia have both disarmed their citizens, and crime has increased at both locations.

2007-11-13 20:10:47 · answer #4 · answered by Derail 7 · 1 2

What is the difference between 'gun control' and 'firearms regulation'? We've had firearms regulation for many, many years and I hear very few serious suggestions that they should all be repealed, that firearms should be totally unregulated. So I don't see what the issue is here. We might need to to re-examine our gun regulations and make some changes and reforms in areas where there are problems, but I just don't see any realistic possibility of a ban on firearms. This is much ado about nothing.

2007-11-13 20:14:08 · answer #5 · answered by kill_yr_television 7 · 2 1

The main strength of fretless' point, to me, is this:

If gunowners were required to carry liability insurance, it would probably take the profit-driven insurers about five minutes to figure out how to ID the most dangerous (both physically and fiscally) threats and how to keep guns from their hands.

That would be a case of the benevolent power of the market at work.

2007-11-13 20:21:07 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 4 0

Gun owners like to make a comparison between guns and automobiles because a car has just as much lethal potential... Ok, I'll give them that. Then why would they be opposed to a gun owner having to go through the same amount licensing, registration, education and insurance as an automobile owner?

EDIT: Madd Texan: Only if you can show me how that nut case at VT could have killed that many people (unimpeded) in 2 hours with his fists...

2007-11-13 20:06:16 · answer #7 · answered by Fretless 6 · 1 2

The best solution is compromise.
On the one side, we have people who want to eliminate all firearms from the public altogether - and on the other side, we have people who think that the Right To Bear Arms includes shoulder fired anti-tank rockets.
I have no problem with banning assault rifles and other fully automatic weapons - I have a serious problem with banning all weapons.

2007-11-13 20:10:02 · answer #8 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 3 0

The only solution is to allow any law abiding citizen the right to own 1, 2 or 40, if they so choose.

Placing the gun in a vise, would probably be the most effective gun control.

2007-11-13 20:03:08 · answer #9 · answered by Bubba 6 · 6 2

Enforce the Gun laws that are already on the books. The US Government does not need new laws!!

2007-11-13 21:16:26 · answer #10 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers