Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

John B
Lv 7
John B asked in News & EventsCurrent Events · 1 decade ago

Is it time now to limit the number of guns we have in our society?

17 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    HELL NO!! Make it harder to obtain firearms, yes. Limit them, No.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    On July 14, 1966, Speck broke into a South Chicago townhouse and took as hostages nurses Gloria Davy, Patricia Matusek, Nina Schmale, Pamela Wilkening, Suzanne Farris, Mary Ann Jordan, Merlita Gargullo, and Valentina Pasion. Speck held the girls hostage for hours, methodically beating, raping, and stabbing them to death.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Speck#The_mas...

    At the Appalachian School of Law shooting in 2002. A disgruntled student killed two students before he was killed by two other students with their personal firearms.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of...

    The Virginia Tech massacre was a horrible, horrible tragedy but in time, it will fade from public view. Only those who have suffered a personal loss will be faced with the struggle to overcome their grief and restructure their life. The survivors will suffer the tremendous loss very intently for a period of time and as they struggle to cope with their grief they will resolve it in many different ways but it will never go away, there will be triggers that bring it all back again in vivid detail.

    Unarmed security guards can only provide a "sense" of security. They cannot provide virtual security. The objective of the security guard is to take control of the situation, keep people calm, stop panic.

    After the reports have been filed, the investigations have been completed and the recommendations made, people will calm down and feel secure, then complacent.

    Because of my personal experience, I favor allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons if they have had training and have not had a felony conviction. Most of the people in the self-help group Parents of Murdered Children have strong feelings about this issue as well as Citizens against Homicide. (Members of both national groups have suffered the loss of a loved one to homicide) Compassionate Friends is also a self-help group however it is for parents who have lost a child to any cause homicide, accidental death or disease.

    http://www.pomc.com/

    http://www.pomc.org/

    http://www.murdervictims.com/CAH.html

    http://www.compassionatefriends.org/

    People in these organizations spend a lot of time writing letters to parole boards, and getting legislation passed like Michigan's "truth in sentencing" and sentencing guidelines" (despite the fiscal impact).

    It would be very nice if all the predators, murderers, rapists, child molestors and other gun-toting sickos could be locked up...... or maybe even hanged, drawn and quartered for some.

    The justice system and law enforcement can only do so much. The ATF can only seize so many weapons from the predators.

    I do understand people who favor gun control. It seems logical,sane, rational, reasonable, civilized. Those most blessed, fortunate people have not suffered personal loss by homicide. It seems sensible to get rid of guns and then poof no more violence. The UK does not have guns. Do people get murdered there?

    The reason I favor responsible citizens being educated in safe gun use is for protection. They will not be the ones using the guns to commit a crime or kill an innocent.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    As cliche' as it sounds, only outlaws will have guns when guns are outlawed. In other words, only law abiding citizens will turn in their guns to become victims of the worst portion of society. Who in their right ind would do that?

    You might consider the fact that in areas where gun ownership is highest, fewest people are killed and robbed. Only the uninformed would consider that a worthwhile option. Why would anybody want to make more of this country into victims? I agree that the shootings are always horrible but what about all the people protected by gun ownership? They far outstrip the few injured.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Sure maybe 837 per person w/200000 rounds for ea?

    Sounds pretty good to me.....

    If this is another crap question about the shootings........

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of...

    Read what happens when there are more guns...Not less..

    THREE people verses THIRTY THREE.....

    The shooting

    On January 16, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa, 43, a student at Appalachian School of Law from Nigeria, arrived on the campus. [1] While numerous reports stated that Odighizuwa had flunked out of school or had been suspended, Jeremy Davis, a dean and professor of law at the school, later said that Odighizuwa had withdrawn voluntarily due to poor academic performance.[2]

    Odighizuwa first discussed his academic problems with professor Dale Rubin, where he reportedly told Rubin to pray for him.[3] Odighizuwa then walked to the offices of Dean Anthony Sutin and Professor Thomas Blackwell, where he opened fire on them with a .380 ACP semi-automatic handgun. According to a county coroner, powder burns indicated that both victims were shot at point blank range.[4] Also killed along with the two faculty members was a student, Angela Denise Dales, age 33. Three other people were wounded.

    [edit] Armed students subdued the shooter

    When Odighizuwa exited the building where the shooting took place, he was approached by two students with personal firearms.[5]

    At the first sound of gunfire, fellow students Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to each other, ran to their vehicles to fetch their personally owned firearms.[6] Gross, a police officer with the Grifton Police Department in his home state of North Carolina, retrieved a bulletproof vest and a 9 mm pistol.[7] Bridges pulled his .357 Magnum pistol from beneath the driver's seat of his Chevy Tahoe. As Bridges later told the Richmond Times Dispatch, he was prepared to shoot to kill.[8]

    Bridges and Gross approached Odighizuwa from different angles, with Bridges yelling at Odighizuwa to drop his gun.[9] Odighizuwa then dropped his firearm and was subdued by several other unarmed students.[10] Once Odighizuwa was securely held down, Gross went back to his vehicle and retrieved handcuffs to detain Odighizuwa until police could arrive.

    Police reports later noted that two empty eight round magazines designed for Odighizuwa’s handgun were recovered. While some sources report that when Odighizuwa dropped his handgun, it still had a magazine holding three rounds of ammunition within it[11], other sources state that he dropped the gun only when the magazine was empty.[12]

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    How do you plan to do that? Guns are easy to make in a decent machine shop, like the ones in your local auto mechanic's. Pass a law making guns illegal (or limiting their number) and you'll just push their manufacture underground. Drug dealers will import them with their shipments (notice a heroin or cocaine shortage anywhere?). Criminals will manufacture them in basements or steal them from army depots and police (like what's happening in South Africa now). The end result will be that criminals will have the same number of firearms as they have now and good, law abiding people will be disarmed and defenseless when being attacked by someone bigger, stronger, or better armed.

    And how would you plan to take away the ones that currently exist. If only 1% of gun owners abide by the "from my cold, dead hands" creed, how many police officers will die trying to round up the 300 million+ firearms in the US?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    YES, the police should be the only ones allowed to carry hand guns. Anyone caught in committing a crime with a gun or any other weapon should be severely punished.

  • 1 decade ago

    I think so, I think the only ones that should carry guns is either the police and the military.

    I know that this part of the ? but if I'm correct you answered another ? where you mentioned that your family was part of the Donner party? is this correct because if this is so, so was mine we were part of the rescue.

  • 1 decade ago

    No I don't think so It is important for people to protect themselves though everyone does not use them correctly they should not put other peoples life in danger

  • 1 decade ago

    guns/firearms, anything of that type should definitely be made to be extremely hard to obtain but it would be extremely hard to limit them at this point when there are so many in personal stores as it is...But I think that guns should only be given to police for business use only

  • Wes
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    won't ever happen. too easy to get them illegally and if anything the more this type of stuff happens, the more people will want to have one in their home for protection

  • 1 decade ago

    Nope, we need to make more.

    We also need to make more "Beware of Gun" signs so that there will be less home breakins.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.