My Connections
Not connected to anyone yet?
This answer contributed to Susan G. Komen for the Cure® What's this?
My answers support Susan G. Komen for the Cure® What's this?
cutsandscars:
5 months ago
|
Last edited at 8:27PM on 12/14/2012
No. I mean, I understand why people would want it to, but we are a free country and have the right to bear arms. Most people aren't going to go crazy with a gun, but unfortunately, sometimes it happens.
Helpful
(10)
Fun
Thanks for voting
Comments (6)
Report as
You have reported this
josh_18:
5 months ago
I agreee.
Report as
- Spam
- Offensive
- Threatening
- Off-topic
- Nonsense
- Spelling/Grammar
- Community Standards
- Offensive Username
Emaya:
5 months ago
Sometimes... That's twice in a week already. It's not a free country if we have to depend on people not going crazy. It's not just unfortunate that 20 children died. Get real.
Report as
- Spam
- Offensive
- Threatening
- Off-topic
- Nonsense
- Spelling/Grammar
- Community Standards
- Offensive Username
momo004:
5 months ago
via Android
Cutsandscars, I agree that the Constitution affords the right to bear arms, but the intent was not to allow mass murder as has occurred repeatedly in America.
Report as
- Spam
- Offensive
- Threatening
- Off-topic
- Nonsense
- Spelling/Grammar
- Community Standards
- Offensive Username
icic6772:
5 months ago
via iPhone
We don't need gun restrictions. What we need is armed guards in all the schools. That's what they had at my schools and I love in a border town.
Report as
- Spam
- Offensive
- Threatening
- Off-topic
- Nonsense
- Spelling/Grammar
- Community Standards
- Offensive Username
icic6772:
5 months ago
via iPhone
Because people are free here. Most country's aren't free. And I think that having armed guards would be the best choice because it will deter psychos from attacking. Or at the very least put a stop to them sooner.
Report as
- Spam
- Offensive
- Threatening
- Off-topic
- Nonsense
- Spelling/Grammar
- Community Standards
- Offensive Username
momo004:
5 months ago
via Android
icic, you dont guns to protect yourself. Look at my country Canada where guns are regulated. We have peace and where I live (Montreal which is btw the 2nd largest city in NA), we have not had any shootings since 20 years.
Report as
- Spam
- Offensive
- Threatening
- Off-topic
- Nonsense
- Spelling/Grammar
- Community Standards
- Offensive Username
Add a comment...
jj21_sparklez:
5 months ago
Absolutely yes.
Report as
You have reported this
jj21_sparklez:
5 months ago
How many more people have to die to for the sake of gun laws? Was it not enough when Columbine occurred? Or for that matter, the shooting in Aurora? How about Virginia Tech? Omaha mall? The shooting in Tucson? Obviously there are evil people violating their "Constitutional right" of bearing arms (which, I don't think, at the time the Constitution was written, mass shootings were a problem). Today, our society faces a more recent challenge to our government, that did not exist when America's founding fathers created the Constitution. Realistically, what purpose does gun laws serve today? To hunt wildlife for recreation and perhaps feel more comforted by the fact that we have a weapon for our own self defense? It sickens me that I know that one of those children could have been my little sister. My faith in humanity is fading. Death of innocent lives for the sake of someones "gun laws"...
Report as
You have reported this
mauserman:
5 months ago
You don't get it. A person does not need a gun to kill a lot of people. In 1995 the Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people including 19 children under the age of 6, and injured more than 680 people. This act was commited by one person that made a bomb with fertilizer and fuel oil.
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
I'm so sick of this "killers will kill anyway" argument. So we should make it easier for them? Heroine addicts will always find a way to get smack too, but it's still illegal. And we're not talking about outlawing guns, just regulating them. But I believe some weapons should be outlawed. No one needs an automatic rifle to defend themselves. It's true that shootings will still occur, but the likelihood that so many people would be shot diminishes exponentially when paramilitary gear is not involved.
Report as
You have reported this
jj21_sparklez:
5 months ago
Exactly. And the making and possession of bombs are illegal, are they not?
