Why do some of you heathen gun supported claim that if everyone had guns shootings like Omaha wouldn't occur?

Listen here, jacknuts, you think if everyone was gun wielding no one would get hurt? u think it's the OK corral with bullets and lead whizzing by everywhere? more people would have been killed by civilians' stray bullets than by the perpetrators assault rifle.

10 Answers

Relevance
  • Favorite Answer

    More guns in more hands means more deaths. We need Zero tolerance gun control and we need it now. If one gunman in a mall gets shot at by twenty civilians with guns that's a lot of stray bullets flying around which are likely to hit innocent bystanders. Then of course, in the confusion, one vigilante citizen might mistake another for a gunman and open fire on them. And then this will keep happening until either a) everyone in the mall is dead or b) there is only one "gunman" left...the vigilante citizen who has now become a murderer. Is this scenario an extreme representation of what could happen? Yes. But more guns just means more chances for more people to die.

    Between 1994 and 1999, there were 220 school associated violent events resulting in 253 deaths - - 74.5% of these involved firearms. Handguns caused almost 60% of these deaths. (Journal of American Medical Association, December 2001)

    Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)

    The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

    American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)

    Americans for Gun Safety produced a 2003 report that reveals that 20 of the nation’s 22 national gun laws are not enforced. According to U.S. Department of Justice data (FY 2000-2002), only 2% of federal gun crimes were actually prosecuted. Eighty-five percent of cases prosecuted relate to street criminals in possession of firearms. Ignored are laws intended to punish illegal gun trafficking, firearm theft, corrupt gun dealers, lying on a criminal background check form, obliterating firearm serial numbers, selling guns to minors and possessing a gun in a school zone. To access The Enforcement Gap: Federal Gun Laws Ignored, visit http://w3.agsfoundation.com/ For a state-by-state chart of gun crimes (FY 2000-2002), click here.

    Studies show that 1 percent of gun stores sell the weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the dealer that armed the DC area sniper is among this small group of problem gun dealers that "supply the suppliers" who funnel guns to the nation's criminals. (Between 1997 and 2001, guns sold by this dealer were involved in 52 crimes, including homicides, kidnappings and assaults. Still open today, it also can't account for 238 guns or say whether they were stolen, lost or sold, or if their buyers underwent felony-background checks.) As a result, these few gun dealers have a vastly disproportionate impact on public safety. The ATF can recognize such dealers based on: (1) guns stolen from inventory; (2) missing federal sales records, needed by police to solve crimes; (3) having 10 weapons a year traced to crimes; (4) frequently selling multiple guns to individual buyers; and (5) short times between gun sales and their involvement in crimes. Yet ATF enforcement is weak due to a lack of Congressional support and resources. For more details, click here.

    Terrorists have purchased firearms at gun shows, where unlicensed sellers are not currently required to conduct background checks or to ask for identification. According to the Middle East Intelligence Report, for example, a Hezbollah member was arrested in November 2000, after a nine-month investigation by the FBI's counter-terrorism unit. Ali Boumelhem was later convicted on seven counts of weapons charges and conspiracy to ship weapons and ammunition to Lebanon. Federal agents had observed Boumelhem, a resident of Detroit and Beirut, travel to Michigan gun shows and buy gun parts and ammunition for shipment overseas. Boumelhem was prohibited from legally purchasing guns as gun stores because he was a convicted felon. Additional cases involve a Pakistani national with an expired (1988) student visa; a Lebanese native and Hamas member with numerous felony convictions; and a supporter of the Irish Republican Army. (USA Today, Wednesday, November 28, 2001 Americans for Gun Safety)

  • 1 decade ago

    Funny, the Swiss have basically an armed populace and I hear no problems out of them. There's a difference in trained people having weapons, and untrained ones. Making sure training is given, at least to buy a gun, in its uses, and in teaching responsibility is a good solution.

    One trained and armed guard could have ended the Omaha thing quickly. Untrained people however would make Somalia. However an armed populace is unlikely to have too many problems, so jacknuts, would you try and rape or rob someone if you knew they could, and would be able to pick you off? Doubt it.

    And to Zero Tolerance man, keep in mind your dear lovely UN counts all gun uses, including of Law enforcement. And shockingly to you little snow flakes 9 people is NOT a massacre. He was a failure, all that ammo and only that to show. Before some of you wet your pants, do some Research on Bonnie and Clyde, or others from that time period.

