Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now 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.
Trending News
How will a ban on assault riffles ban help keep schools safer?
Because as far I can tell the school would still be unguarded.
@Saxon So they are only attempting to ban larger ammo clips?
@William that's just not a very good argument all those countries have terrible crime rates. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/Th...
@xpatinasia I never said nothing should be done, nor did I say it was humorous, you are despicable please do not insult my intelligence. If you would like to know what I think should be done you should ask nicely. I believe that schools should have some sort of armed security guards, in addition to teachers being allowed to have concealed firearms.
@Will Nickel I think protecting gun rights will save more lives.
@tehabwa The school shooting is what triggered it, so to me it is. That statistic was not done by dailymail but something called conservatives eu commission un, so defame them instead.
16 Answers
- Anonymous5 years ago
As a democratic liberal, I don't think a ban is absolutely necessary. There is a rational middle ground between the chaos of our current gun policy and a zero-tolerance weapons ban. Stricter tests and screenings for anyone with a license should be instated, as well as a crack-down on the black market (all funded by siphoning a few billion tax dollars from our military expenditures, which is currently "more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined." [Wikipedia]) I'm all for being at the top of the proverbial military pyramid, but is such a ridiculous lead really necessary, in our current economic state? Got a little off-topic there, but I feel my point was made. Additionally, @Freedom Fighter: We would also lose what has made us the great bastion of liberty that we have for centuries professed to be. How dare you don the name "Freedom Fighter" when what you argue for is inequality? Please educate yourself before you choose to have an opinion.
- ?Lv 78 years ago
Unfortunately, everyone has an idea of how to stop all this violence. Big Brother can ban automatic weapons, bigger gun clips and even a toatl ban but the truth is its too late as many weapons are already out here and for the right price, anyone can get what they want on any street corner at anytime. If anyone wants to make a name for themself, they will always find a way to get it done. So if DC puts any kind of ban into place, what to do about whats already out here? And unless DC bans all evil greed, corruption, and stupidity, nothing will ever stop. Happy Holidays
Source(s): Florida Paralegal with a BS degree in Social-Psychology - Anonymous8 years ago
Neither the police nor the military were present at Columbine or any other school shootings. The only siege involving lots of children and the presence of authority was Waco, TX. when they took over the Karesh compound with fire, both literally and figuratively. Banning civilians from having certain weapons would have made no difference in a situation like that.
- ?Lv 58 years ago
Tell me honestly why any citizen NEEDS an assault weapon? If assault weapons were outlawed, then they would only be manufactured for military use, and therefor well guarded at ALL times, minimizing opportunity for them to reach criminals. In the U.S. you guys have 3 gun related deaths per DAY. That is higher than any other industrialized nation, and yet you have the laxest gun laws. I see correllation, do you? I am not making this up, but I can remember 3 mass shootings in the U.S. in the last couple years, and yet I have heard of NOTHING here in Canada outside the occasional homocide and Luca Magnotta (which quite honestly, was insane by anyones standards).
Yes, if someone wants an assault weapon bad enough, it is obtainable through the black market and all kinds of shady sources, but if it is tougher due to assault weapons bans, many people would be unable. For instance, the shooting that just happened, which I assume sparked this question, I doubt that guy could have obtained a weapon of that calibre because he took it from his OWN HOME. If his parents had no guns, or had only hand guns, he would have done FAR LESS damage than he did. Remeber the theatre shooting? I don't think he would have killed as many people if he had of been unable to get anything larger than a handgun.
I will never understand why Americans stand by their Second Amendment ****. That Amendment was created for a purpose that no longer stands. Just before, during, and after the American Civil war, it was not exactly safe for many people, so a gun gave them some safety. Now, that was also at a time when 3 shots a minute meant you were a fast shooter and loader. I don't think that amendment is valid any longer. Besides, the Third Amendment, regarding troops in the homes of citizens, is widely regarded as dated, yet it was created for the same purpose and time as the second one. Quite honestly, your "founding fathers" also intended your constitution to be ammended, and have those ammendments removed, as necessary so it would stay relevant, so maybe its time for the second to come off?
I seriously think the whole American gun culture thing has gone too far. Take a page from Canada, Australia, England, and all the other so-called industial nations and fix your gun laws.
- tehabwaLv 78 years ago
First, the point isn't to ONLY keep schools safer, since schools are NOT the only places that mass murderers murder dozens of people in a few seconds.
Second, as everyone who has any brain realizes, if people can't GET weapons designed to murder dozens of people in a few seconds, they can't USE them.
Daily mail? LOL. You'd be better off using RELIABLE sources of information, rather than ones that constantly lie.
Look at Australia, for instance. Before their assault weapons ban, they had a mass shooting every year; since, decades with NONE.
The US has most of the mass shootings in the developed world. Us HUMANS find that a BAD thing.
MORE guns leads to MORE deaths, not FEWER deaths. How can you GUARANTEE that none of those guns would ever be used on innocent people?
- ?Lv 68 years ago
it wont it would only affect the people that are licensed to carry guns and legally have them it wont keep anyone guarded at all people will sell the guns they have and make money because it would become a rare commodity and assault rifles will still be in circulation and still as easy for someone to steal and use as before there is nowhere near as much crimes committed with assault rifles than handguns schools still wont be safe and it wont undo anything that has been done selling guns legally isnt the problem its the mentally ****** up people that have access to them via someone they know who has guns.
- 8 years ago
Lets just say that if Mrs Lanza did not own an assault rifle the odds of the tragedy at Sandy Hook occurring are greatly reduced.
- xpatinasiaLv 78 years ago
Lowers the availability of firearms. It is appalling the number of conservatives, just like you, who view violence against children to be acceptable, humorous, and believe that nothing should be done.
- 8 years ago
It won't help keep them safer. It won't help anyone but those in government who want to curtail our rights. That's the ugly truth about gun control it only helps those who are evil.