Do you agree with anti-gun extremists who claim that gun registration, gun-owner licensing, and outright gun bans would help prevent future terrorist attacks on our nation?* Yes....or....No
2007-12-15 05:49:32 · 19 answers · asked by dca2003311@yahoo.com 7 in Sports ➔ Outdoor Recreation ➔ Hunting
Disagree:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience
And the other historical facts above prove it.
2007-12-15 05:58:30 · answer #1 · answered by Jan Luv 7 · 9⤊ 1⤋
Gun bans would have ZERO effect on terrorists' ability to commit acts of violence, except maybe make it easier for them to do so, as has been pointed out above. I'm sure any terrorist would love to see such legislation passed here, just like I am sure they are enjoying all the fighting going on now about missing CIA tapes and the banning of waterboarding. After all, anything which the enemies (the ones in Washington and hollywood, not the middle east) of our military can do to assist the real enemies of this country, they seem to be doing.
2007-12-15 07:48:22 · answer #2 · answered by john r 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not really. I could see if there was an outright ban on every gun it could be a mildly difficult for a terrorist to obtain a gun but if they want it badly enough, it will happen somehow. You should take heed on gun registry from Canada, it is now a scrapped waste of $2 billion.
2007-12-15 06:00:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Great answers!
I repeat what others have already said; Criminals and terrorists do not care about laws, that why we all them criminals.
Personally since our Constitution gives us the right to bear arms I think any attempt to change that is anti-American!
Why in hell can’t these anti’s get it through their thick stupid skull that terrorists and criminals don’t care about gun laws!
What is wrong with them are they retarded? Brain dead? Smoked too much crack?
Jezzz!
At this very moment criminals and terrorists HAVE illegal weapons. They laugh their azzes off at laws!
They LOVE the anti’s!
I will go as far to say the anti gun anti hunter the anti firshermen are anti-American! And thereby traitors to our Country and the Constitution.
I despise and loathe the anti’s. BUT I will fight to the death for their right of free speech. And if they disarm me that fight will last about 3 seconds.
2007-12-15 08:39:07 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I do not agree. most of the weapons that terrorists use have come from the black market or they are home made. I have no problem registering my firearms but I feel that a ban would only leave citizens defenseless against personal attacks. We already have bans on certain types of firearms but I have seen no improvement in the violence in our country. If all firearms were banned then we would all become prey to criminals who would still be able to acquire a weapon illegally.
2007-12-15 06:51:21 · answer #5 · answered by bkjackson75 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, the two worst terrorist attacks on America did not even involve guns......911, and the Oklahoma City Federal Building.
2007-12-15 09:32:45 · answer #6 · answered by Pullet Surprise 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gun bans only keep guns out of law abiding citizens making us sitting ducks for those with murderous intent. Only an enemy of the State would want to ban guns.
H
2007-12-15 09:25:31 · answer #7 · answered by H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
You used the work "extremists". They assume that EVERYONE will follow the 'law'. By definition, criminals and terrorists don't follow the law......
They have 'good intentions', but everyone knows how that saying goes about 'good intentions'......
Oh, by the way, the last 'major' terrorist (9/11) attack here on US soil did not involve guns..... it involved a jetliner. Should we ban flying ........ as well as all aircraft? I thought so.....
2007-12-15 06:46:55 · answer #8 · answered by User0125 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It makes sense. Just as much sense as banning spoons to prevent obesity.
Just in case the gungrabber wienies haven't noticed it, acts of terrorism are illegal. People who plan to carry out acts of terrorism don't mind breaking laws. Gun bans, or registration schemes are just more laws that they don't mind breaking in the first place.
In my opinion, every citizen should be required to carry a sidearm at all times. As Robert Heinlein said: An armed society is a polite society.
Doc
2007-12-15 06:23:54 · answer #9 · answered by Doc Hudson 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
HELL NO, i don't agree with them,
They are a bunch of bottom feeding pond scum, that can't figure out that terrorist, are criminals & criminals pay no heed to the laws.
the only to stop a terrorist, is to kill the bastard, before he can kill us.
Sorry for my language, but i say it, like i see it.
If i knew of a terrorist, that had ALL of the anti gun, anti hunter bunch gathered, i wouldn't think of shooting him/her, before he could take them out,
. Then, i would treat him/her to a good meal, just before i wasted him/her.
2007-12-15 08:57:01 · answer #10 · answered by Roger W 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hell no, I think its the exact opposite.
Look at Israel - their citizens are packin - and suicide bombings have been prevented by citizens draining the bad-guy before he blows himself up.
More guns = less crime.
Lets see how brave Osama and his little Taliban guerilla pals are, in a country full of well-regulated marksman like the US.
2007-12-15 06:48:31 · answer #11 · answered by DT89ACE 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