I agree. The shooter at VT was a law abiding citizen. Until he snapped. In this issue, we should cut off the head of the posionous snake before it strikes.';GUN CONTROL, Keeping Guns Out Of Law Abiding Citizen`s Hands';...Do You Agree Or Disagree With That Statement
That's the only thing gun control will accomplish. Only the people who obey laws will comply. Criminals will not. Gangstas and thugs will keep their 9s.
Gun control would be a great idea if we did not already have so many guns. Yes, if anti gun legislation passed, it would take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Lets face it, only law abiding people would turn in their guns, or follow the law. When you are willing to break laws and murder people, you don't care a bit about gun laws. The guns are already out there. If someone inside the building a Virginia Tech had been carrying, they might have been able to save a lot of lives.
So you keep guns away from law abiding citizens, what about all those guns the criminal elements have? I suppose, you'd say, if you get shot in your left side of your head, you'd just turn the other side? Furthermore, if the government police cannot rid the criminals of much more deadly weapons, what will you come up with? Anarchy.
Law abiding citizens can buy guns legally even with gun control laws. Criminals and the mentally insane (I would hope) cannot, and its not like everybody has a black market gun dealer on speed dial.
The only people who would obey a law restricting guns are those who obey other laws.
DC has had a ban on handguns for 30 years.
As a result, only the criminals have guns now.
I disagree because you want to take away my RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, a right given us by our Founding Fathers!
AS RUSH SAYS, LIBERAL POLICIES ALWAYS PRODUCE
THE OPPOSITE OF THE STATED INTENT!
SO THE ANSWER IS YES!
Laws on citizens alone won't control gun ownership. If the goal is controling guns, the manufacturers have to be controlled as well. And your statement is correct, criminals will find a way to get guns, just like they get drugs and other illegal things. As the saying goes, ';locks keep an honest man honest';...
btw-- I'm not advocating total gun control.
I don't think so. You're talking ';gun control';, which is the controlled sale and availability of guns. If you are a law abiding citizen you should have no problem following procedure and legally purchasing a gun.
I live in a nation where we have gun control, and no if you are law abiding and mentally stable you have no problems getting a gun.
seems like thats what its saying to me.
I believe that as a law abiding tax paying property owner of the United States of America, that I have and should always have the right to own a fire arm.
Gun control only works if you follow the law. Criminals don't follow the law.
Example:
You, law abiding and unarmed
Criminal, law breaker, armed, and knows you can't do a thing about it.
You, victim
Criminal, the reason you are
Police, willing to help, but not around when crime happens, they arive after the fact.
Gun control is NOT keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. It's incredibly easy to get a gun. After all, the nut who shot those people at Virginia Tech was, before he did so, a law-abiding citizen.
As long as it is easier to get a gun than it is to get a driver's license, a passport or health insurance, events like yesterday's massacre will continue to happen.
A crazed stalker in Virginia, a couple of high school neo-Nazis in Colorado, and a pedophile with a messianic complex in Texas are not part of ';a well-regulated militia.';
when guns are outlawed only outlaws, and cops will have guns ?????
No thanks
Gun control laws only affect those people that follow the law. Yes Cho Sueng Hui bought his guns legally but if he could not get them legally he, like Eric Harris and Dylan Clybold would have gotten them illegally.
Laws are only there for those that follow the law.
I agree with T-Mac. It isn't the guns it's the people. Thinking only of guns is looking for a short simple answer to a far more complicated situation. People bent on doing violence don't depend on guns. Take the hijackers that flew into the World Trade Center. they didn't have guns and they managed to kill 3,000+- people. Or the London Subway and bus massacres or the attempted massacre in Japan or what we read about everyday in Iraq.