Report as
You have reported this
We should not violate the Constitution, no.
Report as
You have reported this
and you think that's ok? Let's just keep messing up and hope things get better?
Gun control is hitting what you're aiming at. Its the people that do things like what happened today.
Criminals will have guns illegally too, that wouldn't stop them. And then what would the innocent people have to protect themselves and their families..?
Gun control is hitting what you're aiming at. Its the people that do things like what happened today.
Criminals will have guns illegally too, that wouldn't stop them. And then what would the innocent people have to protect themselves and their families..?
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
"Arms" doesn't mean "any and every weapon I damn well please". I wanna own a nuclear warhead. You're a fascist if you say I can't, and I'm going to whine about it like a baby.
Report as
You have reported this
If one person of authority was carrying in that school, people probably still would've died, but many less..
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
4 months ago
No, that person in authority would have been the first shot. It's really quite simple: go into a classroom when the teacher is busy doing her job, then shoot her before she can turn, draw, find a hole in your armor, and neutralize you. Plus, the likelihood that a person never trained in combat, but teaching, would be able to shoot a person with no hesitation, especially if that person is a child they likely taught and knew well. A half a second is more than enough time.
Report as
You have reported this
josh_18:
5 months ago
no, sadly, there are people in this world with issues and can't handle rights. but in our home, we have about 3 guns under every couch....
Report as
You have reported this
cutsandscars:
5 months ago
Same here. And I honestly don't feel safe without my dad's guns in the house.
Report as
You have reported this
neighborlady:
5 months ago
via iPhone
You must live in a rough neighborhood.
Report as
You have reported this
Josh, when I say there needs to be stricter laws, I mean that there needs to be qualifications within the existing gun control laws. No one should be able to own a gun without going through gun safety classes. Yes, I do believe all Americans have the right to own a gun, but my point is that, that ownership should just be handled with more care than it is now. Dont you believe so?
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
That's exactly the point, momo. Control doesn't mean a loss of rights, y'all! Don't freak out! There should be regulations and limits. I mean, why stop at paramilitary gear? I wanna buy anthrax, napalm, and a flame thrower. Never you mind what for, you liberal fascists! Maybe I just want to put the anthrax in a container and keep it on my mantle, or maybe I want to use the flame thrower as a proton pack for my Ghost Buster costume. None of your beeswax!
Report as
You have reported this
Wolf_Larson:
5 months ago
No way. Its also a good defense. I dont want to throw rocks at a guy shooting students. If its not a gun its a knife or a bat.
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
They've actually run tests with armed civilians to see if they would be effective in neutralizing a shooter, and all civilians fail miserably. Just having a gun and knowing how to use it doesn't ensure you will actually be ready to kill a person when the time comes. Also, don't forget that the killer has the element of surprise and the lowered alertness of his targets on his side.
Report as
You have reported this
Coolio5462:
5 months ago
Guys, gun control is already tight. It isn't the system we need to change, it is the people. We need to better educate the population, from parents to children.
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
What country do you live in? Gun control isn't tight! The laws that exist are a joke. Anyone can get a gun in this country legally.
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
And education? Really? The last jerk was a PhD student! Maybe I don't understand your comment, but if you're implying that a better educated population is less crazy, I beg to differ.
Report as
You have reported this
crowtrobot:
5 months ago
via Android
|
Last edited at 8:37PM on 12/14/2012
how about stopping killing video games,that desensitizes kids to mass murder,and why not stop song with lyrics glorifying killings and guns,and ultra violence in movies these things have as much to do with all these killings as anything else
Report as
You have reported this
crowtrobot:
5 months ago
via Android
read how easily the brain can be conditioned
Report as
You have reported this
DanNuesse:
5 months ago
via iPhone
I agree . The video games glorify killing so these losers decide to go out in a blaze of false glory
Report as
You have reported this
stevechrisman:
5 months ago
via iPhone
You got it right,crowtrobot! And don't forget all the crime/drama's on tv. There is just so much focus on killing and death in our various venues of "entertainment".
