we know that americans usually go on about the right to bear arms and their constitution, blah blah blah, but what do the police in america think about the lax gun laws? do they feel any different to the general public and the bush administration?
2007-12-06 05:17:33 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
The Americans laugh at us British banning guns. If it means that we do not have massacres like we regularly see in the USA then who are the foolish ones.
2007-12-06 07:27:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
This is the best answer ever to your question:
People know the list: Virginia Tech saw 32 murdered earlier this year; the Columbine High School shooting left 13 murdered in 1999; Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, had 23 who were fatally shot by a deranged man in 1991; and a McDonald's in Southern California had 21 people shot dead by an unemployed security guard in 1984.
All these attacks — indeed, all attacks involving more than a small number of people being killed — happened in gun-free zones.
In recent years, similar attacks have occurred across the world, including in Australia, France, Germany and Britain. Do all these countries lack enough gun-control laws? Hardly. The reverse is more accurate.
The law-abiding, not criminals, are obeying the rules. Disarming the victims simply means that the killers have less to fear. As Wednesday's attack demonstrated yet again, police are important, but they almost always arrive at the crime scene after the crime has occurred.
The longer it takes for someone to arrive on the scene with a gun, the more people who will be harmed by such an attack.
Most people understand that guns deter criminals. If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, "This Home Is a Gun-Free Zone"? But that is what the Westroads Mall did.
2007-12-06 07:27:06 · answer #2 · answered by thunderintheheavens 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with "How I'd get to be a".
If the civilians around the Omaha shooter were armed one of them could have taken that bastard down!
While the sentiment behind gun control sounds nice, it is not a reality. Like all contraband (this includes weapons), criminals will find a way to get it, laws do not seem to be a deterrant from ill behavor. Like D.C., gun bans are heavily enforced here in NYC as well, but most homicides are linked to gun violence!
The police can't be everywhere. By the time they arrived lives were lost and the shooter dead. Even is mall security was packing they probably would not have stopped him soon enough - only a citizen with a gun on hand nearby could have taken him out.
Happy Holidays!
2007-12-06 05:33:37 · answer #3 · answered by jennifer_weisz 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
It probably depends on what police department and what region of the country you're talking about. Cops in a liberal region will likely hold the same opinion as the general population. Cops in my area, for instance, strongly support the right to bear arms and would continue to do so event if they weren't in law inforcement.
As for gun laws, the cities with the strictest gun laws tend to have the most gun crimes (Washington D.C.).
2007-12-06 05:24:43 · answer #4 · answered by jd4640 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
in line with risk it is with the aid of fact, in the u . s ., each guy and his dogs is armed, and to that end there's a much greater effectual risk of having shot. As occurred at present, in between the (all too usual) recent mass shootings, the place 3 police have been ambushed and killed by making use of a few nut with a gun. The police right here in Australia are additionally "laid lower back", and police shootings indexed right here are extreme adequate to warrant extensive media interest. i'm yet to be confident that "greater weapons recommend much less crime", yet meanwhile i understand the place i might fairly stay.
2016-10-10 09:55:35 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The right to bear arms is not a Bush issue. It's a Constitutional one. It is my right to own a gun. If one other person in that mall had a gun, the death toll may have fallen. Why do you libs cry for freedom, them try to take it away when it contradicts your beliefs.
2007-12-06 05:22:22 · answer #6 · answered by only p 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
sorry puddy yo u have it all wrong.. were ever in the USA people are ALLOWED to carry guns crime is near non existent.. there are nuts every were . he could have used a knife or a club. it makes no difference the weapon..
gun control is: steady and sure aim , one shot one kill.
i don't mean like the cops who fire hundreds of rounds at a person with only a few making the target. and i don't mean the sniper police or otherwise who just like to kill.
i mean a law abiding citizen who has enough control to do what he or she must. had there been one or two in Omaha the killer would have been dead far sooner
2007-12-06 05:46:41 · answer #7 · answered by IHATETHEEUSKI 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If the constitution takes away the rights and freedom of possessing fire arms, only the criminals will have the guns. They will simply buy them through "Black Market" making crime stronger then ever.
2007-12-06 05:33:18 · answer #8 · answered by Vida 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Feeling sorry for the Texas burglars, are we?
Guns are part of our culture. Washington DC has a ban on guns, and you know what? 80% of their homicides are due to guns.
Ponder that for a moment.
Now, honest citizens deserve to protect themselves. I don't want to live in a country where only criminals are allowed to carry guns.
2007-12-06 05:22:16 · answer #9 · answered by Yahoo Answer Angel 6 · 8⤊ 2⤋
Only in America !
2007-12-06 06:37:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