http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070417/ap_o鈥?/a>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amen鈥?/a>
http://www.fair.org/articles/gun-control鈥?/a>In light of the 2002 sniper attacks and now the Virginia Tech shootings, should gun control be more strict?
No, taking away a tool will not fix the problem. Problem resides in the individual. I can think of many things that can kill faster then any gun and kill far more people. Gun related deaths may have dropped in those countries but they don't tell you of the increase in deaths by other means. OK so a coward used a gun, if he did not have one what would he have used then? Arson, a vehicle or a bomb?In light of the 2002 sniper attacks and now the Virginia Tech shootings, should gun control be more strict?
My favorite bumper sticker ';Actually guns do kill people';. Your question was interesting. Ban guns and then I might get a knife in my back...much rather be shot.
Think about it... if the laws on the books now haven't curtailed shooting, more laws won't either. One could argue that it's the shooter that kills. Tis true that Cho wouldn't have killed 32 people with a knife or a baseball bat or a chainsaw. The school knew he had a problem and there have been records to support that, and VT didn't take proper steps. In a way one could make a case that VT has some explaining to do. And I don't buy this ';no sharing crap';. The welfare of all students in any school and the public comes first.
NO thats what the Gov wants.
Yea i agree with wise guy ;)
If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We have 32,000 gun deaths every year. They have about 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?
They say he got one gun throught the internet. For many reasons, the internet needs much more policing.
yes ofcourse, there are more school shootings then street shootings. remember what happened in UT?? a snipper there up in the clock tower, shooting and injuring 30 kids. so yea, gun control really needs to be more strict, but who's gonna stop it? no one.
Don't you realize how many people have already asked this question and the questions have already been answered by many, many people out there in Yahoo Land?
Not trying to sound harsh but there is an option of seeing similar questions as you're question before wasting five points on it.
GREAT QUESTION I BE LIVE THAT GUN CONTROL SHOULD HAPPEN SO AN YOF THIS CANNOT HAPPEN ANY MORE.
Sorry Matt but you are much more likely to get shot than knifed. Most people who would shoot you would not knife you. You have to get up close and personal to knife someone. Not so with a gun and that makes it that much easier to use one.
I am not for gun control in any way shape or form. I guess you could call me a gun nut. I deplore these acts as much if not more than most, because it puts under fire a subject and Hobie I feel strongly about. But let me ask you this Don Imus offended many people with his words granted he killed no one but should certain words be illegal or phrases. Our constitution guarantees these rights for many reasons first freedom second for the ability to keep the Government in check. read the writings of the founding fathers and you will see that we have the right to keep firearms is mostly to protect ourselves from the possibility that our government could become tyrannical.
No, everyone should be required to carry a gun.
Look for other questions like this one. You'll see a gadzillion have already been asked.
if one of those students or a faculty member would have had a gun, they would have taken out psycho Cho with a minimum amount of casualties
There needs to be a more thoughtful approach to the issue than banning weapons which are guarranteed under the 2nd Ammendment. Here's a couple of ideas:
1) Campus Enforcement officers posted in every building of a college campus, with proper training and equipment for dealing with armed threats. In the event of a dorm the officer will become the acting RA. Officers shall be of appropriate gender for the area that they are stationed to work in.
How many lives could have been saved if an armed, female enforcement officer had responded to the first murder? (assuming it was a female dorm) The report would have been broadcasted across the campus police radio, as well as across local police radio, alerting all regional authorities to what was going on. There would never have been more than the one, if even that, dead. Primary deterrent to a crime is a visible officer, or knowledge of the officer being there. People are statistically and factually less likely to commit a crime in the presence of another person, not associated with them, whom is also armed.
1) Focus upon enforcement. More laws or harsher laws are not necessary. Harsher penalties will prove to be a secondary deterrent. The price of committing a crime such as this, and getting caught, will make one less likely to commit the crime. Violent criminals must know that their violence will have dire repurcussions upon them. If not, they will not care what the law says.
Someone is less likely to die from a gun shot rather a knife wound. If guns were to get baned there will be less murders, rapes, robberies etc.
The state I live in permits concealed-carry with a permit.
I have a s/w .38 police special in the back of my skirt right now.
I carry it all the time. and yes--I have shot at an attacker.
That said... Guns or no guns is not the solution.
The solution is starting to teach your children at a young age how to control themselves and get along with others.
You assume that tightening gun laws would have stopped these attacks, but a nutbag like Cho doesn't care about laws. Otherwise, we could just make the laws against murder more strict and solve the problem.
We have strict gun laws already. Cho should not have been allowed to purchase the guns he bought under federal law because a court had already found him ';mentally defective.';
So, if you want to trumpet a cause, trumpet enforcement -- enforce the existing laws that are designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and psychos.
Chaning laws may change things but is all up to mankind. some countries dont have much killings because they respect everyones culture, on my understanding Cho was hurt thats why he didi it
so if this kind of treatment continues, even you put death penalty to a killer icluding his whole race, it wont stop
Restrictive gun laws accomplish one thing. The gurantee that only outlaws will have guns. I prefer to have the law abiding armed and the outlaws not. Has anyone got a law like that?
.
No comments:
Post a Comment