Report as
You have reported this
crowtrobot:
5 months ago
via Android
there arr too many guns out there but just blaming them is insane,they neef to fix the problem that makes kids pull a trigger
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
Those games, movies, and music are enjoyed all over the world, yet it is here in the U.S. where this stuff happens. I agree the games are harmful, but not for the same reason. They are a waste of time and a distraction.
Report as
You have reported this
Trigger_Happy842:
5 months ago
I think we should have officers posted at all schools. Creates more jobs and keeps kids safe.
Report as
You have reported this
woodchopper73:
5 months ago
People usually don’t go out hunting with a rifle or handgun with high capacity clips. But people may use them for self defense, if a group or a gang invades their property trying to harm or steal, or when there is a natural disaster and panic with looting and a high capacity clip may be needed in a gun. But people don’t need to walk around with guns if every one follows the law.
Report as
You have reported this
gatorblu:
5 months ago
They weren't the shooter's guns. He took his mother's guns. In China earlier this year a man walked into an elementary and stabbed 22 children. It doesn't matter what laws you make. If someone wants to hurt people they will find away.
Report as
You have reported this
He lived with mom and had ready access. Mom knew he had psychological problems and she still kept these and other guns around???
Report as
You have reported this
gatorblu:
5 months ago
Then it was the mother's responsibility, and not the government's. When I lived alone I had a rifle. I am married now, gave the rifle to my nephew who lives out on the woods. I will not have a gun in my house now because my husband suffers from depression. People need to take responisbility for themselves and quit blaming others or expecting the government to be the parent.
Report as
You have reported this
Joshua_Bagel:
5 months ago
via Android
|
Last edited at 8:57PM on 12/14/2012
Why would they? Guns aren't commiting the crimes, cars have more to do with the contribution of a car accident than a gun has to a murder...
Report as
You have reported this
I have seen many news stories about innocent people getting killed for no reason. I am sure there were more before that. So yes I am for stricter laws for gun control. People who lose it mentally like this need help and it's obvious that people cannot be cautious in any given case with a gun.
Report as
You have reported this
Joshua_Bagel:
5 months ago
via Android
Criminals and mentally ill people do not obey the law, it wouldn't help at all
Report as
You have reported this
Anyone with a fire arm, whether he be a criminal or not (except the police force of course) is a threat to the society.
Report as
You have reported this
harryoz:
5 months ago
Feeble 'don't blame the gun" propaganda
oft repeated by the same mentally challenged people
who are only big men behind guns.
America has shot itself in the foot with its right to carry arms
The rule has become the master rather than the servant.
How many deaths will it take until control is brought in.
It WILL happen, just when.
oft repeated by the same mentally challenged people
who are only big men behind guns.
America has shot itself in the foot with its right to carry arms
The rule has become the master rather than the servant.
How many deaths will it take until control is brought in.
It WILL happen, just when.
Report as
You have reported this
Joshua_Bagel:
5 months ago
via Android
Wow, if a person is going to lose their mind or simply commit a crime, getting rid of EVERYONES guns is only going to make them more vulnerable to criminals
Report as
You have reported this
Alright i dont think you understand my point so ill translate it into a math formula. Gun control laws= no black market= no guns for criminals.
Report as
You have reported this
Joshua_Bagel:
5 months ago
via Android
I don't think you seem to understand...
Criminals do NOT obey the law, all it would to is keep the average honest citizen who wishes to be able to defend their self and their family from the criminal who wishes to destroy them
Criminals do NOT obey the law, all it would to is keep the average honest citizen who wishes to be able to defend their self and their family from the criminal who wishes to destroy them
Report as
You have reported this
pilgrim33:
5 months ago
Harryoz, by your rationale we should ban bacon and eggs as well. People killed by bullets pales in comparison to the thousands that die each year from cholesterol. I pray it never happens to you sincerely, but maybe instead of arming yourself you could offer to cook your assailant some breakfast. Bon appetite'.
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
Just one question: how would a total federal ban on the legal sale of paramilitary gear hurt?
