Comments on: Poll: Little Change In Views On Handguns

After Virginia Tech Shooting Spree, Most Still Want Stricter Gun Laws But Oppose Banning All Handguns

[processor2]

You CANNOT stop criminals by disarming potential victims.

For example:
Va. Tech was declared a "gun-free zone" and look what happened.

Also, my GUN SAVED MY LIFE once when two burglars entered my house one night when I was still in it.

...
(my car was in the shop, so it looked like no one was home)
The burglars didn't succeed. Fortunately, I live in a state where it is okay to defend myself, and no charges were filed against me.

[processor2]

You CANNOT stop criminals by disarming potential victims.

For example:
Va. Tech was declare a "gun-free zone" and look what happened.

Also, my GUN SAVED MY LIFE once when two burglars entered my house one night when I was still in it.
(my car was in the shop, so it looked like no one was home) The burglars didn't succeed. Fortunately, I live in a state where it is okay to defend myself, and no charges were filed against me.

...

[gunnerv1]

Plainjean: with tobacco, the victem has to light the cigarette in order for it to do harm to them, Note "The Victem is doing it to themselves" that's why.

[jmagarotz]

Why don't we listen to that majority that wants SENSIBLE REGULATION?
Posted by ttinsly at 07:09 AM : Apr 25, 2007

I'll tell you why. Every time we accept SENSIBLE REGULATION it's filled with hoops that make it more and more difficult, if not impossible, to purchase, possess or use a firearm LEGALLY! The SENSIBLE REGULATION is not directed at the criminal but at the honest citizen. The founding fathers understood that. That's why they wrote the BILL OF RIGHTS. It says, RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, not Right of the Militia or Right of the Government. I carried a badge and gun for 14 years and I can personally attest to the fact that more gun laws, no matter how well intentioned, will do NOTHING to deter the criminal. If you can't understand that you are walking right into the trap set for you by the criminals, those on the street AND those in POLITICAL OFFICE! The criminal is the only one who profits from more gun control.

[erasmus6]

ainttaken

You are sooooo funny!

[erasmus6]

Yes, it is a little difficult to gain control of the guns after everyone has got one. It should never have happened to begin with. Who ever allowed it to happen in the first place, should be shot! hahahaha

[lurch198]

Why is it hard to grasp the fact that the vast majority of gun owners never commit a crime with a gun? I and most of my friends are gun owners, and always have been. None of them have ever shot themselves, shot anyone else, had a kid get a hold of a gun and use it, ect ect. Punish the criminals! 2/3 of current US inmates had been there before!
Would it make any sense for the government to take away your car cause you MIGHT drink and drive? No.

My last point is this, who do you think is going to go door to door and take the guns? Good luck finding someone to do that. The only other option is to make criminals of otherwise law abiding citizens.

[erasmus6]

When I said that "when we have break ins in our homes", I myself have had 0 break ins, my parents have had 0 break ins and my daughters have had 0 break ins.

[oleander8]

"Poll: Little Change In Views On Handguns"

Another way of saying 66% of Americans STILL want stricter gun control.

[erasmus6]

Phoenix1218

I myself do not live right in the heart of the city but my two daughters do. They do not live in the city because it is all they can afford, living in the city actually costs more. They NEVER hear gun shots in the night. If they were to hear a gun shot at anytime, it would be abnormal. They both own cars but also do a lot of walking and take transit. They have never had any problems.

Also when we have break ins in our homes, they are most often when no one is home. They are coming to steal something and so prefer no one to be home. And on the occasion that someone happens to be home, the thief is usually unarmed.
There are several problems with having a gun. One is that the person entering your home could take it away from you and use it on you whereas if you didn't have it, most often when they realized you were there, they would leave. Second there are a lot of people who don't know how to handle a gun, have problems with anger or when they get scared will just shoot and ask questions later. Oh yes, and then there is the loonies.
I don't know where you live, but here we are HAPPY WITHOUT GUNS.

[erasmus6]

GunOwnerDan

FREEDOM is not having to carry a gun because you know the vast majority of people are also not carrying one.

[erasmus6]

dlpracer

I don't recall saying anything about our health care one way or the other, but now that we are on the subject: In Canada, EVERYONE HAS HEALTH CARE, how about in your country?
Also, there are times when people might go to your country for certain things when it gets really backed up for some reason, but that isn't really that often.

Now as far as millions would give anything to live in your country, hmmmm , no offense but I think they would prefer to come to my country, given a choice. Why? health care, less crime etc., etc.....

[lurch198]

To jimfinster,

Answer: Global warming. Directly causes gun violence and child blindness.

[jimfinster]

Guns were freely available prior to the rash of killings in the last 20-30 years. But events of this kind did not happen then. Why?

Mass murder can easily be accomplished by other means (arson, bombs, etc). Perhaps better to look at the root cause of these events, rather than focusing on the method used...

[usbrit-2009]

Gun ownership, as guaranteed by our Constitution, has nothing to do with hunting at all. It has to everything to do with the fact that an armed populace is a deterrent to an out-of-control central government.

Funny - I don't see legions of responsible gun-owners taking up their arms against this government which has done more to ignore and rewrite the constitution in anyone's memory.

[gunownerdan]

Banning guns would work about as good as banning marijauna over 70 years ago.
Today even though marijauna has been illegal for many decades it is America's #1 cash crop.
This simply means that BILLIONS of dollars are going right into the hands of drug gangs and drug dealers through the black market.
That's a lot of money and it funds a lot of crime.
http://www.leap.cc

[lurch198]

Didnt we BAN alcohol once? Guess no one had a drink during those years. Arent cocaine and meth illegal? So there is no way someone could be getting hold of this stuff either, right?

The government that governs least, governs best.

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.

[afmca]

The NRA sponsored post is the most troubling. I practically stood up and starting singing the National Anthem! Protector of MY Freedom!! What self-serving bull! The NRA used to be a reputable organization mainly focused on gun safety and hunting. This, though, was not financially viable so they decided that the real money was in being the gun manufacturer's underground lobbyist and lemming. So they have spent the last several decades promoting the spread of illegal guns throughout America. The one thing gun records and registration would prove is how the huge amounts of illegal guns enter the market and it could be stopped. That is why they fight so hard against this legislation. I have no doubt that the gun manufacturers with NRA sanctioning would supply free, cheap guns to all criminals if they could reap an ROI for expensive guns to police forces and ordinary citizens. It has worked so far. To the NRA - "Unfounded Fear = Extraordinary Profits

[processor2]

You CANNOT stop criminals by disarming potential victims...doesn't work.


For example:

Va. Tech was declared a "gun-free zone", and look what happened.


Also, when my state passed the concealed-carry law, rapes dropped by over 50 percent within the first year. Kind of hard to rape a woman if there's a gun in her purse.

SOURCE: Atty Generals office - Bureau of Crime/Statistics

...

[clemenhagen1]

Who is in charge of driver's licenses? The government! Why? Because it allows for some semblance of control for the sake of public safety. Why do we leave the distribution of liquor in the hands of state agencies and why do we insist on strict liquor licenses? Control, and logically so. Why do we have strict control of drugs produced and then sold through pharmacies? Control of a potentially dangerous industry. Guns? Little control or enforcement mechanisms. Back-ground checks left up to casual dealers, thus allowing a mentally unstable man like Cho to routinely buy weapons. We need stringent state control of weapons. They should be only sold by a strictly controlled agency, and only after rigid background checks, safety tests, and other registration requirements have been satisfied. State control boards and stringent fines and jail sentences for those who violate the rules. If we regulate drivers licenses, and the sale and distribution of drugs and alcohol, we should do the same with guns.