2007-12-06 20:46:39 · 13 answers · asked by therazorsx 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I would never want to abandon the 2nd amendment but I would like some stricter controls in place. No more "gun shows", no more weapons with clips that can hold more than 10 rounds at a time. How about if your gun is stolen then you are responsible for its use or misuse. If someone dies because you couldn't control the use of your gun then you get the death penalty along with the perp, huh? Something must be done....
2007-12-06 21:10:31 · update #1
No, it is time to respect the constitution & allow every citizen the right to defend themselves. The 2nd ammendment was not written to provide the National Guard with weapons.
In Response to stolen gun hypothesis:
If indeed you take this position, then you must charge those whose automobile is stolen, if death or injury occurs from this. Far more are killed by stolen vehicles than by stolen guns... but the media seldom mentions this. I own several rifles, shotguns & one hand gun (for which I have a concealed permit). Because I am a rural Texan, I consider these weapons necessary for self defense (it would take more than an hr. to get law enforcement assistance should I need it.)
These nut cases that shot law abiding citizens like fish in a barrel wouldn't be able to do that if more people were armed. Even a hand gun would have distracted this guy long enough for more to get away & would have stopped the Virginia Tech shooter long before he killed 31 people.
2007-12-06 21:05:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I assume you're referencing the recent tragedy at the mall in Omaha.
What the media fails to mention, however, is that the mall is a "gun free zone." This is a perfect example of how stricter gun control laws will only lead to the deaths of more people. That kid knew he would face absolutlely no armed resistance and could freely kill as many people as he wished.
Now, since this mall is gun free, there was not an armed, law-abiding citizen with a concealed weapon license there to blow this psycho away before he simply ran out of ammo and used the last bullet on himself. I'm not saying that any Joe Ordinary with a gun woulda had the balls to fire back at this guy but the chances are much greater that somebody could have popped this guy before he got to his 13th victim.
This is clearly a case where tougher gun control laws only led to more carnage and more deaths of innocent people. That kid was going to get a gun regardless. No laws would have stopped him. What could have stopped him was someone with the means to fire back.
Edit: Oh, and BTW, your logic is totally flawed with your examples of what you think would be good gun control laws.
"no more weapons with clips that can hold more than 10 rounds at a time." How will that help? I'll just carry more magazines to store all my extra ammo.
"How about if your gun is stolen then you are responsible for its use or misuse. If someone dies because you couldn't control the use of your gun then you get the death penalty along with the perp." That is absolutely ludicrous. What if someone steals my car, gets drunk, and kills a pedestrian? Should I be held partly responsible for that?
2007-12-07 05:53:15 · answer #2 · answered by crackah 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
If, "by this country", you mean the USA the answer is no. I don't know if you are just bringing this up as a talking point or if you are for the idea, but the following comments are directed towards anyone that advocates gun control. I try but fail to understand, how anyone can ever advocate this idea. The reasons against this are numerous.
1. Guns are our final defense against the government. Consider that we have 26 states with active movements which wish to succeed from the United States of America. The reason this is happening, is because many feel our government is full of corruption. If our guns are confiscated, how do you suggest we keep our government in line? With protest? I think we have seen how well that works. If it would come down to it, and the citizens of this country would have to overthrow our government because of it's corruption and unwillingness to change, how do you suggest we do it?
2. Banning guns does not make one safer, it only make one feel safer. There is a huge difference between the two. It has been shown, time and time again that the murder rates of these countries actually rises once guns are removed from the hands of honest citizens. People will cite statistics, which show the death rate of people who die of gunshot wounds, dropping. This is fine, if they also want to cite the statistics, which show that the overall rate of people who die from violent attack jumps dramatically. Criminals just switch to different weapons and the honest citizen is left at a disadvantage. This is a proven fact. 80% of the time, the police are not going to be there when a crime is perpetrated and honest peoples lives are put in danger. Why anyone would advocate taking away an honest citizens right to protect themselves, is beyond me. If you ban guns, that is all you would be doing. There are so many guns in this country, do you honestly think the criminals would turn them in? No, it would only be the honest citizen.
The bottom line is that we should not ban guns. I will not list all of the reasons why because I would be here awhile. These are the two best reasons though. People should not be so quick to advocate the destruction of freedom, because of fear. I do not understand why people are so quick to trust the government, when we see the corruption and scandal that is uncovered daily. Granted that these shootings are terrible, but they are not reason enough to take away once of our most basic and essential rights. Regardless of whatever law might pass, my guns will never voluntarily leave my house. As the saying goes, they will pry them from my cold dead fingers. That is how strongly I feel on this subject.
2007-12-07 05:42:30 · answer #3 · answered by Danny 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That would do what? Do you know how silly it sounds to say that we need more laws to keep criminals from getting guns? They are called criminals because they break laws.
Laws do nothing but control the actions of those who are willing to follow them. The criminals, like Robert Hawkins who went out and stole a gun, will always find a way to get guns.
Your suggestion that the gun owner who has had his gun(s) stolen is just as responsible for whatever crime that is commited with it is plain ridiculous. More severe punishments and less attention from the media would be helpful.
2007-12-07 05:13:35 · answer #4 · answered by bootedbylibsx2 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. If the attempt is ever made to force such unconstitutional restrictions on us it will be time to rise up and use our guns as the Founders intended and take back control of the government.
No more "gun control". Its actual goal is freedom control.
2007-12-07 06:14:29 · answer #5 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What are you talking about. We have so many laws on the books which are NOT enforced, and you want to add more useless laws? What we need is CRIMINAL control, not gun control. Put the blame where it belongs. But I guess you aniti-gun people are just blind to this kind of logic.
2007-12-07 07:34:37 · answer #6 · answered by WC 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
We already do, but stricter gun control would only give criminals more of an unfair advantage.
To say "guns kill people" is like saying "this keyboard is responsible for my typos."
Personally, I love it when a carjacker or home intruder gets shot. It's one less on the streets to target me.
2007-12-07 04:57:36 · answer #7 · answered by doug4jets 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
We have gun control.... the problem is it only controls the law abiding citizens.
2007-12-07 05:28:29 · answer #8 · answered by Destrier 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
NO NO NO i say let all law bidding people have big poweful guns. and allow the to shoot those who try to shoot them or those that break into there house.
2007-12-07 05:32:11 · answer #9 · answered by tentieooo 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No I'm for more 2ND amendment freedom, we have a right to protect oneself. If your really concerned about saving lives you might try banding cars
2007-12-07 04:56:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