Report as
You have reported this
Joshua_Bagel:
5 months ago
via Android
It would only hurt the citizens who buy stuff like that, criminals believe themselves to be above the law, these kinds of laws would not hurt them at all
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
Criminals are not the people who commit these horrors. Lily-livered, suburban, (usually) white post-adolescent peckerwoods do. And exactly how is one injured by being unable to legally buy an assault weapon? Seriously, how is anyone hurt by that? Get a pistol or rifle and quitcherbitchin' #firstworldproblems
Report as
You have reported this
Joshua_Bagel:
5 months ago
via Android
Wow, that explanation totally went over your head...
Report as
You have reported this
004: your math is wrong. Gun control laws increase the black market and make ordinary citizens more vulnerable. The Second Amendment is as much about keeping the citizens less vulnerable to a corrupt Govt. as it is about keeping them safe from criminals. One of the first things any despotic regime does is to disarm the people. Do you like the First Amendment? How long do you think we would have that if we disarm the people?
Report as
You have reported this
In the immortal words of Archie Bunker: "Would it make you feel better little goil if dey was pushed outta windas?"
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
Again, I'd like to see one of these white suburban douchebags go up to a real criminal and say, "Please Mr. Mafioso, could you sell me an illegal firearm? Is it ok that I am a totally inexperienced criminal who will most likely ensure through either my death or capture that this weapon will end up in an evidence locker?" Seriously, why do you guys not see how supremely unlikely that is? I think something is going over YOUR head.
Report as
You have reported this
Do you hate white people? Are you saying that only non whites are criminals (Mafiosi are white by the way) or that only thugs and gangsters should have weapons? What is your point anyway?
Report as
You have reported this
Joshua_Bagel:
5 months ago
via Android
He's a hateful troll... ignore him
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
OMG! How thick are y'all? It doesn't matter if he's white or not, he's a suburban kid with no criminal background. All these guys are. And if their only recourse is to purchase weapons and paramilitary gear illegally, who do they go to? Street gangs, cartels, mafia, and other assorted REAL criminals who will size up these little disaffected boys pretty quick (and yes, in the case of some of these organizations, his race would be noted) and decide not to allow their contraband to fall into the hands of an inexperienced manchild who most likely is going to either be captured or killed. I don't know how to make this point any clearer, and it's really telling how you keep pretending you don't get it.
Report as
You have reported this
Joshua_Bagel:
5 months ago
via Android
Its not a matter of not understanding, its a matter of not caring about your OPINION since your so blatantly disrespecting another's... bye-bye troll
Report as
You have reported this
Guns are not the problem. Guns.are simply a weapon. Its not as if they have their own mind and are shooting. Its the people. If you take away guns, they'll just use another weapon. You cant take away violence its just there. Taking guns away wont make it any better
Report as
You have reported this
pilgrim33:
5 months ago
I'm with you JuliaC. I've often wondered what the unarmed cops in England do when approaching a criminal. I can hear it now. "Stop! Or I'll say stop again"
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
They don't have these problems in England and their gun control laws are stricter.
Report as
You have reported this
pilgrim33:
5 months ago
Crow, I'm standing with you all the way with both the second amendment and the influence of the games and inciting music. Here's the thing, you can't regulate those things either without infringing on still more constitutional rights. That's why I believe with all my heart it all begins at home. You've got inept parents who allow their kids to play these games because they're too tired or lazy to engage the kids with something more. All these people calling for tighter control amaze me. Cholesterol kills way more people than bullets. Their rational (or lack thereof) will have people having their blood work checked before getting in line at the local Church's Chicken. Where does it end? What'd you say?
Report as
You have reported this
The First Amendment must be protected as well as the Second. In fact the second amendment is there to protect the first. All of the first ten Amendments need to be protected.
Report as
You have reported this
Texascoindude:
5 months ago
via iPhone
I see no reason for modern military guns to be in civillians hands.
Revolvers, old school rifles: bolt actions, 22 semiauto's with a clip of no more than 8 & muzzle loader's are fine with me.
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
Thank you! Someone gets it. Control doesn't equal taking away anyone's rights.
