user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
as long as I'm the only one who gets to keep mine..then YES!
IMO, mixed.
On one hand, I do not, for a second, believe that an armed public reduces crime (excuse: other more effective means available) nor that it protects freedom (in case of a police-state take-over, Rightwing Republican and his Saturday Night Special are not going to save the Free World).
On the other hand, it would be a shame in that it affects various sports and activities that are weapon-related, but not harmful (e.g., hunting, collecting, target shooting, etc.
In addition, Man being what he is, I'm sure that other things will be created or presssed into use as weapons (e.g., the disarming in Feudal Japan).
No the criminals can always get the guns why should public be disarmed, & I think it goes against our civil rights.
I do believe an armed public means less crime. Look at the statistics in the areas where carrying concealed is legal. If you banned guns, the innocent public wouldn't have any, but of course criminals still will. How can that be a good thing?
True. And if you dont believe in statistics, just ask a prison inmate if they would have robbed or stole or raped if they knew their victim would have had a gun. Criminals prey on the weak, not the well armed.
This is a tough one - and more complex than folks on either side usually admit.
I certainly wouldn't want to take guns away from hunters who hunt for food.
And it's true that if someone knows you have a gun, they'll likely not rob you, and that statistics show that areas with less restrictive gun laws have less crime. But that doesn't necessarily mean anything because those areas tend to be more rural and less poor. Poverty and close living conditions are statistically related to increases in crime. So theoretically, the areas with least restrictive gun laws would have less crime whether or not they allowed guns.
And there's also the fact that something like 90% of gun crimes are committed using stolen guns - as in, stolen from the homes of "responsible" gun owners and gun store owners. So, if the criminals had nothing to steal, there would theoretically be fewer guns in the hands of criminals, too...
When it comes down to it, I think the states should each get to decide what their own limits are. That way you could be more strict in Detroit than DesMoines...
The good of the matter, were gun registration done in a proper, sensible matter, would be keeping them out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them (hardened criminals). The bad would be, in the eventuality that the Federal government become a menace to personal liberty (in the way that Great Britain was counted during the years before the Revolution, not the penny-ante stuff that the Militia Boyz are crying about from their compounds now), that there be a way to take up arms against that menace.
|
|