  • 1 decade ago

    Think about this my friend. If you were intent on committing a mass shooting were would you go? The local hunting club? Nope. You would choose a target like a school or a mall where you KNOW that no one else is armed. The thing that generally puts an end to these horrible incidents is the arrival on the scene of other people with guns. Maybe if a shooter knew there was a good possibility that he would be taken out before he could do much damage , he wouldn't even try it.

  • Chase
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Why do you flat out deny what the Constitution gives us? The second amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. In other words, the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right for us. Also, which house would a robber most likely go into? The one where people don't believe in guns, or the one where almost every family member owns one?

    Also, assault rifles did not exist during the 19th century.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 5 years ago

    According to liberals, the shooter would have 'just taken all their guns away from them, then used them against them'. So if they were all armed, it would have been much worse, since the assailant always 'takes away the gun' from the person defending, and then uses it against them. I'm not sure how this happens when the armed person defending shoots the perp before he gets close enough to disarm them, but somehow a perp has some magical power (according to anti gun liberals) to disarm armed people and then use their own weapons against them. Perhaps some liberal who espouses this common belief can explain it to me.

  • 1 decade ago

    Because they use facts to back up thier arguments.

    There was no crime problems in the old west.

    The reason, most everyone was a veteran of the civil war and was armed.

    What you see on TV and read in westerns, is fiction.

    They have went and looked at the arrest records for different cities and towns in the west for that period, and there just wasn't any crime to speak of.

    Then you have the fact, that every state that has passed a consealed carry law, has seen every category of crime, reduced after passing those laws.

  • 1 decade ago

    Why do ignorant, elitist fools such as yourself continue to try and deny that the Bill of Rights flat out trumps all your pitiful arguments and for good reason? I don't care if you don't want to protect yourself, if you want to abdicate your rights and abilities to be responsible for your own personal protection that is fine. The problem is that jerks like yourself, under the pretext of "public safety" assume the right to deny me those abilities and rights. There is not, nor can there be, any such thing as a "public right" to safety. The "public" is not a person, and as such, has no rights, only a person can have rights. Your way of thinking is contrary to everything this country was founded on, regardless of how well you try and package the words you use to sell your brand of socialist crap. Again and again people like yourself pound away at your pulpit on this issue, never once considering the long term consequences of your foolish agenda. You sweep aside all logic and evidence of the innevitable outcome to your foolishly naive, idealistic thought process and continue to insist that guns are the problem instead of the obvious truth, which is that certain people are the problem. You propagate the mentallity prevelant in the typical elementary classroom "did you bring enough for everyone" and if you did't, you don't want anyone to have whatever it is either. Gun rights advocates never assume that shootings will not occur such as in omaha, instead we use intelligence to KNOW for certain that LESS of this type of thing will happen when we arm ourselves with weapons and the knowledge and training and practice to use them responsibly. You, and those like you, make me sick, your the poster child for the rule of the mob mentallity instead of personal freedom. It is without a doubt the idiots such as yourself that are so afraid of living that you will never be free. Worse than that, you will destroy the freedom of good people to accomplish your misguided goals. The words " there ought to be a law" should never be uttered by insignifigant, faint of heart pansies such as yourself. The Swiss, who remain neutral and have only mobilized their civilian forces three times in over two hundred years, require military service of all able bodied men between the ages of 19 and 31. It is particularly telling that all of these men are required to train with automatic weapons and keep those weapons in their homes when not serving in an active duty capacity. They have, by the way, one of the worlds lowest crime rates.

  • 1 decade ago

    The mall is a posted 'gun-free zone' so law abiding people are at the mercy of any weapon toting criminal. So, no guns to protect. The cops responded in six minutes - good time - just not good enough. How are YOU protecting yourself?

    Ask 'ITSYOURWORLD' to check the attached link from the CDC on gun laws.

  • 1 decade ago

    Wow, you are hostile from the get go! If you outlaw gunrights then only the oulaws will have the guns. Maybe if someone there had had a concealed weapon they could have stopped this psycho before he killed more than he did.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    New`account? Did you get suspended for being the Troll you are?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.