Report as
You have reported this
AZ0:
5 months ago
Why do we need semi-automatics? I just asked about this here: http://www.ask.com/answers?qsrc=3097
Report as
You have reported this
woodchopper73:
5 months ago
People usually don’t go out hunting with a rifle or handgun with high capacity clips. But people may use them for self defense, if a group or a gang invades their property trying to harm or steal, or when there is a natural disaster and panic with looting and a high capacity clip may be needed in a gun. But people don’t need to walk around with guns if every one follows the law.
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
Absolutely! There is no reason for the kind of weapons and equipment these bastards obtain to be legal. Of course you have the right to bear arms, but I don't recall the Constitution guaranteeing the right to automatic assault weapons, tear gas, body armor etc. If I become a police officer I have to submit to regular psych screens just to carry a standard-issue pistol! The fact that any idiot can purchase these things legally on the Internet is ludicrous. I would LOVE to see one of these white, suburban, post-adolescent little punks try to obtain an assault weapon illegally from a street gang or crime syndicate. He'd be a skidmark in 5 minutes, and good riddance.
Report as
You have reported this
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED.
What part of that do you not understand?
What part of that do you not understand?
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
What part don't you understand? No one is taking away your stupid guns. I'm just talking about guns that serve no purpose other than killing large groups of people quickly. You don't need an AK47 to defend your family, not like you'd be successful if a criminal did threaten them. Oh, I'm sure you have this big fantasy in your head of yourself playing Rambo as your huddled family cowers in the corner, you probably even hope for such a situation to occur in order for you to live out this fantasy and prive what an alpha you are. But the fact remains that VERY FEW civilians have ever been successful in such situations. Criminals will always have less to lose than you and the element of surprise. A gun does you no good once another one has already been drawn on you. Can you hear the great cosmic "Duh!"?
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
Our founding fathers wrote the constitution when the most powerful weapon most people owned was a musket that took about 2 minutes to load, was extremely inaccurate, and often jammed or misfired. A little context, if you please. And I hate it when people insult the FF's by insinuating the document they created is static and inflexible. It was precisely those kinds of constitutions they despised and were trying to avoid creating, hence the amendments section. How ironic that all these years later people don't want the freedom to think for themselves anymore, but would rather let a bunch of long-dead guys do it for them.
Report as
You have reported this
Guns are hard to obtain. Unfortunately, a background check doesn't include questions about mental illness.
Report as
You have reported this
It actually does but these guns weren't his, they were legally obtained by his mother.
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
Anyone can go to a gun show and buy anything they want with no background check. That's how many of these jerks get their gear.
Report as
You have reported this
Momster, you must be kidding. America is one of the few places in the world where it is simple to get your hands on a fire arm.
Report as
You have reported this
An illegal one, yes. I'm talking about the law-abiding citizen who buys a gun, properly registers it, learns how to use it properly, and intends to use it for hunting, target practice, and self defense. The citizen who is a known, legal owner. Please do not confuse us with the ones who buy but do not register, steal and use it to commit crimes, and brandish it in a psychotic breakdown on innocent, defenseless people. Criminals always find a means to hurt others. We had a case nearby where a women entered her home and an intruder said he was going to shoot her. She pulled her weapon and did the honors instead. If she hasn't had a means to defend herself and property, she would have been the dead one. Our right to bear arms is a serious attempt to protect our pursuit of happiness.
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
For every story like that there are about 20 where the intruder is victorious.
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
Most criminals are not interested in elevating their crimes to a homicide.
Report as
You have reported this
Every time one of these tragic events happen there is an immediate reaction by some well meaning and some not so well meaning people. If you look into it a little deeper you will see that disarming law abiding citizens would be disastrous. Tightening Gun Control laws does not keep them out of the wrong hands and banning them completely would not cause them to cease to exist. The black market for guns would skyrocket. Law abiding citizens would be defenseless against those who would victimize them using guns. The Second Amendment is there for a reason. It has already been violated too much. We need to start eliminating gun control laws, not tightening them. If people are willing to break laws that do exist what makes you think that passing more laws will stop them?
Our freedom is being constantly eroded. Taking away our ability to defend ourselves will only make it worse.
