GUN LAW QUESTIONS: 1) Do you.....?
1) Do you think Congress should pass new gun laws?
IF YES, then please clarify what new laws about guns would you want to see?
2) Do you think extra large magazines (like the ones that carry 100 bullets,used by Batman theater shooter to slaughter dozens) should NOT be sold to ordinary people?
3) Do you believe more guns means less crime ?
4) Do you believe having armed guards in schools will prevent Sandy Hook style shooting, or will the armed guards be the first victims ? (for example, a mass shooter approaches to them ,takes out a gun and kills them first so they can't resist)
Please DO NOT FORGET to include your political party affiliation at the end.
- Atheist ChuckLv 67 years agoFavorite Answer
1,2,3, and 4. See Miller, Heller, and McDonald v. United States cases. Individuals can own military-type weapons as it is essential for the common defense. Instead you have to overturn the 2nd amendment. You cannot abridge people's rights. Libertarian.
- Anonymous7 years ago
1. No. There are 20,000 gun laws on the books already. Adding more wont do a thing.
All these laws do is tell gun owners not to do something they wouldn't do in the first place.
2. Sell them. Again, if someone wants to commit mass murder, he's going to find away to do it, it will be his mission be it bombs or bullets. The argument is to slow him down when reloading. It won't work, because mass murderers are always thinking ahead of politicians.
3. Yes. The shame stream press never reports the stories where someone shot a burgalar to save his family. Or a recent story where an armed guard shot someone trying to get into an elementary school during class hours. If I was a murderer, I'd look for gun-free zones. People in these areas are unarmed and can't defend themselves.
4. This seems kind of extreme. But for the sake of answering the question, yes. Anyone trying to shoot a guard should be met with deadly force. These guards would (hopefully) be trained in the use of firearms and scope out any suspicious behavior.
I am a Conservative. Americans claim Christianity as the religion of choice, but want a Iargely Godless country. We are dealing with the consequences of that preference.
- pdoomaLv 77 years ago
1. No. We should enforce the laws on the books, which we do a crappy job of.
2. Don't care. Having the ammunition does not the crime make.
3. No, but neither does fewer guns means less crime. Criminals have guns, period. They will use them whether you have one or not.
4. As a parent of a first grader, the same age as the children who were killed at Sandy Hook, no, I really don't want an armed guard in his school. The school does take precautions. But the odds of a shooter coming into an elementary school is so remote that just because it's happened once in all the times kids have gone to school every day...it's so slim it's not worth it. I'd rather have that extra teacher in the classroom.
- 7 years ago
Yeah they should pass new gun laws because, well, I don't know, there was a ******* massacre at an elementary school with a gun
No, those mags shouldn't be sold because there is no need for those magazines unless you are doing it for bragging rights or something
more guns doesn't mean less crime because it gives mass shooters easier access to guns.
Yeah, I guess armed guards would deter some people, but how many people are really going to want to be stationed at a school? Also, after a while, people will just be the ******* hypocrites they are and say that we don't need armed guards anymore, and the shooting will commence again.
I'm a communist by the way
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- BlueTyphoidLv 47 years ago
1) I don't like gun control, because it can lead to the de facto banning of guns, however I do like the idea of having a reasonable psychological check on someone before they purchase a firearm for the first time.
2) No, they shouldn't be banned.
4) It will prevent school shootings, but I don't think that is the best solution. If there were guards in all the schools, then the shootings would simply take place somewhere else.
What we need is better mental health.
Party affiliation is for sheep.
- SageandscholarLv 77 years ago
1. I would not dream of being arrogant enough to claim that I know exactly what gun laws should or should not be in place. What I do know is that I would like to see honest debate on the topic without the mindless extremism, scaremongering and childish accusatory name calling both sides of this debate have been guilty of.
2. See my answer for question 1
3. My gut feeling tells me isolated pockets of laxer gun laws could drive crime to the neighbourhood/county/state next door, but that it is moronic to believe that such a model automatically means filling the country with guns will drive down the national crime rate.
4. Cannot really be sure about this. I see it as a very sad day that such a solution is necessary (and wonder who is going to pay for it - schools in highest crime areas generally have the lowest funds) but can believe it might be one solution.
- Charles AnthonyLv 47 years ago
1) Definitely not. There have always been school shootings and they will not stop; it is an issue of mental insanity, not gun control.
2) I think it's okay for them to keep the freedom to buy what they want to.
3) No. I would just feel uncomfortable with criminals and government workers being the only armed people in the nation. There is a reason we passed the second amendment, you know. The British Government had impressed us with their weapons and our lack thereof.
4) There is no need to provoke that much fear into children.
We are fine as we are. These things just happen, and there's nothing gun control can do to stop it.
Edit: No party affiliation. I have voted both parties the exact same amount of times.
- Anonymous7 years ago
Look to the DaVinci Code. It has the answers.
just don't tell the Illuminati.