promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted
Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentGovernment · 8 years ago

If banning guns would end mass?

murders, how do you explain the kidnap, torture and murder of young men in Texas that occurred around 1973 by three men without the use of a gun to commit their crimes?

i believe that they killed at least 20 young men.

Anybody remember this?

Update:

okay,

the atlanta killer of black children

john wayne gacy.

the green river killings.

you don't need a gun to commit mass murder.

5 Answers

Relevance
  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Planes weren't "primarily designed" to kill people but they have proved to be more effective than guns...look at 9/11, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

    An automobile driven into a crowd of people could take out dozens of people in milliseconds...much more effective than guns.

    Last week in China, someone stabbed over 20 people with a knife.

    The Holocaust killed MILLIONS primarily with gas chambers.

    Saddam Hussein gassed tens of thousands of Kurds with weapons of mass destruction.

    People kill other people with guns, knives, poison, strangling with their bare hands, baseball bats, scissors, machetes, you name it.

    "Banning guns" will NOT end mass murders.

    If you "ban guns", that will take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, leaving them only in the hands of criminals.

    P.S.

    Jessica, it is VERY hard for anybody to buy automatic weapons. NONE of the murders since 1973 have involved automatic weapons.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    Obviously it wouldn't be able to prevent the really absurd crimes such as this. Considering the fact that you had to date back all the way to 1973, you can say this is a relatively uncommon occurrence. What banning guns, or just automatic guns for that matter, would do is make it much harder for those who are unqualified to have such a dangerous weapon in their custody. It would prevent the crimes that occur spur of the moment- those who haven't been planning a way to get a hold of said weapon to carry out the crime. Banning automatics would also, in theory, ensure that if another shooting were to occur, it would be far less dramatic for less people would be able to be injured by a hand gun.

    There is no reason why any body would need an automatic gun to defend their home or shoot a deer. This is a dangerous weapon that has no real purpose other than to kill mass amounts of people, and it is designed for war.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Bryan
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    I don't remember it, but that is not to say it didnt happen. Of course, one can kill with other weapons besides guns, but guns are very efficient at killing, since it is what they were primarily designed to do.

    We should all just acknowledge that there would be fewer violent deaths in this country if we banned private gun ownership. The criminals would still kill with them, but no more crimes of passion, and no more accidental shootings. It would like save many lives.

    The question is really is it worth it for Americans to give up the gun lifestyle to save a few thousand people out of a population of 300 million? I don't think it is. I wish more people would just say that, rather than engage in debates over semantics.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    Laws do not prevent murder, there has been a law against this since the beginning of time. Murderers will find a weapon if it is nothing more that their bare hands.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    It would not.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.