Where does this violence come from? I'm sure some researcher will find a gene that prompts this behaviour, but I think that the behaviour is at least partially due to their environment as well. Have you noticed that in the high school shootings nobody examined the role of the parents? When I say ';a role'; I don't mean that they trained their kid to kill or even that they abused him necessarily, although that is a possibility. In the Oregon case, the boy came from a very well to do family and was given just about everything he wanted but the parents weren't there very often. Both were very ';successful'; business people and I think it's possible that they devoted their ';love'; to their careers, not their son who in turn never experienced the love and nurturing that a child can when one of the parents is always there.
In the USA and many, but not all ,';industrialized'; nations, the family unit is no longer primary to those bent on economic ';success'; though they will tell you that family is important to them just as any politician will tell you that he or she supports the family unit. But their actions belie their words. In this country we value money and power and celibrity. A family will think they are doing the right thing by putting their child in a nursery or hire a nanny while they work to earn the money to support a ';successful'; lifestyle. the idea being that having this money will provide their child the better things of life ncluding education and healthcare all of which are very expensive in the USA.
But the young child doesn't need those things given to him or her. the child needs the direct love and support of parents which in turn makes him or her feel confident in themselves (They love me so I must be good or they don't love me so I must not be good). We've all seen the tests on monkeys deprived of physical love and how they turn violent or retarded. Well, that's what we humans need too.
So I say that while guns do make it easier for a mad man or woman to kill, guns aren't the main problem. If there were no guns it could be a knife or a bomb or poisen or any number of things. I lay the blame further up the line on our society that in reality, has replaced the value of the family with the value of money/career.
That's about what it does. Only the law abiding citizen abides by the law, the criminals don't. DC is a good example of that, look at the ban and their crime rate!
I dont believe its guns in general, i personally think its the person weilding the gun, if that person is messed up in the head, he has no business behind a trigger, but if the person is sane and can handle having a gun i dont see why he or she cant go buy one for prrotection.
Do you know that every Swiss citizen is legally required to have his military equipment at home, including guns (M57 automatic assault rifles) and ammo ? They keep virtually NO army, but can mobilize the whole country in 2-3 hours !!! That's one of the reasons Switzerland was never invaded, and during WW2, Nazis were at war with the whole world, including US, UK, and Russia, they went 2000 miles east up to the gates of Moscow, but never to Switzerland, and please check where Switzerland is on the map... and you can bet Hitler was eager to get his hands on Swiss gold, but he realized it was more than he could chew... Of course, that's not the issue here, just pointing to the fact that ';homeland security'; is much better when the citizens have guns, and they can use that to prevent both millitary and terrorist attacks.
Now, back to our issue, how many times have you heard about shootings in Switzerland ??? The gun crime rate is a small fraction of the American rate, and in fact it's so low that statistics are not even kept. The same for Israel, they all have guns, assault rifles, even machine guns and rocket launchers at home, but you'll never see a Swiss killing another Swiss or an Israeli killing another Israeli... Some Swiss even have howitzers and anti-aircraft weapons at home, but do you see them shooting down planes or even robbing those gold-filled banks they have ? Of course not. They can buy and sell guns freely, but that doesn't mean they will use those guns shooting other people just for the fun of it, like Americans do.
It's a matter of EDUCATION and CULTURE, which lead to tolerance, understanding and respect for others and for the laws. Forcing people to obey stupid laws and gun control is NOT the answer, that can only lead to rebellion and more chaos and deaths. Sane, responsible, educated people who enjoy their freedom and happiness do NOT have any reason to take a gun and shoot another human being, except to defend themselves when attacked. Prosecuting criminals means unfortunatelly the evil has already been done, so perhaps society and governments should concentrate more on educating people, especially children and teenagers, to prevent them from becoming criminals in the first place... EDUCATION, not limitation of freedom and fear of punishment.
I disagree with that statement. Law abiding citizens are the ones who need the deterrent effect of a possible armed reaction The nut jobs and the criminals will always find a weapon when they want to inflict or force the law abiding to do their bidding!! Just re read the statement!! I screwed up! I agree now that I re read!!
No comments:
Post a Comment