There is no "guns" category here so I'll stick with the people I know and ask this here. There's an old saying that goes "A lock only keeps an honest man out."
Columbine - School policy said no guns allowed.
VA Tech - Guns were not allowed on school property.
Omaha Mall - Gun Free zone yet again.
The list goes on and on...
When we tell lawful citizens to keep their guns at home, the only people who have guns are the criminals. True or False?
There's another old says that goes "Why do I carry a gun? Because I can't carry a cop."
If there was a chance that someone ELSE had been armed, do you think the nutcases would have chosen another location? You never see a gun-toting wacko walk into a gun store and start blowing people away, do you?
2007-12-10 02:40:36 · 21 answers · asked by Last Ent Wife (RCIA) 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Skalite - If you believe in Evolution and societies are "evolving" into being more civilized, then don't you think we could handle today? Oh and BTW, there are at least a million armed citizens in America right now.
2007-12-10 02:45:37 · update #1
Acid Zebra - Sweetie, you've got some bad stereotypes that need correcting. The next time you're in the States my hubby and I will take you to the range. Citizens who own concealed carry permits are some of the most docile and lawful people in the country. We have intense regulations and rules to follow. For example, did you know that if I'm carrying I MUST, by law, walk away from a verbal altercation with someone?
And comparing your country to the US is not even in the same ballpark, really.
2007-12-10 02:58:02 · update #2
EVERYONE - See Jed's answer, thank you.
2007-12-10 03:09:03 · update #3
AZ - no, the the "paranoid people" was a stereotype. I'm not paranoid, and I'm sure the Great Gazbo down there isn't either.
2007-12-10 03:15:55 · update #4
Well they are ineffective at best.
Personally I have a concealed permit and do carry it. Maybe they would have been able to stop it, maybe not. You put yourself out there as the target when you return fire. But at least you aren't automatically the victim.
2007-12-10 02:47:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
Nope. I think it's fair to say though maybe Ms. Lanza should have done a better job of securing those weapons she purchased-- she knew full well her son was very mentally ill, she even withdrew him from the school system knowing this. Being Swiss, I strongly favor loose gun laws. In fact, prohibition-- be it of alcohol, guns, drugs-- has a well established history of failure. Mrs. Lanza though was negligent. I think that's fair to say. What do you think? BQ: American liberals and statists would argue that-- and they're wrong, but classical liberals are all about maximizing individual freedom. The issue here is the shooter wasn't getting the help he needed.
2016-04-08 05:47:17 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yep, they are. They can ban guns, but criminals will still get them. I am not worried about a neighbor who goes to a gun shop, waits for the 7 day background check, and purchases a gun. I'm worried about the people who are buying illegal guns, including military weapons, on the street. Living in a society with no violence is a nice thought and I think we all agree that we'd like that, but it's not a reality. If you take away people's rights to protect themselves, criminals will be the only ones who are armed. They will always find a way.
2007-12-10 02:49:12 · answer #3 · answered by Little Red Hen 2.0 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
All the examples above are of gun-free buildings within an easy-availability guns state. I would agree that if you're going to allow troubled teenagers to run around heavily armed, it's not a good idea to give them designated buildings where they are safe to shoot at will.
Even in states with somewhat tighter restrictions, it's hard to know how meaningful those restrictions are given how easy it is to go to another state to buy (and nonetheless, the numbers would appear to show some beneficial effect to stricter gun laws in these states).
Jed's example of D.C. is a perfect case -- put a gun-happy state next to a city struggling to control violence, insulate gun dealers from all liability for selling guns to criminals, make cheap weapons easily available to gun tourists, and watch the gun folks sit back and crow about how gun control laws don't work.
The only reasonable facsimile of a gun-control experiment is countries with strict gun laws. Every single country in the world with strict gun laws has much fewer gun-deaths per capita than the US.
2007-12-10 03:12:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, I don't think so. After all, there are entire countries that essentially 'gun free zones' that have *way* less gun violence than we do here. Also, what do you think would have happened had citizens had guns? Do you think that one would have picked off the shooters? Possible, but considering how few would still be carrying guns in a 'gun free zone' and what kind of presence of mind that would take, it seems unlikely.
2007-12-10 02:44:33 · answer #5 · answered by KL 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Some VERY good points!
When we tell lawful citizens to keep their guns at home, the only people who have guns are the criminals. True
Those who believe that removing guns from the law-abiding citizens are sadly misinformed (or choose to ignore) the truth about how guns are used by the general public.
Gun control laws take away the right of the VICTIM to defend himself and take NOTHING from the criminal.
2007-12-10 06:49:46 · answer #6 · answered by Molly 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
At the recent mega-church shooting, there was an armed guard who shot the shooter, but not before he took some lives. Armed guards I have no problem with, trained adults carrying weapons, I have no problem with - a school full of gun-carrying teenagers or college students- yikes!
2007-12-10 02:47:46 · answer #7 · answered by zero 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Gun toting mass murder wackos are normally trying to make some sort of statement by being mass murders wacko. This means they need masses of people to kill. Schools and malls supply that. Gas stations and gun shops don't. It really has very little to do with whether they think their victims might be armed.
Notice that they almost always either suicide or get themselves shot before they finish. They would likely welcome a gunfight just for the shock effect it would make in the news.
2007-12-10 02:54:13 · answer #8 · answered by Buke 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I see. And the American West circa 1870 (when nearly everyone carried weapons) was a paragon of civility and safety.
Edit - Re your comments:
Firstly, Evolution as a theory has little application to social structure. It CAN say some things about the development of certain social interactions and memes, but that is better served by Sociology than Biology. Secondly, even if it were applicable, 130 years, or even 1,300 years isn't enough time to significantly evolve a species to make much difference (with possible exceptions, but this is a general rule). I'm well aware of the fact there is a large number of armed Americans, as my father and brother are two of them. This has little to do with anything given the current discussion. My point wasn't the raw total of people who carry weapons, but the percentage of the population. Gun ownership in terms of numbers is likely much higher than it was 130 years ago, as the Population is much larger than it was 130 years ago.
2007-12-10 02:43:40 · answer #9 · answered by Skalite 6 · 8⤊ 4⤋
Because of the "guns-are-icky" crowd, a whole generation has grown up scared of them.
When the Virginia Tech shootings occurred, a whole classroom of hostages lined up and waited to be shot, because they'd never been around a gun, and were afraid of them.
That shooter had to stop and reload his weapon, and no one took advantage of that time to disarm him.
We've neutered a whole generation.
2007-12-10 02:53:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