Another point to consider: every time sweeping gun control legislation or executive order is pending, sales of the guns or ammo in question skyrocket.
Report as
You have reported this
pilgrim33:
5 months ago
Right on JD. I wonder what the people ranting about tighter gun control would do if they ever wound up on the dumb end of one. Oh well, guess me and my family are just gonna lay down and die? I've encountered that situation before and i was forced to use (legal) deadly force. Who wouldn't? I'd do it again in a heartbeat if an intruder comes in my home and threatens my family . I'm a peaceful, professional man, not some stereotypical redneck in a trailor park, which is they way second amendment supporters are often portrayed in the media. I also understand the argument restricting Stuff like metal piercing ammo. Here's the thing though, that's just a prelude to confiscating all guns. Agreed?
Report as
You have reported this
Agreed. It is an infringement. Maybe some armor piercing rounds would have saved some lives.
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
Aaaaah...you are stubbornly refusing to see the real argument. No one is talking about disarming you, just regulating. It happens with everything dangerous. I hate waiting in line at the DMV to get my license renewed every few years, but I do it, and it's not that big a deal. I don't see why you guys whine so much about simply allowing for background checks, gun shows to abide by the same laws as stores, and certain weapons to be banned outright. The people who professionally use the gear most of these killers use are regularly psych screened. A police officer has to submit to regular psych screens just to carry a standard-issue pistol! And why arbitrarily draw the line at assault weapons, body armor, tear gas, etc? What about a flame thrower or a nuclear warhead? Those are arms. Why can't we bear them? I'll not be surprised if you completely ignore these points and continue the same trite, thoroughly irrational rhetoric about your rights being taken away.
Report as
You have reported this
You are a very insulting person and you are not interested in a reasoned debate. Many types of weapons are banned and I'm not against background checks. No I don't believe that everyone should be able to have nuclear warheads and you are wrong when you say no one is trying to take away my "stupid" guns. There are people trying to take guns away from law abiding citizens. Try getting one in Chicago. Try getting a concealed carry permit in the state of Illinois. The most insulting and obnoxious people in this debate are on your side.
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
Well, usually the same people who are so big on gun control are also big on state's rights. Sometimes the two are at odds. Don't live in Illinois. Problem solved. See how easy that was?
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
And I didn't ask for your opinion which was stated pretty condescendingly, I might add) so you are going to get mine. If you can't take it, you should not post comments in a public forum.
Report as
You have reported this
Reesinator:
5 months ago
Just so's we're crystal sparkling clear, here is my exact position: 1) Gun ownership is limited to pistol, rifle, shotgun. If you can kill 20 people in as many seconds, it's a no. 2) No more getting around the laws by going to gun shows, like the VA Tech a$$h@!3 did. 3) Anyone interested in purchasing a gun must submit to a background check AND annual psych screens. They do this in the UK, and there are 8 gun deaths a year over there. And I'm not even proposing sending someone to everyone's house to ensure the guns are locked up like they do. That's it. Now, tell me exactly how that infringes on your right (really a privilege, but we call them "rights" over here because we're spoiled) to bear arms?
Report as
You have reported this
prock:
5 months ago
the crap people spit about "guns don't kill people", and that gun control won't solve any problems, are being ignorant. When you look at all the other developed countries with stricter gun control, they all have lower murder rates. The UK? less than 1/3 the murder rate than in the US. Canada? Well under half. What makes you think that stricter gun control would work everywhere else, but not the US. Are you saying there is something wrong with Americans? Are they stupid or something?
Report as
You have reported this
woodchopper73:
5 months ago
People usually don’t go out hunting with a rifle or handgun with high capacity clips. But people may use them for self defense, if a group or a gang invades their property trying to harm or steal, or when there is a natural disaster and panic with looting and a high capacity clip may be needed in a gun. But people don’t need to walk around with guns if every one follows the law.
Report as
You have reported this
Popular Searches
Partner Sites:
Insider Pages
-
MerchantCircle
-
Urbanspoon
-
Ask Kids
-
Life123
-
Reference
-
Sendori
-
Thesaurus